DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final Rejection on October 24, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated March 24, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated October 24, 2025.
Cancelation of claims 5 and 16 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims distinguishing them from the rejection. However, those claims are rejected based upon new grounds necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting in the middle of page 8, Hack (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0229647 A1) fails to disclose or suggest a controller configured to, via the user interface, receive a third selection of a special preprogrammed program based upon an activated special program input component of the at least one special program input component, determine an updated set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly based upon the third selection, and control the blending assembly based on the updated set of operation parameters as amended claim 1 now recites. Examiner respectfully disagrees Hack fails to at least suggest receiving a third selection based on an activated third input component. The function of some of the selection buttons on user interface 22 in Fig. 1 of Hack are not expressly disclosed and paragraph [0027] states other features are available through the interface. Accordingly, Hack at least suggests additional input components with additional program features are present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0229647 A1 by Hack et al., hereinafter “Hack”.
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses a micro-puree machine (machine blender 10 in Fig. 1; ¶[0024]) comprising:
a blending assembly configured to process frozen ingredients in a bowl that is removably attachable to the micro-puree machine (blending agitator assembly 18 (Fig. 2) in bowl jar assembly 14 is removably attachable to base assembly 12; ¶[0024]);
a user interface (user interface 22 in Fig. 1; ¶[0025]) comprising at least two operation mode input components (mode input button 28 in Fig. 1 allows selection of two or more recipe operation modes, such as smoothie recipe mode or shake recipe mode, displayed on screen 23; ¶[0031]) and at least one program input component (program input consistency button 31 in Fig. 1 allows selection of a consistency program; ¶[0031]); and
a controller (controller 32 in Fig. 3; ¶[0028]), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, via the user interface, a first selection associated with a preprogrammed operation mode based on an activated operation mode input component of the at least two operation mode input components (user interface 22 receives a first selection associated with the preprogrammed operation mode based on activation of button 28 selecting from the two or more recipe modes displayed on screen 23 in Fig. 1);
receive, via the user interface, a second selection associated with a program based on an activated program input component of the at least one program input component (user interface 22 receives a second selection associated with a consistency program based upon activation of button 31);
determine a set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly based on the first selection and the second selection (controller 32 determines operating parameters for controlling blending agitator assembly 18 based on the first selection recipe mode and the second selection consistency program); and
control the blending assembly based on the set of operation parameters (controller 32 controls blending agitator assembly 18 via blender motor 13 through conductive path 40 as shown in Fig. 3; ¶[0029]).
Hack does not expressly disclose, as amended into claim 1:
at least one special program input component, wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive a third selection of a special preprogrammed program based on an activated special program input component of the at least one special program input component;
determine an updated set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly based on the third selection; and
control the blending assembly based on the updated set of operation parameters.
However, Hack at least suggests receiving a third selection based on an activated third input component. The function of some of the selection buttons on user interface 22 in Fig. 1 are not expressly disclosed and paragraph [0027] states other functional features are available through the interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the effect of altering the first-selected preprogrammed operation mode with the reception of a second selection made via an input component of the user interface by adding the functionality of receiving a third selection via another input component of the user interface which further alters the operation parameters of the blending assembly. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized adding a third selection would achieve the predictable result of allowing further customization of the operating parameters via multiple user alterative selections.
Regarding claim 2, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the set of operation parameters determined based on the first selection (recipe mode selected by button 28 in Fig. 1) and the second selection (consistency program selected by button 31 in Fig. 1) varies based on the activated operation mode input component of the at least two operation mode input components (selection between the recipe modes disclosed in ¶[0031] varies operation based upon the preprogrammed recipe mode selected by the user).
Regarding claim 3, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the at least one program input component comprises a plurality of program input components (¶[0031] discloses the consistency program allows the user to select between a plurality of different consistencies based upon the recipe mode selected).
Regarding claim 4, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the set of operation parameters determined based on the first selection and the second selection varies based on the activated program input component of the plurality of program input components (¶[0031] discloses the operation parameters varies based on the consistency program selected).
Regarding claim 9, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses comprising a memory configured to store a plurality of records (¶[0028] through [0031] disclose controller 32 includes memory which stores records of recipe modes and consistency programs), each record of the plurality of records comprising data associated with operation parameters associated with a unique combination of operation mode and program (the stored records allow combinations of a recipe mode and an associated consistency program to determine a unique combination of operation parameters).
Regarding claim 10, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to retrieve at least one record from the memory based on the first selection and the second selection (a first selection recipe mode is selected and a second selection consistency program is selected to retrieve from the memory included in controller 32 a record composed of the mode and consistency selected by the user), and wherein, when determining the set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly, the controller is configured to determine the set of operation parameters based on the at least one record (the set of operation parameters for controlling blending agitator assembly 18 is determined by the record stored in the memory of controller 32).
Regarding claim 11, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 10 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the at least one record comprises data of an expected processing time (¶[0031] discloses a countdown timer is displayed showing the expected processing time of the selected recipe mode and consistency program), and wherein, when controlling the blending assembly based on the set of operation parameters, the controller is further configured to:
determine an actual processing time of the blending assembly (the displayed countdown timer determines the actual processing time by counting down time remaining); and
compare the actual processing time to the expected processing time (the remaining amount of time displayed on the countdown timer is a comparison of the actual processing time to the expected processing time).
Regarding claim 12, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 11 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses when controlling the blending assembly based on the set of operation parameters, the controller is further configured to, in response to the actual processing time exceeding the expected processing time, generate at least one alert in the user interface (Fig. 9 shows a sequence of program steps including step 172 which determines when a maximum time has been reached. When the maximum time has been reached, the program returns to step 76 in Fig. 5 which shows a “Recipe Finished” prompt.).
Regarding claim 13, Hack discloses a method of controlling a micro-puree machine (machine blender 10 in Fig. 1) comprising a blending assembly (blending agitator assembly 18 in Fig. 2) configured to process frozen ingredients in a bowl that is removably attachable to the micro-puree machine (bowl jar assembly 14 is removably attachable to base assembly 12 in Fig. 1), a user interface (user interface 22 in Fig. 1) comprising at least two operation mode input components (mode input button 28 in Fig. 1 allows selection of two or more recipe operation modes, such as smoothie recipe mode or shake recipe mode, displayed on screen 23) and at least one program input component (program input consistency button 31 in Fig. 1 allows selection of a consistency program), and a controller (controller 32 in Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving, with the controller via the user interface, a first selection associated with a preprogrammed operation mode based on an activated operation mode input component of the at least two operation mode input components (user interface 22 receives a first selection associated with the preprogrammed operation mode based on activation of button 28 selecting from the two or more recipe modes displayed on screen 23 in Fig. 1);
receiving, with the controller via the user interface, a second selection associated with a program based on an activated program input component of the at least one program input component (user interface 22 receives a second selection associated with a consistency program based upon activation of button 31);
determining, with the controller, a set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly based on the first selection and the second selection (controller 32 determines operating parameters for controlling blending agitator assembly 18 based on the first selection recipe mode and the second selection consistency program); and
controlling, with the controller, the blending assembly based on the set of operation parameters (controller 32 controls blending agitator assembly 18 via blender motor 13 through conductive path 40 as shown in Fig. 3).
Hack does not expressly disclose, as amended into claim 13:
at least one special program input component, and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, with the controller, a third selection of a special preprogrammed program based on an activated special program input component of the at least one special program input component;
determining, with the controller, an updated set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly based on the third selection; and
controlling, with the controller, the blending assembly based on the updated set of operation parameters.
However, Hack at least suggests receiving a third selection based on an activated third input component. The function of some of the selection buttons on user interface 22 in Fig. 1 are not expressly disclosed and paragraph [0027] states other functional features are available through the interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the effect of altering the first-selected preprogrammed operation mode with the reception of a second selection made via an input component of the user interface by adding the functionality of receiving a third selection via another input component of the user interface which further alters the operation parameters of the blending assembly. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized adding a third selection would achieve the predictable result of allowing further customization of the operating parameters via multiple user alterative selections.
Regarding claim 14, Hack renders the method of claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the set of operation parameters determined based on the first selection (recipe mode selected by button 28 in Fig. 1) and the second selection (consistency program selected by button 31 in Fig. 1) varies based on the activated operation mode input component of the at least two operation mode input components (selection between the recipe modes disclosed in ¶[0031] varies operation based upon the preprogrammed recipe mode selected by the user).
Regarding claim 15, Hack renders the method of claim 14 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses, wherein the at least one program input component comprises a plurality of program input components (¶[0031] discloses the consistency program allows the user to select between a plurality of different consistencies based upon the recipe mode selected), and wherein the set of operation parameters determined based on the first selection and the second selection varies based on the activated program input component of the plurality of program input components (¶[0031] discloses the operation parameters varies based on the consistency program selected).
Regarding claim 19, Hack renders the method of claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses wherein the micro-puree machine further comprises a memory configured to store a plurality of records (¶[0028] through [0031] disclose controller 32 includes memory which stores records of recipe modes and consistency programs), each record of the plurality of records comprising data associated with operation parameters associated with a unique combination of operation mode and program (the stored records allow combinations of a recipe mode and an associated consistency program to determine a unique combination of operation parameters), and wherein the method further comprises retrieving, with the controller, at least one record from the memory based on the first selection and the second selection (a first selection recipe mode is selected and a second selection consistency program is selected to retrieve from the memory included in controller 32 a record composed of the mode and consistency selected by the user), and wherein determining the set of operation parameters for controlling the blending assembly comprises determining the set of operation parameters based on the at least one record (the set of operation parameters for controlling blending agitator assembly 18 is determined by the record stored in the memory of controller 32).
Regarding claim 20, Hack renders the method of claim 19 unpatentable as explained above. Hack further discloses wherein the at least one record comprises data of an expected processing time, and wherein controlling the blending assembly based on the set of operation parameters further comprises:
determining an actual processing time of the blending assembly (¶[0031] discloses a countdown timer is displayed showing the expected processing time of the selected recipe mode and consistency program);
comparing the actual processing time to the expected processing time (the remaining amount of time displayed on the countdown timer is a comparison of the actual processing time to the expected processing time); and
in response to the actual processing time exceeding the expected processing time, generating at least one alert in the user interface (Fig. 9 shows a sequence of program steps including step 172 which determines when a maximum time has been reached. When the maximum time has been reached, the program returns to step 76 in Fig. 5 which shows a “Recipe Finished” prompt.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0183426 A1 by Ledger et al., hereinafter “Ledger”.
Regarding claim 6, Hack renders the micro-puree machine of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. But Hack does not disclose an extruding assembly configured to extrude processed ingredients from the bowl.
Ledger teaches a blending and dispensing appliance (10 in Fig. 1) including blending container 20 removably attachable to appliance housing 15. Fig. 3 shows container 20 includes feed conduit 40 with auger 46 which extrudes blended contents from container 20 through conduit 40 and into a beverage container when dispensing arm 35 is actuated. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Hack’s blender 10 by incorporating an extruding assembly which dispenses extruded processed ingredients from jar assembly 14 in the same way Ledger teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Ledger to Hack’s blender would achieve the predictable result of a Hack’s machine with a dispensing extruding assembly.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack in view of Ledger and further in view of French Patent Publication No. FR 2593025 A by Weiss, hereinafter “Weiss”.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Hack in view of Ledger renders the micro-puree machine of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. However, the combination does not disclose at least one special program input component comprising a retract input component, wherein the controller is further configured to:
detect activation of the retract input component; and
retract at least one shaft of the blending assembly or the extruding assembly in response to activation of the retract input component.
Weiss teaches a food blending machine (Figs. 1-4; lines 4-8 of page 3) comprising a blending assembly (shaft 12, mixing arms 14, bearing 28, crank 30, thread 32, opposite lugs 34 and pull rods 36 in Fig. 2; lines 10-34 of page 3) configured to process dough ingredients in a bowl (vat 10 in Figs. 1-3; line 9 of page 3). Weiss’ machine blends ingredients within the bowl with the shaft in its low position as shown in Fig. 1 such that pressing member 20 (line 12 of page 3) closes off extrusion cylinder 16 (line 10 of page 3). Once the ingredients have been sufficiently blended into a desired dough consistency within the bowl, the blending assembly may be retracted as shown in Fig. 2. Crank 30 may then be rotated to screw threads 32 within lugs 34 which moves shaft 12 downward in the bowl such that dough is pressed by pressing member 20 into extrusion cylinder 16 so that dough is extruded through extrusion die 18 (line 12 of page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate Weiss’ hand-operated machine by incorporating a motor, controller and user interface as disclosed by Hack and Ledger into Weiss machine. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized combining the disclosure of Hack and Ledger with Weiss’ machine would achieve the predictable result of an automated blending machine in which Hack’s user interface may be used to select recipe programs stored in memory of Hack’s microprocessor which instructs Hack’s controller to operate Hack’s motor to rotate, retract and press Weiss’ shaft to perform blending process steps carried out by Weiss’ machine.
Regarding claim 17, Hack renders the method of claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. But Hack does not disclose an extruding assembly configured to extrude processed ingredients from the bowl.
Ledger teaches a blending and dispensing appliance (10 in Fig. 1) including blending container 20 removably attachable to appliance housing 15. Fig. 3 shows container 20 includes feed conduit 40 with auger 46 which extrudes blended contents from container 20 through conduit 40 and into a beverage container when dispensing arm 35 is actuated. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Hack’s blender 10 by incorporating an extruding assembly which dispenses extruded processed ingredients from jar assembly 14 in the same way Ledger teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Ledger to Hack’s blender would achieve the predictable result of a Hack’s machine with a dispensing extruding assembly.
The prior art reference combination of Hack in view of Ledger does not disclose at least one special program input component comprising a retract input component, and wherein the method further comprises:
detecting, with the controller, activation of the retract input component; and
retracting, with the controller, at least one shaft of the blending assembly or the extruding assembly in response to activation of the retract input component.
Weiss teaches a food blending machine (Figs. 1-4; lines 4-8 of page 3) comprising a blending assembly (shaft 12, mixing arms 14, bearing 28, crank 30, thread 32, opposite lugs 34 and pull rods 36 in Fig. 2; lines 10-34 of page 3) configured to process dough ingredients in a bowl (vat 10 in Figs. 1-3; line 9 of page 3). Weiss’ machine blends ingredients within the bowl with the shaft in its low position as shown in Fig. 1 such that pressing member 20 (line 12 of page 3) closes off extrusion cylinder 16 (line 10 of page 3). Once the ingredients have been sufficiently blended into a desired dough consistency within the bowl, the blending assembly may be retracted as shown in Fig. 2. Crank 30 may then be rotated to screw threads 32 within lugs 34 which moves shaft 12 downward in the bowl such that dough is pressed by pressing member 20 into extrusion cylinder 16 so that dough is extruded through extrusion die 18 (line 12 of page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate Weiss’ hand-operated machine by incorporating a motor, controller and user interface as disclosed by Hack and Ledger into Weiss machine. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized combining the disclosure of Hack and Ledger with Weiss’ machine would achieve the predictable result of an automated blending machine in which Hack’s user interface may be used to select recipe programs stored in memory of Hack’s microprocessor which instructs Hack’s controller to operate Hack’s motor to rotate, retract and press Weiss’ shaft to perform blending process steps carried out by Weiss’ machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8 and 18 each claim a locking mechanism preventing removal of the bowl during retraction of the shaft. The prior art reference combination of Hack and Ledger in view of Weiss does not disclose, teach nor suggest this feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights