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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (Claims 13-20) in the reply filed on January 19th 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims Status:
Claims 13-20 are pending, of which claim 13 is independent.
Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Claims 13-20 are examined as follow:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 8th 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
In claim 1, the subject matter related to the limitation “…the filter basket in a second direction opposite the first direction in a second stage of operation…”, there is no structure shown in any figures that the filter basket actually can rotate by the motor drive system.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “motor drive system” in claims 13 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “…to configured to independently drive rotation….. ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is preceded by an insufficient structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “motor drive system " has been described in Paragraph 0092 cited: “…the motor drive system 550 includes a motor coupling 528 that is secured to a drive shaft of the motor via a screw 526, and is surrounding by a motor coupling insert that stabilizes the motor coupling 528 in the upper housing 502. In at least one embodiment, the motor coupling 528 is configured to couple to and drive the lower drive shaft 418 shown in FIG. 5A. FIG. 7 illustrates the coupling of various drive components described previously, in accordance with at least one embodiment. In at least one embodiment, the basket drive assembly 410 may comprise a one-way bearing assembly that allows for the independent rotation of the filter basket 220 and the blade 252 in opposite directions when coupled to a bi-directional motor drive system 550. …”, However, the specification does not provide description on how and what structural in the “motor drive system” allow the system “to independently drive rotation”.
Claim limitation “display device” in claims 14 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device" coupled with functional language “to display….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “display device" has been described in Paragraph 0086 cited: “…the display device may include a liquid crystal display, a light-emitting diode (LED) array display, a touchscreen display, or another suitable display device…”.
Claim limitation “processing device” in claims 20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device" coupled with functional language “configured to monitor a mass content….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “processing device" has been described in Paragraph 0085, 0086, 0088, 0089, 0090 as some kind of controller, computer, processor, computing machine, microprocessor, circuit. However, there is not description that how such controller or what corresponding structural in the controller capable to monitor a mass content.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 13, the limitation “…motor drive system…” invoke 112f and there is insufficient description in the specification to reasonably convey that what structure provide the capability to perform the cited functional language of “to independently drive rotation of the blender blade in a first direction in a first stage of operation and the filter basket in a second direction opposite the first direction in a second stage of operation”.
In claim 20, the limitation “…processing device…” invoke 112f and there is insufficient description in the specification to reasonably convey that what structure provide the capability to perform the cited functional language of “to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel”, the specification only describing “…processing device…” some kind of controller, computer, processor, computing machine, microprocessor, circuit, there is no structure disclosed in the specification how the “…processing device…” actually capable to monitor the mass of contents, furthermore, this is not a method claim group, functional language required physical structure to support, the “…processing device…” only capable to monitor a signal not the actual reading or monitoring of “mass of content”.
Claim 14-19 are all dependent claims of 13, and are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies.
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 13-20 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.
In claim 13, the limitation “…motor drive system…” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure of how such system capable to perform the functional language of “…to independently drive rotation of the blender blade in a first direction in a first stage of operation and the filter basket in a second direction opposite the first direction in a second stage of operation…”. Clarification is required.
In claim 20, the limitation “…processing device…” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure of how such device capable to perform the functional language of “…to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel …” and what structural limitation that allow the “processing device” to monitor “mass of content” exactly. Clarification is required.
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 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN115804537A herein set forth as CN4537A.
Regarding claim 13, CN4537A discloses a centrifugal homogenization apparatus (refer to fig. 2) comprising:
a power base (refer to “power base” annotated in fig.4) comprising a motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2), a control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”), and a processing device (control assembly #20, fig.2 and processor #1001, fig.13) operatively coupled to the motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2) and the control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”);
a vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8) coupled to the power base (motor assembly #52, fig.2) for receiving a plant-based product (refer to NPL-machine translate page 22 6th paragraph cited: “…The invention claims the food processing machine can have two modes, wherein one is a conventional functional mode, and the other one is a plant milk beverage manufacturing mode…”), the vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8) comprising a lid (main machine cover #57, fig.1-2, 4, 6-8), a filter basket (filter body #1 and cylinder body #12, fig1-13), a blade cage assembly (processing cup assembly #57, fig.2) comprising a blender blade (refer annotated “blade” in fig.4), and a nozzle assembly (refer to annotated “nozzle assembly in fig.2) adapted for evacuation of liquid from the vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8), wherein the motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2) is configured to independently drive rotation of the blender blade (refer annotated “blade” in fig.4) in a first direction (refer to the blade rotation) in a first stage of operation (refer as the first operation that turn the apparatus on) and the filter basket in a second direction opposite the first direction in a second stage of operation [refer to CN115804537A Machine Translate NPL Page 14, 3rd Paragraph cited: “…corresponding to the second working stage, at least the filter body 1 to rotate, namely the filter body 1 to rotate, the rotating mode of the first crushing cutter structure 21 is not limited, such as, can rotate in the same direction, reverse rotation, also can be stationary …”]; and
an interlock system (refer to “interlock system” annotated in fig.2) configured to determine an open state and closed state for each of the lid (main machine cover #54 fig.1-13) and the nozzle assembly (refer to annotated “nozzle assembly in fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
764
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
771
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
727
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
294
457
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A further discloses wherein the control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”) comprises an actuatable control (refer to Page 20 paragraph 12th cited: “…the control assembly 20 is set on the main machine 5, and electrically connected with the motor assembly 52 and the water supply assembly 10…”) for operating the power base (refer to “power base” annotated in fig.4) and a display device (refer to “display” cited in NPL-machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited above), wherein the actuatable control allows for selection of an operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph), and wherein the display device is configured to display (refer to “display” cited in NPL-machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited above) the selected operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A further discloses wherein the operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph) corresponds to one of a plurality of options (refer to the for selecting a plant-based product, wherein each of the options is associated with a blending time duration, a centrifuging time duration (refer to NPL-Machine translate Page 9 6th paragraph cited: “…the first working stage and the second working stage is two working stage with time sequence relationship…”, Examiner note: this indicate control on the time duration between blending which is 1st stage and centrifuging as 2nd stage), a blending speed, and a centrifuging speed (refer to NPL-machine translate Page 20 8th paragraph cited: “…corresponding to the second working stage, the first crushing cutter structure 21 and the filter body 1 synchronously rotate, and the rotating speed is n, and 50r/min less than or equal to 2000r/min, on the basis of ensuring good filtering effect…”, Examiner note: this indicate control of blending speed and centrifuging speed).
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.
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 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A herein set forth as CN4537A, further in view Mills et al (US2015/0182063A1) herein set forth as Mills.
Regarding claim 15, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, CN4537A does not disclose wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Mills discloses wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…The user interface 260 may also include user controls for selecting a tea brewing or steeping time by setting a timer 262. After the user selects a tea brewing time and starts the brewing, the timer 262 is activated for the selected period of time and the hot water delivery system 242 delivers hot water through a conduit 244 and a brewing arm 246 to a tea filter 234 located in a brewing basket 220. A valve 238 in the brewing basket 220 remains closed as the hot water fills a chamber 225 in the brewing basket 220 …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated, as taught by Mills, in order to provide the ability to set time period for beverage or juice preparation, such that would get a better control on preparing.
Regarding claim 18, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, CN4537A does not disclose wherein the lid comprises a hinged-style coupling to the vessel.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Mills discloses wherein the lid (hinged lid #111, fig.3) comprises a hinged-style coupling (refer to the term “hanged” for #111) to the vessel (brewing region #112, fig.3).
PNG
media_image7.png
565
419
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the lid comprises a hinged-style coupling to the vessel, as taught by Mills, in order to provide a more secured lid, such that would reduce accident spill and splashes that may cause injury or messes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A herein set forth as CN4537A, further in view Ismert et al (US2023/0228068A1) herein set forth as Ismert.
Regarding claim 17, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A already discloses the lid is coupled to the vessel in claim 13, CN4537A does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid comprises a bayonet-style coupling to the vessel.
In the field of connection and coupling system, Ismert discloses the teaching of using a bayonet-style coupling [refer to Paragraph 0042 cited: “…a threaded or bayonet-style coupling among a variety of other combinations that may be determined based on a particular application of the coupling system…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537’s apparatus with wherein the lid comprises a bayonet-style coupling to the vessel, as taught by Ismert, in order to provide a better, faster and easier coupling that can be coupled securely, such that would reduce the time use on connecting and disconnecting.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A herein set forth as CN4537A, further in view Joseph (US2015/0344285A1) herein set forth as Joseph.
Regarding claim 19, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A does not disclose wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Joseph disclose wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly (refer to Paragraph 0017 cited: “…the lid state sensor is a Hall Effect sensor comprising a first Hall Effect sensor portion integrated in said faucet head assembly and a second Hall Effect sensor portion integrated into said lid component…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly, as taught by Joseph, in order to provide the monitoring of the lid is closed securely or not, such that would better prevent operating with the lid accidently opened, and reducing accidental spill or splashes,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A herein set forth as CN4537A, further in view Tran et al (US10022614B1) herein set forth as Tran, and further in view of Arceneaux et al (US2022/0316308A1) herein set forth as Arceneaux.
Regarding claim 20, CN4537A discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A does not explicitly at least one load cell disposed on a supporting portion of the power base and operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel.
In the similar field of smart device, Tran discloses the use of battery to power apparatus [refer to Col 29 line 55-57 cited: “…power supply 56 can be a lithium or other rechargeable battery. Additionally, standard batteries such as AA or AAA batteries can be utilized.…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with at least one load cell disposed on a supporting portion of the power base and operatively coupled to the processing device, as taught by Tran, in order to provide the portability, the smaller size and easier to operate in remote area, such that would increase the adaptability and marketability of the apparatus.
CN4537A or Tran does not explicitly discloses wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel.
In the field of monitor contents processing or transporting, Arceneaux discloses the teaching of using weight sensor to monitor weight before blender [refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…weight sensors to help meter the sand concentration needed directly into the frac blender mixing tub—bypassing the auger system in the frac blender…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel, as taught by Arceneaux, in order to provide accurate monitoring of the weight that would can better result of blending, product better mixture, also would extend the operational life span of the blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swanson et al (US2021/0131917A1) discloses a centrifugal homogenization apparatus that read on a lot of the claimed limitation in the independent claim.
Hoare et al (US2017/0095122A1) discloses another centrifugal homogenization apparatus that read on some of the claimed limitation in the independent claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 February 5th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761