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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numerals: 3/3b, 7/7a, 8/8b, 12/12a, 35/35a, appear to be have lead lines directed to the same structure in the drawings despite being referred to as disparate structures in the written description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the species requirement in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive as the components of the mutually exclusive species require different search queries within the crowded art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive unit”, “locking element”, “preparation module” and “locking counter-element” in all claims by dependency.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9
The term “effected at least indirectly by the drive lever” is indefinite. There is no art accepted or Applicant provided definition for determining what amount of action “at least indirectly” would require from the drive lever.
Regarding claim 22
The term “at least partially simultaneously” is indefinite. There is no art accepted or Applicant provided definition allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how much coordination would be required to meet the definition of “at least partially simultaneously”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2005/070271 to McGill.
McGill discloses:
Regarding claim 1
A kitchen device base (24) comprising at least one collection area for at least one preparation module (14), whereby the collection area has at least one locking means (Fig. 5) for the purpose of mechanical locking of the preparation module, wherein the locking means has at least one drive unit (40, 42) and at least one movably mounted locking element (34), that the locking element can be moved at least indirectly by means of the drive unit (See movement shown in Figs. 2-5), at least between a release position and a locking position (Figs. 2-5), that in the release position the preparation module can be arranged in at least two different orientations in the collection area (it can be rotated in any number of positions as it is unconstrained in the release position), and that in the locking position the preparation module is locked to the kitchen device base (Fig. 8 and 9 show the “locked” position).
Regarding claim 2
wherein the locking element can be rotated by the drive unit, at least indirectly or directly (Figs. 2-5; while the locking rotation direction is not the same as that disclosed by Applicant a clear rotation around the axis coming into and out of the page can be seen in Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 3
the kitchen device further comprising at least one drive lever (36), such that the drive unit interacts with the drive lever in order to move the locking element (Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 4
wherein the locking element is connected to the drive lever in a form-fitting manner (Figs. 8 and 9)
Regarding claim 5
wherein the locking element can be moved in a locking plane (34 moves in a plane perpendicular to axis of 40),wherein the locking plane is oriented essentially parallel to a stand space of the kitchen device base (Fig. 8 shows the stands; a plane taken along the surfaces aligned with the page would be parallel to the plane that 34 moves in).
Regarding claim 6
wherein the locking element has at least one locking section (surface of 34 that interacts with 35), and that the locking section in the locking position interacts in a form-fitting locking manner with at least one locking counter-section (35) of the preparation module when the preparation module is in the collection area (the interlocking of 34 and 35 is shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7
wherein the locking element has at least one driver contour (inner contact surface contour), and that the driver contour is designed for interaction with a driver counter-contour (contact counter of 35), on a locking counter-element on the preparation module (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10
A preparation module for arranging in a collection area of a kitchen device base (24), wherein a rotatably mounted locking counter-element is present (35), that the locking counter-element can be moved by a locking element (34) of the kitchen device base at least between a locking position and a release position (Figs. 2-5), and that the locking counter-element is configured such that the locking element of the kitchen device base can engage in a form-fitting manner in at least two positions on the locking counter-element for movement (the base is free to rotate and be engaged in any number of arbitrary positions).
Regarding claim 12
wherein the locking counter-element has at least one circumferential groove (As can be seen 35 makes an “L” shape in Fig. 11, the interior of the “L” may be considered a groove), and that the locking counter-element is rotatably mounted by means of the groove (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13
wherein at least one preparation space is present (interior of 10), the preparation space configured to be closed with at least one lid (12),wherein at least one lid locking device is present (12 engages with 35 and 34 as shown in Fig. 1, the portion of the flange of 12 shown in detail there may be considered the “lid locking device”), the locking counter- element is operatively connected with the lid locking device, so that at least one lid that can be arranged on the preparation module can be locked with the lid locking device (Fig. 10), at least in the locking position of the locking counter-element (I.e. the lid has 35 which engages with 34).
Regarding claim 14
A kitchen device (blender) with at least one kitchen device base (Figs, 1-11 all structure on which the preparation device sits) and at least one preparation module according to claim 10 (see mapping of prep. Module structure).
Regarding claim 16
Wherein the locking element is designed as a locking ring (Figs. 10 and 11 substantially annular in locking position).
Regarding claim 18
Wherein the locking plane is oriented essentially parallel to a top side of the kitchen device (as explained in the rejection of claim 5 with the understanding that “top side” is a relative term the extending lateral sides are above the lowest sections of the device and thus may be considered a “top side”).
Regarding claim 20
wherein the groove interacts with at least one circumferential web (the lateral side of 12 which extends to 13 may be considered the “web”).
Regarding claim 21
wherein the drive unit has at least one motor (page 3 “preferably the locking means is operated by a motor”) and at least one gear (40), and that the gear is operationally connected to the drive lever (Figs. 2-5).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill in view of EP 0895742 to Balandler.
Regarding claims 8 and 11
McGill teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein at least one electrical interface is present, the electrical interface having at least two power contacts and at least one auxiliary contact, and that at least one of the power contacts and/or at least the auxiliary contact of the electrical interface can be moved from a resting position at least in the direction of a contact position on the kitchen device base, during and/or after the arrangement of the preparation module in the collection area, by means of the drive unit.
Balandler teaches that it is known in home appliances to provide an electrical interface (Fig. 1) having at least two power contacts (22, 23) and that the at least one power contact can be moved from a resting position at least in a direction of a contact position on the device base (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 moved by means of 24) during the arrangement of the preparation module (the kettle) in the collection area.
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McGill such that it includes an electrical interface as taught by Balandler in order to prevent device operation unless the device base is in the proper position.
Balandler and McGill as modified fail to also teach an auxiliary power contact, however since the auxiliary power contact does not provide any differentiating function above and beyond providing power it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify McGill to include auxiliary electrical contact as this is nothing more than a duplication of the electrical contact structure which could be performed in order to provide redundancy to the system. Note that it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the duplication of structure a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Regarding claim 19
Wherein the driver counter contours are arranged opposite one another (Fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to show using the drive mechanism to simultaneously lock the preparation device and enable the electrical connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761