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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 2/17/26 response to the Office Action dated 12/5/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 15, 19, 21-25, and 29-33 are amended.
Claim 35 is new.
Claim 34 remains cancelled.
Claims 15-33 and 35 are pending.
Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the claims and notes Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth 112(f) interpretation of ‘extension means’ and ‘drive unit’ and the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections directed to the extension of the extension means in claim 15 and the coupling between the extension means and drive unit in claim 15, so those interpretations and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pgs. 11-13 and 15, Applicant remarks that when considering the application as a whole, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 because the temporary coupling and decoupling of the drive spindle nut to the filter module 1) enables a convenient and cost-effective removal of the filter module and 2) avoids the need for a longer drive spindle, which saves costs and weight. While the benefits of the temporary coupling and decoupling of the drive spindle nut to the filter module are stated, it is not clear how these structures interact in order to achieve the disclosed coupling and decoupling functions. In addition, it’s noted that the way in which the filter module is coupled to and decoupled from the drive spindle nut is different for each embodiment:
Embodiment 1, as shown in Figs. 1-4E, which discloses a latching mechanism and a movement device (See Par. 0058).
Embodiment 2, as shown in Figs. 5A-6E, which discloses a passive latching element (See Par. 0073).
Embodiment 3, as shown in Figs. 7A-8C, which discloses a transmitting element/changeover switch (See Par. 0076).
Therefore, each embodiment must be considered individually in order to determine if the interactions between the claimed filter module and drive spindle nut have sufficient written description. For the reasons noted on Pgs. 12-15 below, each embodiment lacks sufficient written description for the interactions between the claimed filter module and drive spindle nut as recited as independent claims 15, 29, and 32. Note dependent claims 16-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 lack sufficient written description at least by virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim 15, 29, or 32.
On Pgs. 12-13, Applicant states the drive spindle is a conventional extension means per se, which does not have to be modified or only slightly modified. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art may understand a spindle drive is a motor that drives a spindle, wherein the spindle has a driver or slider that moves up and down the spindle (see attached reference to Rissel). However, it is not clear how the filter module is coupled to (i.e., the second mode) and decoupled from (i.e., the first mode) the drive spindle nut for each embodiment:
Embodiment 1, as shown in Figs. 1-4E, which discloses a latching mechanism and a movement device (See Par. 0058). However, it is unclear how the latching mechanism and movement device interact with the drive spindle nut to move the filter module from the first mode shown in Fig. 2A (reference Par. 0061) to the second mode shown in Fig. 2B (Par. 0062). Note neither the drive spindle nut or filter module are shown in Figs. 2A-B.
Embodiment 2, as shown in Figs. 5A-6E, which discloses a passive latching element (See Par. 0073). However, it is unclear how the passive latching element interacts with the drive spindle nut to move the filter module between the first and second modes. Note the first and second modes of this embodiment are not explicitly disclosed in relation to a specific figure.
Embodiment 3, as shown in Figs. 7A-8C, which discloses a transmitting element/changeover switch (See Par. 0076). However, it is unclear how the transmitting element/changeover switch interacts with the drive spindle nut to move the filter module between the first and second modes. Note the first and second modes of this embodiment are not explicitly disclosed in relation to a specific figure.
For the reasons noted on Pgs. 12-15 below, each embodiment lacks sufficient written description for the interactions between the claimed filter module and drive spindle nut as recited as independent claims 15, 29, and 32. Note dependent claims 16-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 lack sufficient written description at least by virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim 15, 29, or 32.
On Pg. 13, Applicant remarks that amended claims 15-33 are clear and definite so the rejections of these claims under 112(b) should be withdrawn. Examiner notes the 112(b) rejections directed to the extension of the extension means in claim 15 and the coupling between the extension means and drive unit in claim 15 have been overcome by Applicant’s claim amendments so those rejections have been withdrawn. However, claims 16, 19, 21-24, 26-29, 31-33, and 35 remain indefinite because they do not clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See Pgs. 29-34 for more details.
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 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 16, lines 2-3: filter module holder. The nonce term “holder” is modified by functional language “for releasable arrangement of the filter module as a whole and/or in parts”. There is no disclosure of corresponding structure for “filter module holder” that performs the claimed function. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 21, lines 3-4: intermediate element. The nonce term “element” is modified by functional language “the filter module is coupled directly to the drive spindle nut or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved…indirectly via the intermediate element”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is the vapor deflection device, as specified in Par. 0023, lines 3-7, and equivalents thereof. However, there is insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “vapor deflection device” that performs the claimed “the filter module is coupled directly to the extension means or indirectly to the extension means via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved…indirectly via the intermediate element” function. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 26, lines 2-3: switchable driver element. The nonce term “element” is modified by functional language “switchable driver” and “via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “switchable driver” function is a corresponding stop, in particular a pawl, cam, bolt, hook or the like, as specified in Par. 0031, lines 10-12, and equivalents thereof. However, there is insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “switchable driver element” that performs the claimed “via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device” function. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
The same or substantially the same interpretation also applies to claim 29, line 36 for reciting “switchable driver element pivotably arranged on the carrier plate” and claim 29, lines 40-50, “temporarily moveable between an activated position in which the switchable driver element temporarily connects the filter module to the vapor deflection device, and a deactivated position in which the switchable driver element does not connect the filter module to the vapor deflection device…the switchable driver element is pivoted into the activated position when the upper switching lever is turned by contact with the vapor deflection device during an upward movement of the vapor deflection device, and the switchable driver element is pivoted into the deactivated position when the lower switching lever is turned by contact with the vapor deflection device during a downward movement of the vapor deflection device.”.
Claim 27, lines 1-2: filter module. The nonce term “module” is modified by functional language “filter” and “connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “filter” function is a grease and odor filter, as specified in Par. 0057, line 20, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device” function is a previously defined switching logic, which creates or releases the connection between the filter module and the vapor deflecting device depending on the position of the vapor deflection device which may take place for example mechanically, electrically, and/or with the assistance of sensors, as specified in Par. 0028, lines 1-11, and equivalents thereof. Examiner understands the ‘previously defined switching logic’ to refer to the mechanisms disclosed for each embodiment, as explained on Pg. 21 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below. Given there is insufficient structure for these mechanisms, as explained on Pgs. 12-15 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “filter module” that performs the claimed “connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device” function too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 29, lines 17-18: vapor deflection device. The nonce term “device” is modified by functional language “vapor deflection”, “upper switching lever is turned on by the vapor deflection device”, and “lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “vapor deflection” function is a vapor guide plate holder and vapor guide plate, as specified in Par. 0021, lines 4-5, and equivalents thereof. Given there is insufficient structure for the mechanism of embodiment 1, as explained on Pgs. 21-23 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, of which the upper and lower switching levers are a part, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for upper switching lever is turned on by the vapor deflection device”, and “lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device” that performs the claimed functions in claim 29 too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 29, lines 30-31: latching mechanism. The nonce term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “latching” and “for temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a driver element, switching plate, carrier plate, upper switching lever, and lower switching lever, as specified in claim 29 and Par. 0036, and equivalents thereof. However, given there is insufficient structure for the mechanism of embodiment 1, as explained on Pgs. 12-13 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, of which the latching mechanism is a part, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure for the latching mechanism that performs the claimed functions in claim 29 too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 31, lines 2-4: transmitting element. The nonce term “element” is modified by functional language “transmitting” and “movably mounted, wherein the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut in the second mode after the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut”. Given there is insufficient structure for the mechanism of embodiment 3, as explained on Pgs. 12 and 14-15 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, of which the transmitting element is a part, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “transmitting element” that performs the claimed functions in claim 31 too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 32, lines 2-4: transmitting element. The nonce term “element” is further modified by functional language “transmitting” and “movably mounted”. Given there is insufficient structure for this mechanism of embodiment 3, as explained on Pgs. 12 and 14-15 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, of which the transmitting element is a part, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for the “transmitting element” of this mechanism that performs the claimed function in claim 32 too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 33, lines 2-4: transmitting element. The nonce term “element” is further modified by functional language “transmitting” and “pivots out of the movement path of the drive spindle nut when the interruption of the guide is reached and at the same time forms a stop for the vapor deflection device”. Given there is insufficient structure for this mechanism of embodiment 3, as explained on Pgs. 12 and 14-15 of the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 section below, of which the transmitting element is a part, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for the “transmitting element” of this mechanism that performs the claimed function in claim 33 too. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
Claim 35, lines 6-9: passive latching element. The nonce term “element” is modified by functional language “passive latching” and “configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a driver element, as specified in Par 0073, and equivalents thereof. However, there is insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “drive element” that performs the claimed “configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module” function. Therefore, corresponding 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are made in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 section below.
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.
Claims 15-33 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.
Regarding claim 15, drive spindle nut is claimed to be “threaded on a drive spindle” (Claim 1, line 14). However, neither the drive spindle nut nor drive spindle are disclosed as having threads in the as-filed specification. Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to show any structures on the drive spindle nut or drive spindle that represent threads.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a drive spindle nut threaded on a drive spindle. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of threads between the drive spindle nut and drive spindle, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1.
Claims 16-28 and 30-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
The same or substantially the same rejection applies to claims 29 and 32 for reciting “a drive spindle nut threaded on a drive spindle”.
If Applicant believes threading is inherent to the drive spindle nut and drive spindle, Applicant is recommended to provide evidence as support.
Regarding claim 15, the drive spindle nut is claimed as “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” (Claim 15, lines 17-18). Each of the three embodiments discloses a different way to temporarily couple and uncouple the drive spindle nut from the filter module:
Embodiment 1, as shown in Figs. 1-4E, which discloses a latching mechanism and a movement device (See Par. 0058).
Embodiment 2, as shown in Figs. 5A-6E, which discloses a passive latching element (See Par. 0073).
Embodiment 3, as shown in Figs. 7A-8C, which discloses a transmitting element/changeover switch (See Par. 0076).
Therefore, each embodiment must be considered individually in order to determine if the interactions between the claimed filter module and drive spindle nut have sufficient written description.
With regards to embodiment 1, the switchable driver element 36 of latching mechanism 38 makes a temporary connection between the filter module 20 and the vapor deflection device 16 that results in the extension means being indirectly coupled to the filter module 20. To elaborate, movement of switching plate 40 (to which vapor deflection device 16 is connected) relative to carrier plate 42 (to which filter module 20 is connected) either activates or deactivates driver element 36 such that vapor deflection device 16 and filter module 20 are connected or disconnected, respectively. Once the driver element 36 is activated via switching plate 40 and the vapor deflection device 16 is at its end position, further movement of the vapor deflection device 16 results in an indirect coupling of the filter module 20 to the extension means. As a result, the carrier plate 42, switching plate 40, driver element 36, and vapor deflection device 16 are all involved in temporarily connecting the extension means to the filter module 20.
However, it’s unclear how the switching plate 40 moves relative to the carrier plate 42. For example, in Figs. 2A and 2B, the only figures which show switching plate 40 and carrier plate 42, no movement mechanism is shown for switching plate 40. It’s possible the switching plate 40 and vapor deflection device 16 share a mechanism, but in Figs. 3A and 3B, the maximum distance the vapor deflection device 16 and switching plate 40 can travel appears to be significantly shorter than the distance traveled by the switching plate in Figs. 2A and 2B. Based on this, it appears that switching plate 40 and vapor deflection device 16 are moved by different mechanisms.
Furthermore, the specification does not appear to further clarify how the switching plate 40 moves relative to the carrier plate 42. For example, Par. 0061 of the original specification states “The switching plate 40 is displaceably mounted on the carrier plate 42, and the upper switching lever 44, the lower switching lever 46 and the driver element 36 are pivotably mounted thereon. As a result, a substantially trapezoidal suspension is achieved. The switching plate 40 also engages the driver element 36 such that a movement of the switching plate 40 relative to carrier plate 42…leads to a switching, i.e. activation or deactivation, of the driver element 36" (emphasis added). A movement mechanism to accomplish the “displaceably mounted” function is not disclosed, nor is there an indication of if said movement mechanism is the same as the movement mechanism used to move the vapor deflection device 16. Embodiment 1 lacks sufficient description for the above reasons.
With regards to embodiment 2, how the passive latching element 66 generally functions is covered in at least Par. 0073, which states, “the passive latching element may be guided in a sliding guide and an extension movement of the vapor deflection device 16 follows without having to couple the filter module 20 to the extension means 24. The latching element 66 is latched in the filter module 20 only when the vapor deflection device 16 is partially retracted and extended again. The latching element in this case is clamped to the filter module 20 and entrains said filter module therewith.” (emphasis added). Further description is provided in Par. 0075, which discloses, “passive latching element 66 is tilted when moved upwardly in the direction of the filter element 20, whereby the filter module 20 is clamped to the passive latching element 66”.
However, it’s unclear how the passive latching element 66 moves within the sliding guide in such a way that 1) the vapor deflection device 16 follows without having to couple the extension means to the filter module and 2) how the filter module 20 is clamped to the passive latching element 66 as a result of passive latching element 66 tilting. For example, looking at Figures 6A, it is very difficult to discern the structure of passive latching element 66, where the sliding guide is, and how the passive latching element 66 is connected to the filter module 20 to connect the extension means and filter module. Embodiment 2 lacks sufficient description for the above reasons.
With regards to embodiment 3, the transmitting element is “movably mounted,” and after the transmitting element moves out of the movement path of the extension means, the filter module couples to the extension means. Looking to Par. 0072, “The coupling for the second mode takes place when the changeover switch 50 is pivoted out when it reaches an interruption 54 of the guide 52, and at the same time forms a stop 56 for the vapor deflection device 16, thereby blocking said vapor deflection device and releasing a path in the guide 52 for the extension means 24. By releasing the path for the extension means 24, in the exemplary embodiments shown the drive spindle nut 64 may strike against the filter cross member 60 and thus extend the filter module 20, see Fig. 7E and 7F.” (emphasis added).
First, it is very difficult to ascertain from Figures 8A and 8C, a more specific structure of interruption 54 and guide 52. Rather, 52 and 54 are both pointing to a structure that looks more akin to the filter module holder 28, as shown in Figure 1. The same goes for the stop 56 in Figure 8C, which is essentially pointing to the same thing or area that spindle drive nut 63 points to in Figure 7A. Moreover, nowhere in any of figures 7A-8C, is there shown the filter cross member 60. The only figure that shows this feature is Figure 3B, corresponding to embodiment 1.
Second, based on Pars. 0068-0073 (Par. 0072) which are descriptive of the third embodiment’s “second mode” in which the extension means and filter module are coupled, it is clear that the connection and movement of the above noted components relative to one another is indicative of “advantageous developments… described in the dependent claims” (see para. 0006 of Applicant’s original specification). Figures 7A-8C would necessarily need to show more detailed illustrations of the interruption 54, guide 52, stop 56, filter cross member 60, extension means 24, and drive spindle nut 64 and how they’re connected and moving relative to one another in order to connect the extension means to the filter module. Embodiment 3 lacks sufficient description for the above reasons.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the drive spindle nut configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the interactions necessary to couple the drive spindle nut to the filter module, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 15.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of coupling with a filter module will be taken as fulfilling this limitation.
Claims 16-28 and 30-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29 (lines 17-18) “drive spindle nut configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” and claim 25, lines 2-4 for reciting “filter module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut” and filter module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut”.
Regarding claim 15, the extension means is claimed to pivot an extraction opening as follows: “an extraction opening cover…pivotable by the extension means from a vertical open position…to a horizontal closed position” (Claim 15, lines 26-28). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. As Pars. 0043-0046 and 0063 state, there’s a connection between the drive unit, extension means, a spring connected to a pin which is guided in a rail, a movement device, and the extraction opening cover. Note the extension means comprises the drive spindle nut per Par. 0014. Par. 0076 only mentions the “extraction opening cover 12 may be opened by via a spring. For closing the extraction opening cover 12, for example, the glass pane may be lowered and the extraction opening cover 12 closed against the spring force via a cover driver element.”
The disclosed interactions in the above paragraphs need a more detailed illustration, in particular, where they’re respectively placed, and how they’re moving relative to one another in an illustrated format in order to show sufficient written description of the disclosure. For example, Figs. 1 and 4A-6E show the extraction opening cover in various positions, but they do not show how the drive unit, extension means, and spring interact to open and close the extraction opening cover. It is unclear how the extraction opening cover could move from the horizontal orientation shown in Fig. 4A, for example, to the tilted orientation shown in Fig. 4B or the vertical orientation shown in Fig. 4C, especially without interfering with the filter module 20.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the extraction opening cover pivotable by the extension means from a vertical open position to a horizontal closed position function of the extension means. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the interactions necessary to pivot the extraction opening cover via the extension means, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 15.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of pivoting an extraction opening cover from a vertical open position to a horizontal closed position will be taken as fulfilling this limitation.
Claims 16-28 and 30-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, the electric motor is claimed to drive the connecting shaft and the connecting shaft is claimed to drive the at least one drive spindle (Claim 15, lines 10-13). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. As noted in the Response to Remarks section, it’s the Examiner’s understanding that a conventional drive spindle comprises a motor and spindle. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed electric motor driving a connecting shaft (See Fig. 1 and Par. 0058) interacts with the motor and spindle that comprise the drive spindle. To elaborate, the connecting shaft is oriented horizontally, while the drive spindle is oriented vertically (See Fig. 1 and Par. 0058), so it is not clear how horizontal motion is being translated into vertical motion. Given an electric motor is claimed in addition to the motor that comprises the drive spindle, it is also unclear how the two motors interact.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the electric motor driving the connecting shaft and the connecting shaft driving the at least one drive spindle as claimed. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the connecting shaft of the drive unit 22, drive spindles 48, motor 70, and drive spindle nut, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 15.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of motorized retraction and extension of a spindle will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claims 16-28 and 30-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29, lines 10-13 for reciting “the electric motor drives the connecting shaft…the connecting shaft drives the at least one drive spindle”.
Regarding claim 16, the filter module holder is claimed to be “for releasable arrangement of the filter module as a whole and/or in parts” (Claim 16, lines 2-3). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. For example, Par. 0061 discloses, “More specifically, the latching mechanism 38 is arranged on a filter module holder (not shown)” but given the interaction between the latching mechanism 38 and filter module holder is not shown, it is unclear how these two structures interact. Looking at the figures, the structure of the filter module holder remains unclear. Using Fig. 1 as an example, a rectangular shape appears to be used to represent filter module holder 28, but this does not clarify how the filter module holder achieves the claimed function of releasing the filter module as a whole and/or in parts.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the filter module holder to provide a releasable arrangement of the filter module as a whole and/or in parts. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the filter module holder and filter module, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 16.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of releasing a filter module as a whole and/or in parts will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 19, the drive spindle nut is claimed to move a vapor deflection device as follows: “vapor deflection device movable by the drive spindle nut from a resting position into an operating position” (Claim 19, lines 2-3). The mechanism used to connect the drive spindle nut to the filter module is different for each embodiment, as explained on Pg. 12 above, and has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-15 above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding how the drive spindle nut is coupled to the filter module necessarily means the above function of the vapor deflection device movable by the extension means has a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the vapor deflection device movable by the drive spindle nut. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the interactions necessary to move the vapor deflection device via the drive spindle nut, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 29.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 22, lines 2-3 for reciting “movable by the drive spindle nut from a resting position into an operating position” ; claim 23, lines 2-3 for reciting “vapor deflection device is moved at least temporarily via the drive spindle nut”; claim 24, lines 2-3 for reciting “filter module and vapor deflection device are moved at least temporarily at a same time via the drive spindle nut”; to claim 29, lines 26-27 for reciting “movable by the drive spindle nut from a resting position into an operating position”, and to claim 34, lines 3-5 for reciting “part of the vapor deflection device is coupled to the drive spindle nut such that the vapor deflection device is movable by the drive spindle nut from a resting position into an operating position”.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of moving a vapor deflection device from a resting position into an operating position will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 21, the intermediate element is claimed to interact with filter module and extension means as follows: “the filter module is coupled directly to the drive spindle nut or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved…indirectly via the intermediate element” (Claim 27, lines 17-18). Although corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is the vapor deflection device, as specified in Par. 0023, lines 3-7, and equivalents thereof, there is insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for “vapor deflection device” that performs the claimed “the filter module is coupled directly to the drive spindle nut or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved…indirectly via the intermediate element” function. The corresponding structure to couple the filter module to the extension means is different for each embodiment, as explained on Pg. 12 above, and has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-15 above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding the mechanisms used to connect the drive spindle nut to the filter module for each embodiment necessarily means a lack of clarity regarding how the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device in light of Par. 0027, “Since the driver element is switchable, the connected state of the filter module and the vapor deflection device may be produced in the transition between the first mode and the second mode and cancelled again in the transition from the second mode into the first mode”. Given the first mode is when the filter module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut and the second mode is when the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut, this necessarily means that if the mechanisms used to connect the extension means to the filter module have a lack of written description, the connection between the filter module and drive spindle nut via the intermediate element must necessarily have a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the filter module is coupled directly to the drive spindle nut or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved indirectly via the intermediate element. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions to connect the filter mode and drive spindle via the intermediate element, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 27.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of coupling the filter module directly or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via the vapor deflection device such that the filter module is moved indirectly via the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 21.
Regarding claim 26, the switchable driver element is claimed to connect the filter module and vapor deflection device as follows: “via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device” (Claim 26, lines 2-3). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device” function is different for each embodiment, as explained on Pg. 12 above, and has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-15 above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding the mechanisms used to connect the drive spindle nut to the filter module for each embodiment necessarily means a lack of clarity regarding how the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device in light of Par. 0027, “Since the driver element is switchable, the connected state of the filter module and the vapor deflection device may be produced in the transition between the first mode and the second mode and cancelled again in the transition from the second mode into the first mode”. Given the first mode is when the filter module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut and the second mode is when the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut, this necessarily means that if the mechanisms used to connect the drive spindle nut to the filter module have a lack of written description, the temporary connection between the filter module and vapor deflection device via the switchable driver element must necessarily have a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the switchable driver element via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the switchable driver element, filter module, and vapor deflection device, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 26.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claims 27-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 26.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29, lines 39-42 for reciting “switchable driver element is temporarily moveable between an activated position in which the switchable driver element temporarily connects the filter module to the vapor deflection device”.
Regarding claim 27, the filter module is claimed to be “connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device” (Claim 27, lines 1-2). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed “via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device” function is different for each embodiment, as explained on Pg. 12 above. Given there is insufficient structure for these mechanisms, as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-15 above, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for the filter module connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device” function too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the filter module connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the mechanisms of the embodiments, filter module, and vapor deflection device, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 27.
Claim 28 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 27.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of connecting or at least being prepared for connecting to the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29, lines 39-42 for reciting “switchable driver element is temporarily moveable between an activated position in which the switchable driver element temporarily connects the filter module to the vapor deflection device, and a deactivated position in which the switchable driver element does not connect the filter module to the vapor deflection device”.
Regarding claim 29, the vapor deflection device is claimed to interact with an upper and lower switching lever as follows: “upper switching lever is turned on by the vapor deflection device” and “lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device” (Claim 27, lines 17-18). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. The upper and lower switching levers are part of the mechanism of embodiment 1, as explained on Pg. 12 above. Given there is insufficient structure for the mechanism of embodiment 1, as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-13 above, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for upper switching lever is turned on by the vapor deflection device and lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device functions too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the vapor deflection device actuating the upper and lower switching mechanisms. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions within the mechanism of embodiment 1, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 29.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of turning an upper switching lever on and a lower switching lever off will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 29, the latching mechanism is claimed to be capable of “temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device” (Claim 29, lines 30-31). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Given there is insufficient structure for the mechanism of embodiment 1, as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-13 above, there must necessarily be insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for the latching mechanism temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the latching mechanism temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions within the mechanism of embodiment 1, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 29.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily connecting a filter module to a vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 31, the transmitting element is claimed to be “transmitting” and “movably mounted, wherein the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut in the second mode of the drive unit after the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut” (Claim 31, lines 2-4). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Although Pars. 0078-0079 disclose a changeover switch, guide, interruption, and drive spindle nut, these structures are insufficient to perform the claimed functions as explained in the 112(a) rejection for embodiment 3 of “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12 and 14-15 above and therefore has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding the interruption 54, guide 52, stop 56, filter cross member 60, and drive spindle nut 64 and how they’re connected and moving relative to one another in order to connect the filter module to the drive spindle nut involves a lack of clarity regarding how the transmitting element moves out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut in order to couple the filter module to the drive spindle nut; therefore the aforementioned of the transmitting element must necessarily have a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the transmitting and movement out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut functions of the transmitting element. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the transmitting element, interruption, guide, stop, filter cross member, drive spindle nut, and filter module, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 31.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and moving out a movement path of an extension means will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claims 32-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, the transmitting element is claimed to be “transmitting” and “configured to block the vapor deflection device and to release the drive spindle nut for moving the filter module, when the transmitting element assumes a position out of the movement path” (Claim 32, lines 30-33). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Although Pars. 0078-0079 disclose a changeover switch, guide, interruption, and drive spindle nut, these structures are insufficient to perform the claimed functions as explained in the 112(a) rejection for embodiment 3 of “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 14-15 above and therefore has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding the interruption 54, guide 52, stop 56, filter cross member 60, and drive spindle nut 64 and how they’re connected and moving relative to one another in order to connect the filter module to the drive spindle nut involves a lack of clarity regarding how the transmitting element blocks the vapor deflection device and releases the drive spindle nut for moving the filter module when the transmitting element assumes a position out of the movement path; therefore the aforementioned functions of the transmitting element must necessarily have a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the transmitting and blocking the vapor deflection device and releasing the drive spindle nut for moving the filter module, when the transmitting element assumes a position out of the movement path functions of the transmitting element. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the transmitting element, interruption, guide, stop, filter cross member, drive spindle nut, and filter module, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 32.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and moving out of a movement path such as to block a vapor deflection device and release an extension means for moving a filter module will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 33, the transmitting element is claimed to be “transmitting” and “the transmitting element pivots out of the movement path of the drive spindle nut when the interruption of the guide is reached and at the same time forms a stop for the vapor deflection device” (Claim 33, lines 2-4). However, adequate structure for performing the recited function isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Although Pars. 0078-0079 disclose a changeover switch, guide, interruption, and drive spindle nut, these structures are insufficient to perform the claimed functions as explained in the 112(a) rejection for embodiment 3 of “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 14-15 above and therefore has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding the interruption 54, guide 52, stop 56, filter cross member 60, and drive spindle nut 64 and how they’re connected and moving relative to one another in order to connect the filter module to the drive spindle nut involves a lack of clarity regarding how the transmitting element pivots out when an interruption of the guide is reached and at the same tie forms a stop for the vapor deflection device; therefore the aforementioned functions of the transmitting element must necessarily have a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the transmitting and pivoting out when an interruption of the guide is reached and at the same time forming a stop for the vapor deflection device functions of the transmitting element. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the necessary interactions between the transmitting element, interruption, guide, stop, filter cross member, , drive spindle nut, and filter module, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 33.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and pivoting out when an interruption of a guide is reached while simultaneously forming a stop for a vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 35, the passive latching element is claimed to be “configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module” (Claim 35, lines 6-9). The passive latching element has insufficient written description for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained for the 112(a) rejection to claim 15 regarding “configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module” on Pgs. 12-15 above. To elaborate, the lack of clarity regarding how the drive spindle nut is coupled to the filter module in embodiment 2 necessarily means the above function of embodiment 2 has a lack of written description too.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s position that the written description lacks sufficient support for the passive latching element configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant did not fully conceive of the interactions necessary to couple the vapor deflection device to the filter module using the passive latching element, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 35.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily coupling a vapor deflection device to a filter module will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
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.
Claims 16, 19, 21-24, 26-29, 31-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “filter module holder for releasable arrangement of the filter module as a whole and/or in parts” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of releasing a filter module as a whole and/or in parts will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation “vapor deflection device movable by the drive spindle nut from a resting position into an operating position” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of moving a vapor deflection device from a resting position into an operating position will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 22, lines 2-3 for reciting “movable by the extension means from a resting position into an operating position” ; claim 23, lines 2-3 for reciting “vapor deflection device is moved at least temporarily via the extension means”; claim 24, lines 2-3 for reciting “filter module and vapor deflection device are moved at least temporarily at a same time via the extension means”; and to claim 29, lines 11-12 for reciting “movable by the extension means from a resting position into an operating position”.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “the filter module is coupled directly to the drive spindle nut or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via an intermediate element such that the filter module is moved…indirectly via the intermediate element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of coupling the filter module directly or indirectly to the drive spindle nut via the vapor deflection device such that the filter module is moved indirectly via the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 21.
Regarding claim 26, the claim limitation “switchable driver element via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claims 27-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 26.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29, line 14 for reciting “switchable driver element via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device”.
Regarding claim 27, the claim limitation “filter module connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connection position of the vapor deflection device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of connecting or at least being prepared for connecting to the vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claim 28 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 27.
The same or substantially the same rejection also applies to claim 29, line 14 for reciting “switchable driver element via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device”.
Regarding claim 29, the claim limitations “upper switching lever is turned on by the vapor deflection device” and “lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of turning an upper switching lever on and a lower switching lever off will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 29, the claim limitation “latching mechanism for temporarily connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily connecting a filter module to a vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 31, the claim limitations “transmitting element” and “transmitting element which is movably mounted, wherein the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut in the second mode of the drive unit after the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and moving out a movement path of an extension means will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Claims 32-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, the claim limitations “transmitting element” and “transmitting element is configured to block the vapor deflection device and to release the drive spindle nut for moving the filter module, when the transmitting element assumes a position out of the movement path” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and moving out of a movement path such as to block a vapor deflection device and release an extension means for moving a filter module will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 33, the claim limitations “transmitting element” and “the transmitting element pivots out when an interruption of the guide is reached and at the same time forms a stop for the vapor deflection device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of transmitting and pivoting out when an interruption of a guide is reached while simultaneously forming a stop for a vapor deflection device will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Regarding claim 35, the claim limitation “passive latching element configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. See the corresponding 112(a) rejections above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of substantive examination, any structure that is capable of temporarily coupling a vapor deflection device to a filter module will be taken as fulfilling these limitations.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the respective claim(s) so that the claim limitation(s) will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 15-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (DE 102018221339 A1, hereafter Parmentier) in view of Tang et al. (CN 206140979 U, hereafter Tang), Koetter et al. (AT 405368 B, hereafter Koetter), Klunker (WO 2013156365 A1), and Benthin (US 5595232 A).
Regarding claim 15, Parmentier discloses a table ventilation device (Par. 0001, ventilation device and Figs. 1 and 2, kitchen appliance 1. A table has a flat top with one or more legs or other supports, therefore kitchen appliance 1 is a ‘table’), comprising:
a housing (Figs. 4 and 5, worktop 40 and kitchen cabinet 4) having a vapor extraction opening (Figs. 4 and 5, outlet opening 29);
a filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, “Since the screen elements can be removed from the extractor unit and cleaned without tools, they can function as filters, i.e. they can be used to separate impurities”);
wherein a lifting mechanism is configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module in different operating states of the table ventilation device (Par. 0020, lifting mechanism using spindles. When the table ventilation device in a non-operating state, the screen elements can be detached for cleaning. In this case, the lifting mechanism is temporarily uncoupled from the screen elements (i.e., filter module) in an non-operating state of the table ventilation device. Examiner notes that given screen element 22 is detachable from movement device 25, it must necessarily be capable of being attachable/couplable too),
wherein the lifting mechanism is configured to move the filter module from a filter module operating position (Fig. 16 and Par. 0063, “Fig. 16 shows an operating position for extracting air from a pan or other flat cooking vessel.”) into a filter module removal position (Fig. 18, screen element 22 (i.e., filter) is located partially outside outlet opening 29 (i.e., vapor extraction opening) and therefore is in a removal position. Compare to Fig. 16, where screen element 22 is located underneath outlet opening 29 and would be more difficult to remove. See Par. 0014, “Furthermore, since the screen elements are detachably mounted in the extraction shaft, they can be easily removed from the extractor unit. When removed, the umbrella elements can be cleaned, for example, in a dishwasher.”) via movement of the lifting mechanism when the lifting mechanism is temporarily coupled to the filter module (Par. 0020),
wherein, in the filter module removal position, the filter module is located partially outside the vapor extraction opening or adjacent to the vapor extraction opening (Fig. 18, screen element 22 (i.e., filter) is located partially outside and adjacent to the outlet opening 29 (i.e., vapor extraction opening); and
an extraction opening cover (Figs. 3 and 4, cover 23 and Par. 0032, lines 393-394, “The air inlet and outlet openings can be covered by a cover”) which is located below the vapor extraction opening (Fig. 16, cover 23 is located below outlet opening 29) and pivotable from a vertical open position (Fig. 3 and Par. 0053, “The cover 23 is folded down until it rests against the front wall of the suction shaft 24. This movement is in Fig. 3 shown schematically”) to a horizontal closed position (Figs. 1-2 and Par. 0051, “The outlet openings 29 and the air inlet opening 290 are closed by the cover 23”) in which the vapor extraction opening is covered and the table ventilation device is switched-off (Par. 0052, “If the extractor device 2 is activated, i.e. switched on, the cover 23 is folded down.” Examiner notes that given when extractor device 2 is activated, i.e., switched on, the cover 23 is folded down, this necessarily means when the extractor device 2 is deactivated, i.e., switched off, the cover 23 must necessarily be not folded, i.e., in its horizontal position).
However, Parmentier does not disclose an electric motor;
a connecting shaft coupled to the electric motor, wherein the electric motor drives the connecting shaft;
at least one drive spindle coupled to the connecting shaft, wherein the connecting shaft drives the at least one drive spindle;
a drive spindle nut threaded on a drive spindle of the at least one drive spindle,
wherein the drive spindle nut is configured to be moved upwardly or downwardly by motorized operation of the at least one drive spindle,
wherein the drive spindle nut is configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module in different operating states of the table ventilation device,
wherein the drive spindle nut is configured to move the filter module from a filter module operating position into a filter module removal position via movement of the drive spindle nut when the drive spindle nut is temporarily coupled to the filter module, and
said extraction opening cover being pretensioned in a pretensioned direction of the horizontal closed position or the open position, wherein, when the drive spindle nut is moved upwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the vertical open position, and when the drive spindle nut is moved downwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the horizontal closed position.
Tang discloses a solution to the problem of how to lift a plate similar to the problem of how to lift a filter module in the present invention.
NOTE: A broad spectrum of prior art must be explored in the mechanical arts and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV.
Tang further discloses it is known for a lifting mechanism (Fig. 2, lifting device) to have an electric motor (Fig. 2, drive motor 26);
a connecting shaft coupled to the electric motor (Fig. 2, motor spindle 25), wherein the electric motor drives the connecting shaft (Par. 0021, “the drive motor 26 driving the drive wheel 24 and the driven wheel 21 to rotate”);
at least one drive spindle (Fig. 2, threaded rod 19. A spindle is a threaded rod used to transmit movement, therefore threaded rod 19 is a ‘spindle’ because it is a threaded rod that transmits movement from the nut slider 20) coupled to the connecting shaft, wherein the connecting shaft drives the at least one drive spindle (Par. 0021, “the drive motor 26 driving the drive wheel 24 and the driven wheel 21 to rotate; and the nut slider 20 moving the threaded rod 19 up and down by its own rotation”);
a drive spindle nut threaded on a drive spindle of the at least one drive spindle (Fig. 2, nut slider 20).
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 the lifting mechanism of Parmentier with the same of Tang. Parmentier discloses the claimed invention except Parmentier is silent regarding the specific type components of the spindle lifting mechanism. Tang shows that a lifting mechanism with an electric motor, connecting shaft, drive spindle, and drive spindle nut is known in the art. Therefore, because the two lifting mechanisms were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the lifting mechanism of Parmentier with the same of Tang. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely using a spindle to lift something, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B. Furthermore, it’s noted the lifting mechanism of Tang would have the benefit of having a simple structure that is easy to use (As suggested by Par. 0013 of Tang) and/or that the addition of a drive spindle nut enables the transmission of larger axial forces.
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose the drive spindle nut configured to be move upwardly or downwardly by motorized operation, said extraction opening cover being pretensioned in a pretensioned direction of the horizontal closed position or the open position, wherein, when the drive spindle nut is moved upwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the vertical open position, and when the drive spindle nut is moved downwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the horizontal closed position.
Koetter discloses a solution to the problem of how to lift a bed similar to the problem of how to lift a filter module in the present invention.
NOTE: A broad spectrum of prior art must be explored in the mechanical arts and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV.
Koetter further discloses it is known it is known for a drive spindle nut (Pg. 2, Par. 1, nut) to be configured to move upwardly or downwardly (Pg. 1, Par. 1, “height-adjustable and / or pivotable in height via a lifting telescope…the lifting telescope consists of at least two telescoping lifting tubes and a lifting spindle” and Pg. 2, 6th Par from bottom, “As a result, when the bed is raised after the clutch has been disengaged, the bed is moved down quickly but gently”) by motorized operation (Pg. 2, Par. 1, motor) of a drive spindle (Pg. 2, Par. 1, rotating lifting spindle).
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 the lifting mechanism of Parment, as modified above, so the drive spindle nut, rather than the drive spindle, is moving as taught by Koetter in order to rigidly mount the drive spindle and thereby increase the stability and reliability of the table ventilation device.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that modified Parmentier would result in the drive spindle nut is configured to be temporarily coupled to and uncoupled from the filter module in different operating states of the table ventilation device; the drive spindle nut is configured to move the filter module from a filter module operating position into a filter module removal position via movement of the drive spindle nut when the drive spindle nut is temporarily coupled to the filter module; and wherein the drive spindle nut is configured to be moved upwardly or downwardly by motorized operation of the at least one drive spindle as claimed. To elaborate, Parmentier teaches a lifting mechanism with spindles that is configured to do the claimed functions, so modifying said lifting device to include the spindle drive nut as taught by Tang and modifying the spindle drive nut to move up and down in view of Koetter necessarily means modified Parmentier would read on the claimed limitations.
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose said extraction opening cover being pretensioned in a pretensioned direction of the horizontal closed position or the open position, wherein, when the drive spindle nut is moved upwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the vertical open position, and when the drive spindle nut is moved downwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the horizontal closed position.
Klunker discloses it is known for an extraction opening cover (Fig. 5, locking side 110) to be pretensioned (Par. 0081, “According to a further embodiment, the fixing mechanism has at least one spring element for applying a rotational force for rotating the closing element.” Examiner notes locking side 110 and transmission element 30 are part of the closing element 11) in a pretensioned direction of the horizontal closed position (Par. 0088, “Starting from the center position, the locking element can be pushed by hand against the spring force into the open end position, which is also called the operating position, where it engages”. Note the locking side 110 must necessarily be pretensioned in a direction of the horizontal closed position if manual actuation is required to move the locking side 110 into the operating position as disclosed. See Pars. 0029 and 0134-0136).
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 the extraction opening cover of Parmentier, as modified above, with the pretensioning as disclosed by Klunker in order to pretension the extraction opening cover toward the closed position and thereby 1) prevent placing objects on the extraction opening cover from causing the extraction opening cover to move unintentionally (As suggested by Par. 0029 of Parmentier) and/or further reduce the risk that contamination will enter the table ventilation device. For example, this avoids the situation where a cover only closes when a user manually closes it and said user forgets to close the cover when the table ventilation device is not in use.
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose when the drive spindle nut is moved upwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the vertical open position, and when the drive spindle nut is moved downwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the horizontal closed position.
Benthin discloses a solution to the problem of how to open and close slats similar to the problem of how to open and close an extraction opening cover in the present invention.
NOTE: A broad spectrum of prior art must be explored in the mechanical arts and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist. See MPEP 2141.01(a) IV.
Benthin further discloses it is known for a drive spindle nut (Col. 2, lines 40-55, spindle nut segment) to be moved upwardly or downwardly by the operation of a drive spindle (Col. 2, lines 40-55, spindle shaft) such that a cover (Col. 2, lines 40-55, slat) is configured to move into the open position or closed position (Col. 2, lines 40-55, “a spindle nut segment, which is movable in the grip body at right angles to the longitudinal axis of a spindle shaft led through the grip body, and which can be coupled with the spindle thread, in order to make possible a pivoting of the slats around their longitudinal axis in one direction or the other due to a movement of the grip body in the upward or downward direction.”).
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 the extraction opening cover and drive spindle nut of Parmentier, as modified above, in view of Benthin in order to connect the movement of the drive spindle nut with the position of the cover and thereby add redundancy so the closure of the extraction opening cover is not dependent upon pretensioning alone. For example, this modification would 1) increase reliability of the closure of the extraction opening cover, especially in the event the spring becomes damaged or worn and/or 2) allow for the use of a weaker spring, reducing costs.
It is noted that there are a finite number of configurations available to one having ordinary skill in the art for the relationship between the drive spindle nut and drive spindle nut (i.e., moving the drive spindle nut upwardly or downwardly to move extraction opening cover into the open or closed position). In this regard, it is noted that Benthin teaches moving the drive spindle nut down moves the slat into the open or closed position and moving the drive spindle nut up moves the slat into the other position. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Parmentier, as modified above, such that when the drive spindle nut is moved upwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the vertical open position, and when the drive spindle nut is moved downwardly by the motorized operation of the drive spindle, the extraction opening cover is configured to move into the horizontal closed position since it is known to do so and therefore has a reasonable expectation of success (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
NOTE: See Parmentier for citations unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 16, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, further comprising a filter module holder (Par. 0013, “In addition, according to the invention, the at least two shielding elements are detachably mounted in the suction shaft. A removable bearing is a fastening that can be removed without tools. Each shield element is preferably stored separately in the extraction shaft. The fastening can, for example, be by pushing in, clamping in or locking the shield element with a fastening element.”) for releasable arrangement of the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178) as a whole (Par. 0015, “Because the screen element is detachably attached to a fastening element that is mounted so that it can be moved, only the screen element itself is separated from the extractor device when the screen element is removed. The fastening element, however, can remain in the extractor hood. If the fastening element is a rail, the flat shielding element, which is preferably a disc, can be easily inserted into the rail from above and pulled out of the rail for removal.”).
Regarding claim 17, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, wherein the filter module (Figs. 4-5 and 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178) includes a grease filter (Figs. 4-5 and 16-18, top half of screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand impurities near a cooking appliance in a kitchen would include grease and that the surface of screen element 22 would be capable of collecting said grease, thereby screen element 22 functions as a ‘grease filter’).
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, it is the examiner’s position that a grease filter is well known in the art, as indicated by Fig. 6, spikes 26 and Par. 0042, lines 297-298 of Baldauff et al. (EP 0575681 A1) that was previously referenced in the Office Action dated 5/13/2025.
Regarding claim 18, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, wherein the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178) includes an odor filter (Figs. 4-5 and 16-18, bottom half of screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178. An odor filter is designed to pass or move odor through or filter odors, therefore the bottom half of screen element 22 is an odor filter because it moves odors such as smoke through the extractor device 2 and away from the hob 3).
Regarding claim 19, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, further comprising a vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 21 and fastening element 250 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, “The surfaces of the shielding elements, which protrude beyond the outlet opening of the extraction shaft, form the air flow from the intake gap to the extraction shaft, in particular to the air inlet opening.” A vapor deflection device is a device that deflects or turns vapor aside, therefore screen element 21 and fastening element 250 comprise a vapor deflection device because the flow of vapor from hob 3 into outlet opening 29 is deflected by screen element 21) movable by the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20. Additional citation from Parmentier: Par. 0018, lines 225, movement device 25, “The screen elements can be moved using a movement device”.) from a resting position (Figs. 2 and 3 which show screen element 21 below the outlet opening 29, where it is not deflecting vapor (i.e., resting position)) into an operating position (Figs. 4 and 5 which show screen element 21 deflecting vapor (i.e., operating position) in a position above outlet opening 29 and Par. 0053, lines 723-725, “The operation position is in Fig. 4 shown schematically. In this operating position, the rear shield element 21 is shifted upwards relative to the suction shaft 24”), said vapor deflection device comprising a vapor guide plate holder (Fig. 14, fastening element 250) and a vapor guide plate (Fig. 14, screen element 21) which is arranged on the vapor guide plate holder (Par. 0062, line 928, “The lower end of each of the shield elements 21, 22 is held in a fastening element 250”).
Regarding claim 20, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 19, wherein the vapor guide plate (Fig. 14, screen element 21) is a glass plate (Par. 0067, lines 1024-1026, “According to a preferred embodiment, the extractor device according to the invention uses two glass plates as screen elements, which are arranged one behind the other and can each be flat or curved.”).
Regarding claim 21, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, wherein the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 and Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 22) is coupled indirectly to the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20) via an intermediate element (Fig. 14, fastening element 250. As interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), an intermediate element is the vapor deflection device, therefore fastening element 250 (i.e., vapor deflection device) is also an ‘intermediate element’) such that the filter module is moved directly via the drive spindle nut (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, and 14, movement device 25 and Par. 0020, line 242, “The screen elements can be moved using a movement device”).
Regarding claim 22, Examiner notes this claim incorporates the limitations of claim 21, which have two alternatives: the filter module is moved directly via the extension means or indirectly via an intermediate element. Given only one of the alternatives must be shown in the prior art to reject the claim, rejecting the first alternative “the filter module is moved directly via the extension means” is sufficient to reject claim 21. Selecting this first alternative to reject claim 21 makes claim 22 irrelevant because claim 22 only relates to the second alternative of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 19, wherein the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 and Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 22) is moved at least temporarily and the vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 21 and fastening element 250, as explained in claim 19) is moved at least temporarily via the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20. Additional citation from Parmentier: Par. 006, lines 936-938, “The associated fastening element 250 can be moved vertically via the movement device 25. As a result, the shield element 21 or 22 inserted into the fastening element 250 can be extended upwards or retracted downwards”).
Regarding claim 24, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 23, wherein both the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 and Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 22) and the vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 21 and fastening element 250, as explained in claim 19) are moved at least temporarily at a same time via the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20. Additional citation from Parmentier: Par. 0062, lines 941-943, “it is also within the scope of the invention that the movement devices 25 are connected or coupled to one another and thereby the screen elements 21, 22 are moved simultaneously.”).
Regarding claim 30, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 19, wherein the drive spindle (From Tang: Fig. 2, threaded rod 19) has a length (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, length between movement device 25 (i.e., extension means) and cover plate 200) which corresponds to a stroke required to move the vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 21 and fastening element 250, as explained in claim 19), via movement of the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20) on the drive spindle, from the resting position (Figs. 2 and 3 which show screen element 21 below the outlet opening 29, where it is not deflecting vapor (i.e., resting position)) into the operating position (Figs. 4 and 5 which show screen element 21 deflecting vapor (i.e., operating position) and Par. 0053, lines 723-725, “The operation position is in Fig. 4 shown schematically. In this operating position, the rear shield element 21 is shifted upwards relative to the suction shaft 24”).
Making things separable (i.e. “extension means is removably fastened,” as claimed) has been deemed obvious to the extent that such a feature would be considered desirable for any reason. See MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C. Therefore, it’s the examiner’s position that in light of the MPEP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movement device 25, so that it can be removed from the table ventilation device, for the desired and predictable benefits of making it easier to maintain the extension means and/or making repairs cheaper because a defective extension means can be replaced independently rather than requiring replacement of the whole table ventilation system.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (DE 102018221339 A1, hereafter Parmentier) in view of Tang et al. (CN 206140979 U, hereafter Tang), Koetter et al. (AT 405368 B, hereafter Koetter), Klunker (WO 2013156365 A1), and Benthin (US 5595232 A) and further in view of Baldauff et al. (EP 0575681 A1, hereafter Baldauff).
Regarding claim 25, Parmentier discloses the table ventilation device of claim 15, wherein in a second mode, the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178) is coupled to the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20. Additional citation from Parmentier: Par. 0062, “However, it is also within the scope of the invention that the movement devices 25 are connected or coupled to one another and thereby the screen elements 21, 22 are moved simultaneously.”).
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose in a first mode, the filter module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut.
Baldauff discloses a ventilation device (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Baldauff further discloses it is known to have a first mode in which a filter module (Figs. 1-3 and 6, filter suction head 11) is decoupled from a movable portion of a lifting mechanism (Figs. 1-3 and 6 & Par. 0038, movable conduit 17 moving within fixed conduit 15. See Par. 0047, first mode is when filter suction head 11 is removed, “The filter suction head 11 is removably mounted by the dissociation of one or both of its component parts at the lower end of the movable conduit by any quick coupling/uncoupling means, for example screwing, bayonet type locking or other, allowing the user to remove and wash the filter regularly, for example in a dishwasher.” A lifting mechanism functions to lift a structure, therefore fixed conduit 15 is a ‘lifting mechanism’ because it lifts movable conduit 17 away from the cooking surface 2. Reference Figs. 3-4) and a second mode in which the filter module is coupled to the lifting mechanism (Fig. 3, which shows filter suction head 11 is coupled to the fixed conduit 15 via movable conduit 17).
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 the table ventilation device of Parmentier with the same of Baldauff in order to couple and decouple the filter module from the drive spindle nut and thereby support a wider variety of user preferences. For example, some users may prefer to move screen elements 22, 21 independently while others may prefer to move them simultaneously, especially in light of the varied needs of different dishes.
Regarding claim 26, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 19, further comprising the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 22 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178) is connected to the vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 21 and fastening element 250 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, as explained in claim 19 above. See Par. 0062, “However, it is also within the scope of the invention that the movement devices 25 are connected or coupled to one another and thereby the screen elements 21, 22 are moved simultaneously.”).
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose a switchable driver element via which the filter module is temporarily connected to the vapor deflection device.
Baldauff discloses a ventilation device (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Baldauff further discloses it is known to have a switchable driver element (Fig. 8, staples 32 and Par. 0047, “The upper part or collar 27 is mounted integrally or removably on a conical withdrawal shoulder 31 of a shape complementary to its underside, constituting the external conformation of extension of the lower end of the movable conduit 17, and is held there, for example by staples 32 such as shown in figure 8, or any other means of rapid fixing in the case of a removable upper part 27”. As interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), a switchable driver element is any structure that is capable of temporarily connecting a filter module to a vapor deflection device. Therefore, staples 32 comprise a ‘switchable driver element’ because it allows temporary connection of filter suction head 11 (i.e., filter module) to drain panel 9 (i.e., vapor deflection device)) via which the filter module (Figs. 1-3 and 6, filter suction head 11) is temporarily connected to a vapor deflection device (Fig. 1, 2 and 7, drain panel 9. A vapor deflection device is a device that deflects or turns vapor aside, therefore drain panel 9 is a vapor deflection device because it deflects the flow of vapors from cooking surface 2 into the circular hole in central zone 14).
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 the table ventilation device of Parmentier with the same of Baldauff in order to couple and decouple the filter module from the extension means and thereby support a wider variety of user preferences. For example, some users may prefer to move screen elements 22, 21 independently while others may prefer to move them simultaneously, especially in light of the varied needs of different dishes.
Regarding claim 27, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 26.
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose the filter module is connected or at least prepared for connection to the vapor deflection device when reaching a connecting position of the vapor deflection device.
Baldauff further discloses the table ventilation device of claim 26, wherein the filter module (Figs. 1-3 and 6, filter suction head 11. As interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), a filter module is any structure that is capable of connecting or at least being prepared for connecting to the vapor deflection device. Therefore, filter suction head 11 comprise a ‘filter module’ because it connects to drain panel 9 (i.e., vapor deflection device)) is connected to or at least being prepared for connecting to the vapor deflection device (Figs. 1, 2 and 7, drain panel 9, as explained in claim 26. Fig. 2 shows filter suction head 11 (i.e., filter suction head 11) is connected to drain panel 9 (i.e., vapor deflection device)) when reaching a connecting position (Fig. 2, flat, visible face of drain panel 9) of the vapor deflection device.
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 the table ventilation device of Parmentier with the same of Baldauff in order automatically couple the filter module to the vapor deflection device at a certain position and thereby automatically increase the effectiveness of the table ventilation device instead of relying on manual actuation from a user for improved operation.
Regarding claim 28, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 27, wherein the connecting position (From Baldauff: Fig. 2, flat, visible face of drain panel 9) corresponds to an end position (From Baldauff: Fig. 2, flat, visible face of drain panel 9. An end position is a position that lies at a boundary or end, therefore the flat, visible face of drain panel 9 is an end position, because it is the end of drain panel 9 that is furthest from technical box 13) of the vapor deflection device (From Parmentier: Figs. 4, 5, 16-18, screen element 21 and fastening element 250 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, as explained in claim 19 above. See Par. 0062, “However, it is also within the scope of the invention that the movement devices 25 are connected or coupled to one another and thereby the screen elements 21, 22 are moved simultaneously.”).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (DE 102018221339 A1, hereafter Parmentier) in view of Tang et al. (CN 206140979 U, hereafter Tang), Koetter et al. (AT 405368 B, hereafter Koetter), Klunker (WO 2013156365 A1), Benthin (US 5595232 A), and Baldauff et al. (EP 0575681 A1, hereafter Baldauff) and further in view of Eckardt (US 20090305621 A1, hereafter Eckardt).
Regarding claim 31, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the table ventilation device of claim 25.
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose a transmitting element which is movably mounted, wherein the filter module is coupled to the drive spindle nut in the second mode of the drive unit after the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the drive spindle nut.
Baldauff further discloses a transmitter (Par. 0038, lines 276-269, “locking and unlocking” inherently discloses a transmitting element because the element which controls “locking and unlocking” causes a force to be passed through space or transmitted, “The sliding of the movable conduit 17 in the fixed conduit 15 is ensured by translational guide means, for example slides such as 19, with, for example, locking and unlocking at the end of travel, to which immobilization means in any intermediate position can be added.” As interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), a transmitting element is any structure that is capable of that is capable of transmitting and moving out of a movement path of a drive spindle nut. Therefore, the inherent structure associated with “locking and unlocking” almost comprises a ‘transmitting element’ because it is capable of transmitting a force to block the sliding of movable conduit 17 in fixed conduit 15 and is also capable of moving out of the movement path of movable conduit 17. Given it is capable of moving out of a path of a movable conduit 17, it is also capable of moving out of a movement path of a drive spindle nut) which is movably mounted (Par. 0038, lines 276-269, the structure associated with “locking and unlocking” must necessarily be movably mounted to move from the locked to the unlocked position), wherein the filter module (Figs. 1-3 and 6, filter suction head 11) is coupled to the movable portion of the lifting mechanism (Figs. 1-3 and 6 & Par. 0038, lines 270-272, movable conduit 17 moving within fixed conduit 15, as explained in claim 25) in the second mode (Fig. 3, which shows filter suction head 11 is coupled to movable conduit 17) after the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the movable portion of the lifting mechanism (Fig. 3 and Par. 0038, lines 276-269. When filter suction head 11 is coupled to the movable conduit 17, the movable conduit 17 may be unlocked so it can retract along the fixed conduit 15, which necessarily means unlocking (i.e., the transmitting element has been moved out of a movement path of the lifting mechanism) has occurred).
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 the table ventilation device of Parmentier with the same of Baldauff in order to securely attach the filter module to the drive spindle nut, via locking and unlocking, and thereby increase the reliability of the table ventilation device by better ensuring the user’s desired mode is maintained.
NOTE: Although Baldauff discloses a movable portion of a lifting mechanism instead of a drive spindle nut of a lifting mechanism, Parmentier, as modified above, discloses a drive spindle nut is the movable portion of a lifting mechanism, therefore modified Parmentier in further view of Baldauff reads on the ‘transmitting element’ claim limitation as recited above.
To the extent to which the Applicant disagrees that Baldauff discloses a transmitting element, then the Examiner notes that one, it’s well known in the art to have a locking mechanism in a translational guide and two, it would have been obvious to modify Baldauff in view of Eckardt. Eckardt discloses it is known to have a transmitting element (Fig. 6 and Par. 0036, detent pawl 26. A transmitting element is designed to cause a force to be passed through space or transmitted, therefore detent pawl 26 is a transmitting element because it has a locked and unlocked position caused by the bias of a spring (i.e., force)) which is movably mounted (Figs. 6-10 and Par. 0036, detent pawl 26 must necessarily be movably mounted to move from the locked to the unlocked position. Furthermore, detent pawl 26 is shown near the top of the device in Fig. 6, but near the bottom in Fig. 10, which necessarily means detent pawl 26 is movably mounted in the vertical direction as well).
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 the ventilation device of Baldauff with the transmitting element as disclosed by Baldauff in order to increase the granularity with which the user can position the filter module and thereby “offer the user the possibility of choosing the suction level himself by varying the position of the suction mouth and adapting it to his needs,” as suggested by Par. 0023, lines 138-140 of Baldauff.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parmentier et al. (DE 102018221339 A1, hereafter Parmentier) in view of Tang et al. (CN 206140979 U, hereafter Tang), Koetter et al. (AT 405368 B, hereafter Koetter), Klunker (WO 2013156365 A1), and Benthin (US 5595232 A) and in further view of Bosen et al. (EP 1340944 A2, hereafter Bosen).
Regarding claim 35, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 19 above, except for this further limitation: a passive latching element configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module such that the filter module is temporarily moveable with the vapor deflection device by the drive spindle nut in different operating states of the table ventilation device. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 19 above, with a further rejection for the additional limitation.
Parmentier, as modified above, discloses the filter module is temporarily moveable with the vapor deflection device (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 & Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 21 and fastening element 250, as explained in claim 19) to the filter module (Figs. 4, 5, 16-18 and Par. 0014, lines 176-178, screen element 22) by the drive spindle nut (From Tang: Fig. 2, nut slider 20. Additional citation from Parmentier: Par. 006, lines 936-938, “The associated fastening element 250 can be moved vertically via the movement device 25. As a result, the shield element 21 or 22 inserted into the fastening element 250 can be extended upwards or retracted downwards”) in different operating states of the table ventilation device (Par. 0020, lifting mechanism using spindles. When the table ventilation device in a non-operating state, the screen elements can be detached for cleaning. In this case, the lifting mechanism is temporarily uncoupled from the screen elements (i.e., filter module) in an non-operating state of the table ventilation device. Examiner notes that given screen element 22 is detachable from movement device 25, it must necessarily be capable of being attachable/couplable too).
However, Parmentier, as modified above, does not disclose a passive latching element configured to temporarily mechanically latch the vapor deflection device to the filter module.
Bosen discloses an extraction hood with a filter (Fig. 1, extraction hood 1 and filter cartridge 3) similar to the present invention and Bosen further discloses it is known to have a passive latching element (Fig. 1, slot 7 and tab 6 and Abstract, “a clip (6) installed on the cartridge for engaging in a slot (7) in the hood housing”. Clip 6 must be installed into slot 7 manually, therefore the fastening or latching of filter cartridge to the hood housing 8 must happen passively or induced by an outside agency (i.e., manually instead of via motorized means)) configured to temporarily mechanically latch a vapor deflection device (Fig. 1, hood housing 8. A vapor deflection device is a device that deflects or turns vapor aside, therefore hood housing 8 is a vapor deflection device because it aids in deflecting the flow of vapor) to a filter module (Fig. 1, filter cartridge 3).
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 the vapor deflection device and filter module of Parmentier, as modified above, to include the slot and clip, respectively, as taught by Bosen in order to latch the filter module to the vapor deflection device and thereby increase safety while simplifying manufacturing and handling of the filter module (As suggested by Bosen in the Description, 6th Par., “Safety devices against falling of a filter cartridge in the course of a Change process with the aim of simplifying the manufacture and handling are further educated”).
Statement of Prior Art
Regarding claim 29, the closest prior art of record are Feisthammel et al. (DE 102009001852 A1, hereafter Feisthammel ‘852), Feisthammel et al. (US 20070137635 A1, hereafter Feisthammel ‘635), and Cox (US 5566667 A).
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Feisthammel ‘852.
In particular, Feisthammel ‘852 discloses a latching mechanism (Figs. 10, 11 and Pg. 4, Par. 9, locking device 232, 211 and lever unit 31) arranged on the filter module (Figs. 5, 10, 11, filter element 24 and lower part of housing 23, and locking device 232, 211), the latching mechanism for connecting the filter module to the vapor deflection device (Figs. 5, 10, 11, viewscreen 21. A vapor deflection device is a device that deflects or turns vapor aside, therefore viewscreen 21 is a vapor deflection device because it deflects the flow of vapors from cooker 1 into suction 22),
Wherein the latching mechanism comprises:
a carrier plate coupled to the filter module (Fig. 5, joint 315, which carries filter element 24 and has a flat, thin piece of material or plate and is therefore a ‘carrier plate’),
a switchable driver element displaceably mounted (Figs. 5, 10, 11, lever 311, which is a component of lever unit 31 that comprises the latching mechanism. A switchable driver element is designed to switch or change the ability of a part or element to impart motion to another piece, therefore lever 311 is a switchable driver element because its extension or retraction either separates or connects the two components of locking mechanism 232 and 211. See Pg. 4, Par. 9.),
a switching plate (Fig. 11, rotary damper 318. A switching plate is a flat part or plate that is designed to switch or change the ability of a part or element to impart motion to another piece, therefore rotary damper 318 is a switchable driver element because it has a flat part and switches the clockwise motion of lever 312 to the counterclockwise motion of lever 311),
an upper switching lever (Fig. 12 and Pg. 5, Par. 5, highest limit switch 364. A switching lever is a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or lever that is designed to switch or change the ability of a part or element to impart motion to another piece, therefore upmost limit switch 364 is an upper switching lever because when it projects from the lower part of housing 23 and switches motor 363 from on to off when activated), and
a lower switching lever (Fig. 12 and Pg. 5, Par. 5, lowest limit switch 364, same rationale as explained above for the upper switching lever, just in a different location),
wherein the upper switching lever and the lower switching lever are arranged…such that…the switchable driver element is pivoted into the deactivated position when the lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device (Fig. 11 and Pg. 5, Par. 5, highest limit switch 364, lowest limit switch 364, viewscreen 21).
However, Feisthammel ‘852 does not disclose wherein the switchable driver element is temporarily moveable between an activated position in which the switchable driver element temporarily connects the filter module to the vapor deflection device, and a deactivated position in which the switchable driver element does not connect the filter module to the vapor deflection device and the upper switching lever and the lower switching lever are arranged on the switching plate and the driver element is activated when the upper switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device (emphasis added). At the time of this writing, Examiner hasn’t found a prior art teaching that has an upper and lower switching lever arranged on the switching plate, wherein the driver element is activated when the upper switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device and the driver element is deactivated when the lower switching lever is turned by the vapor deflection device. In addition, given the upper switching lever of Feisthammel ‘852 functions to turn off the motor controlling the motion of the driver element so the viewscreen 21 is not extended past the range of motion of the latching mechanism, any design choice rejection regarding activating instead of deactivating the upper switching lever of Feisthammel ‘852 would result in an unreasonable hindsight rejection and reconstruction of the claimed invention.
It is noted that claim 29 isn’t considered allowable subject matter at this time, as the claim has a 112(a) and 112(b) rejections applied to it in the instant Office Action. However, if the aforementioned rejections are overcome with the scope of the claim remaining the same or substantially the same, claim 29 may be considered to have allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 32, the closest prior art of record are Baldauff et al. (EP 0575681 A1), hereafter Baldauff, and Eckardt et al. (US 20090305621 A1), Eckardt.
In particular, Baldauff discloses the transmitting element (Par. 0038, lines 276-269, “locking and unlocking”, as explained in claim 31) is configured to release the movable portion of the lifting mechanism (Figs. 1-3 and 6 & Par. 0038, lines 270-272, movable conduit 17, as explained in claim 25) for moving the filter module (Figs. 3,4 and Par. 0040, line 282, filter suction head 11,“The filter suction head 11 is removably mounted at the lower end of the movable conduit 17.” Releasing the lock on the movable conduit 17 moves the filter suction head 11 from a n extended (Fig. 3) to an retracted (Fig. 4) position), when the transmitting element assumes a position out of the movement path (Par. 0038, lines 276-269, “unlocking”, which necessarily means the structure associated with the locking and unlocking is in a position out of the movement path of movable conduit 17).
However, Baldauff does not disclose the transmitting element is designed to block the vapor deflection device. At the time of this writing, Examiner hasn’t found a prior art teaching with a transmitting element designed to block the vapor deflection device and to release the extension means. In addition, any design choice rejection regarding modifying the transmitting element to block the vapor deflection device of Baldauff would result in an unreasonable hindsight rejection and reconstruction of the claimed invention.
It is noted that claim 31 at this time isn’t considered allowable subject matter as the claim has 112(a) and 112(b) rejections applied to it in the instant Office Action. However, if the aforementioned rejections are overcome with the scope of the claim remaining the same or substantially the same, claim 31 may be considered to have allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 33, the closest prior art of record are Baldauff et al. (EP 0575681 A1), hereafter Baldauff, and Eckardt et al. (US 20090305621 A1), Eckardt.
In particular, Baldauff discloses a guide (Par. 0038, lines 267-269, “slides such as 19”), said transmitting element (Par. 0038, lines 267-269, “locking and unlocking”, as explained in claim 31) being mounted in the guide (Par. 0038, lines 267-269, “at the end of travel”) and forms a stop ( Par. 0038, lines 267-269, “immobilization means”) for the vapor deflection device.
However, Baldauff does not disclose the transmitting element pivots out of the movement path of the drive spindle nut when an interruption of the guide is reached and at the same time forms a stop for the vapor deflection device. At the time of this writing, Examiner hasn’t found a prior art teaching with a transmitting element designed to stop the vapor deflection device and pivot out when an interruption of the guide is reached. In addition, any design choice rejection regarding modifying the transmitting element to block the vapor deflection device of Baldauff would result in an unreasonable hindsight rejection and reconstruction of the claimed invention.
It is noted that claim 33 at this time isn’t considered allowable subject matter as the claim has a 112(a) and 112(b) rejections applied to it in the instant Office Action. However, if the aforementioned rejections are overcome with the scope of the claim remaining the same or substantially the same, claim 33 may be considered to have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rohm (US 3779538 A) discloses in a first mode, a module is decoupled from the drive spindle nut and, in a second mode, a module is coupled to the drive spindle nut.
Spahr et al. (DE 3131316 C2) discloses it is known to have a drive spindle, a drive spindle nut, an upper switch, and a lower switch that cooperate to decouple and couple from a wheel.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights