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 statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 19, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angle away from the trailing edge”.
Regarding claim 21, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angle away from the trailing edge”.
Regarding claim 22, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angles of the sharpened portion”.
Regarding claim 23, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angles of the sharpened portion”.
Regarding claim 32, The term “substantially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 35, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angle away from the trailing edge”.
Regarding claim 37, It is unclear what is meant by “upward” angle within the limitation “upward angle away from the trailing edge”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-21, 24-27, 32, 34-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”) (CN 207492675 U).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 19, Liu discloses: A blade assembly (fig. 6) rotatable about an axis of rotation to blend and/or process items in an appliance, [para. 0011 and 0080] the blade assembly comprising:
a first blade; (3b)(fig. 6) and
a second blade (2, 2a, 2b)(figs. 1 and 6) positioned below the first blade (fig. 6) relative to the axis of rotation, (a)(modified fig. 6 above) the second blade comprising:
a base (b)(modified fig. 6 above) extending outwardly relative to the axis of rotation; (modified fig. 6 above)(The base extends outwardly relative to the axis of rotation)
a first wing (2b1)(modified fig. 6 above) extending downwardly and outwardly from the base;
a second wing (2b2)(modified fig. 6 above) extending downwardly and outwardly from the base;
PNG
media_image2.png
511
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first and second wings each include a leading edge (L1, L2)(modified fig. 1 above)
and a trailing edge; (T1, T2)(modified fig. 1 above)
wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the leading edge includes a sharpened portion;
(L1, L2)(modified fig. 1 above)(The leading edge is sharpened.)
and wherein, for at least one of the first and second wings, the sharpened portion extends at an
upward angle away from the trailing edge (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above)(The sharpened portion extends at an upward angle away from the trailing edge of both wings as seen in modified fig. 1 and fig. 5.) such that the sharpened portion faces downwardly away from the base. (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above.)(The underside of the sharpened portion extends through the end of the wing shape and the top part of the sharpened portion of the reference faces downwardly (by sloping) away from the base similarly to the applicant’s figures.)
Re claim 20, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, further comprising a third blade (3a)(fig. 1) positioned between the first blade and the second blade relative to the axis of rotation. (fig. 6)(The third blade is positioned between the first blade and the second blade relative to the axis of rotation.)
Re claim 21, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, (fig. 5)(Both wings are identical because the wings are denoted the same as “2b”.) the sharpened portion extends at the upward angle away from the trailing edge such that the sharpened portion faces downwardly away from the base. (See claim 19 rejection.)(Since both wings are of the same structure, for both wings the top part of the sharpened portion extends at the upward angle away from the trailing edge such that the sharpened portion faces downwardly away from the base.)
Re claim 24, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, wherein the first and second wings each have a proximal portion (P1,P2)(Each proximal portion corresponding to its relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) adjacent the base (modified fig. 6 above) and a distal portion (D1,D2)(Each distal portion corresponding to its relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) extending from the proximal portion, (modified fig. 6 above) wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the proximal portion extends downwardly relative to the base (modified fig. 6 above) at a first angle (d)(modified fig. 6 above)(The angle “d” is equal to (90°-D).) and the distal portion extends downwardly relative to the base at a second angle (D)(modified fig. 6 above) different from the first angle. [para. 0024](The angle D ranges from 20°-40° and (d=90°-D) therefore the angles differ.)
Re claim 25, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 24, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is greater than the second angle. [para. 0024](Since the second angle (D) ranges between 20°-40° and the angle (d=90°-D), then the first angle (d) ranges between 50°-70°. Therefore, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is greater than the second angle.)
Re claim 26, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 24, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is between 50 to 80 degrees and the second angle is between 15 to 45 degrees. [para. 0024, para. 0027](Since the second angle (D) ranges between 20°-40° and the angle (d=90°-D), then the first angle (d) ranges between 50°-70°. Therefore, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is greater than the second angle.)
Re claim 27, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 24, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the sharpened portion of the leading edge is at least partially formed on each of the proximal portion and the distal portion. (figs. 1 and 5)(For each of the first and second wings, the sharpened portion of the leading edge is at least partially formed on each of the proximal portion and the distal portion.)
Re claim 32, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, wherein the first wing portion substantially opposes the second wing portion along the axis of rotation. (modified fig. 1 above)(The first wing portion substantially opposes the second wing portion along the axis of rotation by being approximately 180 degrees apart.)
Re claim 34, Liu discloses: A blending system (blender)[para. 0082] comprising the blade assembly (pulverizing blade)[para. 0082] of claim 19 coupled to a rotatable shaft. [para. 0082](1)(fig. 1)(The mounting shaft connects to a driving device to rotate therefore is a rotatable shaft.) (see the rejection of claim 19 above)
Re claim 35, Liu discloses: A blade stack for use in an appliance, the blade stack comprising:
a shaft (1)(fig. 1) rotatable [para. 0082](The mounting shaft is rotatable.) about an axis of rotation; (a)(modified fig. 1 above)
and a blade assembly (2, 3)(fig. 1) in connection with the shaft (fig. 1) and co-rotatable with the shaft about the axis of rotation [para. 0082](The blade assembly is co-rotatable with the shaft about the axis of rotation, and the shaft may directly be the motor shaft.) to blend and/or process items in the appliance, [para. 0082] the blade assembly comprising:
a first blade; (3b)(fig. 6) and
a second blade (2, 2a, 2b)(figs. 1 and 6) positioned below the first blade (fig. 6) relative to the axis of rotation, (a)(modified fig. 6 above) the second blade comprising:
a base (b)(modified fig. 6 above) extending outwardly relative to the axis of rotation; (modified fig. 6 above)(The base extends outwardly relative to the axis of rotation.)
a first wing (2b1)(modified fig. 6 above) extending downwardly and outwardly from the base; (modified fig. 6 above)
and a second wing (2b2)(modified fig. 6 above) extending downwardly and outwardly from the base; (modified fig. 6 above)
wherein the first and second wings each include a leading edge (L1, L2)(modified fig. 1 above) and a trailing edge; (T1, T2)(modified fig. 1 above)
wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the leading edge includes a sharpened portion; (L1, L2)(modified fig. 1 above)(The leading edge is sharpened.)
and wherein, for at least one of the first and second wings, the sharpened portion extends at an upward angle away from the trailing edge (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above)(The sharpened portion extends at an upward angle away from the trailing edge of both wings as seen in modified fig. 1 and fig. 5.) such that the sharpened portion faces downwardly away from the base. (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above.)(The underside of the sharpened portion extends through the end of the wing shape and the top side of the sharpened portion of the reference faces downwardly (by sloping) away from the base similarly to the applicant’s figures.)
Re claim 38, Liu discloses: The blade stack of claim 35, wherein the first and second wings each have a proximal portion (P1,P2)(Each proximal portion corresponding to it’s relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) adjacent the base (modified fig. 6 above) and a distal portion (D1,D2)(Each distal portion corresponding to its relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) extending from the proximal portion, (modified fig. 6 above) wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the proximal portion extends downwardly relative to the base (modified fig. 6 above) at a first angle (d)(modified fig. 6 above)(The angle “d” is equal to (90°-D).) and the distal portion extends downwardly relative to the base at a second angle, (D)(modified fig. 6 above) and wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is between 50 to 80 degrees and the second angle is between 15 to 45 degrees. [para. 0024, para. 0027](Since the second angle (D) ranges between 20°-40° and the angle (d=90°-D), then the first angle (d) ranges between 50°-70°. Therefore, for each of the first and second wings, the first angle is between 50 to 80 degrees since 50-70 falls between 50-80, and the second angle ranges between 15-45 degrees since the range of 20-40 degrees falls within 15-45 degrees.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 22-23 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Re claim 22, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 20, with sharpened portions of upward angles.
Liu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the upward angles of the sharpened portions are each independently between 30 degrees to 60 degrees.
However, the examiner notes that the upward angles are a result-effective variable as they would affect the cutting efficiency of the corresponding blade. And Liu discloses the first and second wings having a cutting edge with upward angles. (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above) Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the upward angles of the sharpened portions disclosed by Liu to be within the claimed range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re claim 23, Modified Liu teaches: The blade assembly of claim 22, with sharpened portions of upward angles.
Liu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the upward angles of the sharpened portions are each 45 degrees.
However, the examiner notes that the upward angles are a result-effective variable as they would affect the cutting efficiency of the corresponding blade. And Liu discloses the first and second wings having a cutting edge with upward angles. (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above) Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the upward angles of the sharpened portions disclosed by Liu to be within the claimed range of 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re claim 37, Liu discloses: The blade stack of claim 35, (see claim 35 rejection above) wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the sharpened portion extends at the upward angle away from the trailing edge (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above)(The sharpened portion extends at an upward angle away from the trailing edge of both wings as seen in modified fig. 1 and fig. 5.) such that the sharpened portion faces downwardly away from the base, (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above.)(The underside of the sharpened portion extends through the end of the wing shape and the sharpened portion of the reference faces downwardly away from the base similarly to the applicant’s figures.)
Liu does not explicitly disclose: wherein the upward angles of the sharpened portions are each independently between 30 degrees to 60 degrees.
However, the examiner notes that the upward angles are a result-effective variable as they would affect the cutting efficiency of the corresponding blade. And Liu discloses the first and second wings having a cutting edge with upward angles. (underside of L1)(modified fig. 1 above) Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the upward angles of the sharpened portions disclosed by Liu to be within the claimed range of between 30 degrees to 60 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 28-29, and 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Kolar et al. (hereinafter “Kolar”) (US 6974099 B2).
Re claim 28, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, wherein the first and second wings each have a proximal portion (P1,P2)(Each proximal portion corresponding to its relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) adjacent the base, (modified fig. 6 above) a distal portion (D1,D2)(Each distal portion corresponding to its relative wing.)(modified fig. 6 above) extending from the proximal portion, (modified fig. 6 above) and a connection portion (C1, C2)(modified figs. 1 and 6) joining the proximal portion and the distal portion, (The connection portion joins the proximal and the distal portion.) and wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the connection portion is at an angle between the wings.
Liu does not explicitly disclose: wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the connection portion is at a bend angle relative to a horizontal axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation.
Kolar teaches: a similar blade for a blade assembly of a blender [Abstract] with a base, (11)(fig. 1) a first wing (13, 15)(fig. 1) and a second wing (14, 16)(fig. 1) each with respective proximal portions (13, 14)(fig. 1) and respective distal portions (15, 16)(fig. 3) wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the respective connection portions (18, 19)(fig. 3) are at bend angles (b,c)(modified fig. 3 above)(The connection portions are at bend angles.) relative to a horizontal axis (h)(modified fig. 3 above) orthogonal to the axis of rotation. (a)(fig. 4)(The bend angles are relative to a horizontal axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the bend angles (relative to a horizontal axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation) on the connection portions between the distal and proximal portions of the first and second blade wings as taught by Kolar to the invention of Liu in order to increase efficiency in generating flow. [col. 2, lines 34-46 of Kolar]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose blades with wings for use in blenders. The combination of Liu and Kolar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency.
After modification, Liu in view of Kolar teaches: wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the connection portion is at a bend angle relative to a horizontal axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation.
Re claim 29, Liu in view of Kolar teaches: The blade assembly of claim 28, with bend angles.
Liu in view of Kolar does not explicitly teach: wherein the bend angles are each independently in between 70 degrees to 100 degrees.
However, the examiner notes that the bend angles are a result-effective variable as they would affect the cutting efficiency of the corresponding blade, and they would affect the mixing pattern of the material within the blender. And Liu in view of Kolar teaches bend angles. (see claim 28 rejection above) Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the independent bend angles as taught by Liu in view of Kolar to be within the claimed range of “between 70 degrees to 100 degrees”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re claim 31, Liu in view of Kolar teaches: The blade assembly of claim 28, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, there is a bend angle.
Liu in view of Kolar does not explicitly teach: Wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the bend angle is such that the trailing edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the leading edge along the distal portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
167
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kolar further teaches: a similar blade for a blade assembly of a blender [Abstract] wherein for each of the first (13, 15)(fig. 1) and second wings, (14, 16)(fig. 1) the trailing edge along the distal portion (23A1, 24A1)(modified figs. 6-7 above) is raised relative to the leading edge along the distal portion (15A1, 16A1)(fig. 2) (figs. 4-5)(The trailing edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the leading edge along the distal portion for each of the wings when the blade is flipped upside down and oriented in the same way as the second blade of Liu.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the trailing edges of the distal portion to be raised relative to the leading edges of the distal portion of the first and second wings as taught by Kolar to the first and second wings of Liu in order to decrease drag and increase lift for the wings. [col. 1, lines 10-21 of Kolar]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose blades with wings for use in blenders. The combination of Liu and Kolar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to decrease drag and increase lift for the wings.
After modification, Liu in further view of Kolar teaches: wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the bend angle is such that the trailing edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the leading edge along the distal portion.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) (US 8950930 B2).
Re claim 33, Liu discloses: The blade assembly of claim 19, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the leading edge is serrated (fig. 1 of Liu) and the trailing edge includes a first curvature (P1c, P2c)(modified fig. 6 above)(The trailing edge includes a first curvature on a proximal end for each of the first and second wings.) on a proximal end thereof and a second curvature (D1c, D2c)(modified fig. 1 above)(The trailing edge includes a second curvature on a distal end for each of the first and second wings.) on a distal end thereof.
Liu does not explicitly disclose: the leading edge is straight.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches: a similar blade (22)(fig. 2) for a blade assembly of a blender [Abstract] wherein: for each of the first (22a)(modified fig. 2 above) and second wings, (22b)(modified fig. 2 above) the leading edge (a1, b1)(modified fig. 2 above) is straight. (modified fig. 2 above)(The leading edge is straight rather than serrated.)
The examiner notes that the applicant's claimed invention only differs from the applied prior art by a mere substitution of a leading edge being straight rather than serrated, where both applicant’s claimed elements, and that of the prior art, were both well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that upon substitution, according to known methods, predictable results would have followed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applied prior art to include a straight leading edge rather than a serrated leading edge.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kolar, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Wang, and Katz et al. (hereinafter “Katz”) (US 7552885 B2)
Re claim 30, The blade assembly of claim 28, wherein, for each of the first and second wings, there is a bend angle.
Liu in view of Kolar does not explicitly teach: wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the bend angle is such that the leading edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the trailing edge along the distal portion.
Wang teaches: a similar blade (22)(fig. 2) for a blade assembly of a blender [Abstract] wherein: for each of the first (22a)(modified fig. 2 above) and second wings, (22b)(modified fig. 2 above) the leading edge (a1, b1)(modified fig. 2 above) along the distal portion (a3, b3)(modified fig. 2 above) is raised relative to the trailing edge (a2, b2)(modified fig. 2 above) along the distal portion. (a3, b3)(modified fig. 2 above) (The leading edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the trailing edge along the distal portion for each of the wings with respect to the y direction since the wings are the same shape.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edges of the first and second wings to be raised relative to the trailing edge as taught by Wang to the first and second wings of Liu in order to control the axial flow of the working medium. [col. 1, lines 22-32 of “Katz”] (Katz describes a blender blade with wings wherein the wing flaps (or distal portions of the blade) are selectively oriented in order to control axial flow of the working medium.)
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose blades with wings for use in blenders. The combination of Liu, Kolar, and Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to control the axial flow of the working medium.
After modification, Liu in view of Kolar and Wang teaches: Wherein, for each of the first and second wings, the bend angle is such that the leading edge along the distal portion is raised relative to the trailing edge along the distal portion.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 35 above, in view of Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”) (CN 201404118 Y).
Re claim 36, Liu discloses: The blade stack of claim 35, further comprising a third blade (3a)(fig. 1) positioned between the first blade and the second blade relative to the axis of rotation. (fig. 6)(The third blade is positioned between the first blade and the second blade relative to the axis of rotation.)
Liu fails to disclose: further comprising an S-shaped third blade positioned between the first blade and the second blade relative to the axis of rotation.
Lin teaches: A similar blade stack (3)(fig. 4) further comprising an S-shaped third blade (32)(fig. 3) positioned between a first blade (30)(figs. 2 and 4) and a second blade (31)(figs. 2 and 4) relative to the axis of rotation. (fig. 2)(The axis of rotation being the axis in which all 3 blades intersect and rotate around.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the third blade of the invention of Liu with the S-shaped third blade of the invention of Lin in order to be able to quickly chop frozen food and completely stir the food. [para. 0008 - para. 0009 of Lin]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a blade stack. The combination of Li and Jiang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to quickly chop frozen food and completely stir the food.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
CN 214510875 U teaches a blender assembly with a second blade having a distal and a proximal portion.
WO 2018223555 A1 teaches a blender blade assembly with 3 blades.
US 20080198691 A1 teaches a blender blade assembly with 3 blades including a curved distal and proximal portion on a bottom blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights