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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
With respect to the arguments regarding the drawing objection. The drawings do not make clear which elements are the structure and which are the substructure. The reference numerals are indicated by lead lines to the same area and it is unclear which elements in the drawings are the substructure and which are broader structures that encompass the substructures. While, as applicant argues, it is common to have drawings with structures/sub-structures these drawings generally indicate the combinations/larger-structures via bracketing or other means to make clear what is encompassed by each reference numeral. As Applicant states the rules “require reference characters and lead lines to identify the relevant features clearly”. This is not the case in the submitted drawings. The drawing objection is maintained.
With respect to the Election/Restriction requirement upon allowance of a generic claim rejoinder will be performed as required.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) the Examiner must admit to some confusion. Applicant states that the terms should not be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) but should instead be interpreted as the structures presented in the specification relating to the specific claim language, e.g. “locking element” “preparation module.” Applicant also states that given the structures provided in the specification these are “sufficiently definite mechanical structures.” However, the Examiner has not stated that there is any issue in the claims with respect to indefiniteness, and is by virtue of the interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) already interpreting the language as the sufficiently definite disclosed structures pursuant to their respective definitions in the specification. In any event, Applicant has provided no arguments relevant to the three-prong test for interpretation under 35 USC §112 (f) and therefore the interpretation is still considered valid.
With respect to the prior art rejections the amendments overcome the previously presented rejection to McGill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35 and 36 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.
Applicant now includes the claim language “directly or indirectly.” The specification as originally filed states “at least indirectly” (previously rejected as indefinite). However, there is no support as originally filed for possession of a solely “indirect” connection. In fact, all of the specific embodiments and structures are drawn towards a “direct” connection. Since an indirect connection would, by necessity, require intermediate non-disclosed structures (the indirect connectors) and there is no definite description of these intermediate structures in the originally filed disclosure.
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 11, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 and 27-34 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 14 (and 27-34 by dependency) re-introduces several elements such as “a kitchen device base” and “a locking element” which are already present in parent claim 10. As such it is unclear if these are referring to the same structure or newly introduced limitations.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, claim 11 (and by dependency 19) introduce “at least two driver counter-contours.” However, claim 10 from which these claims depend already recites “at least two driver counter-contours.” As such it is unclear if claim 11 is introducing two additional counter-contours or if these recitations refer back to the counter -contours of claim 10.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the claims are directed to method steps “such that in a first step …”, “subsequently in a second step”. This is an improper combination of method and product claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 13, 20, 25 and 26 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights