DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1: the bullets “-“ as cited in lines 4 and 7, should be removed.
In claim 15: the limitation “a fastening system” as cited in line 2, should be changed to –a lid fastening system--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Notification regarding 35 USC § 112f
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 112f:
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.
Claim limitation “a second work unit” in claim 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a second work unit” coupled with functional language “attachable to…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, it is not clear “a second work unit. Thus, for the purpose of examination, it is assumed “a second work unit” is one of the parts of the bowl or it can be an intended use object.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1: the limitation: “a second work unit”, is indefinite because it is unclear what “a second work unit” is. Clarification is required.
It is assumed that “a second work unit” is one of the parts of the bowl or it can be an intended use object. It is suggested the applicant to specific define the structure of “a working unit”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Riede (US 20040168583 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Riede discloses
A kitchen appliance (salad spin dryer, fig.1) comprising:
a self-contained pull string drive device (lid 1, figs.1-2) and
a work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2);
wherein the pull string device (lid 1) is configured for manually rotating the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14) around a rotation axis by pulling a string (pull-cord 11, figs.1-2) transversely to the rotation axis,
the pull string device (lid 1) comprising a drive wheel (cord drum 12, fig.2), a return spring (spiral spring 13, fig.2), all positioned coaxially relative to the rotation axis, a string (pull-cord 11), wherein one end of the string (pull-cord 11) is wound around the drive wheel (cord drum 12) and other end of the string (pull-cord 11) is connected to a handle (handle 103, fig.1);
the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14) comprising a lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) closing a bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2);
wherein the pull string drive device (lid 1) is configured to be detachable1 from the lid (rotation plate 14) of the bowl (salad sieve 3) and attachable to a second work unit (container lower part 2, fig.1), the lid (rotation plate 14) comprises a male or a female part [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”] joined to a drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2), so as to cooperate with the drive wheel (cord drum 12) by mechanical coupling (cover 18, bearing bushing 19, fig.2) in order to transmit a rotational movement from the device (lid 1) to the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Riede discloses
the pull string drive device (lid 1, figs.1-2) is configured to be releasable, attachable or detachable from the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) of the bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Riede discloses
the appliance (salad spin dryer, fig.1) has a fastening system (bearing sleeve 172, fig.2) enabling the device to be temporarily and reversibly fastened to the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) closing the bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2) of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Riede discloses
the mechanical coupling (cover 18, bearing bushing 19, fig.2) is of the male/female type [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”].
Regarding claim 6, Riede discloses
the drive wheel (cord drum 12, fig.2) comprises a female part cooperating with the male part of the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2) [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”].
Regarding claim 7, Riede discloses
the female part comprises a space on a lower side for the mechanically coupled accommodation of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2) [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”] in order to transmit the rotational movement.
Regarding claim 9, Riede discloses
the drive wheel (cord drum 12, fig.2) comprises a male part cooperating with the female part of the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2) [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”].
Regarding claim 10, Riede discloses
the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the male part or the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16) and the female part are immobilized relative to each other [Par.0015 cited: “…rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 …”].
Regarding claim 11, Riede discloses
the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the male part or the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16) and the female part are connected by locking means (projecting cams 141, fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Riede discloses
the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) comprises a housing (housing of lower free-wheel means 16) for receiving a drive shaft (inner part of cover 18, fig.2) positioned in the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Riede discloses
the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the male part or the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the female part are connected by screws, keys, or pins [lower free-wheel means 16 is inherently connected by screw or pins].
Regarding claim 17, Riede discloses
the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the male part or the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, fig.2) and the female part are connected by keys [lower free-wheel means 16 is inherently connected by keys, screw, or pins].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) in view of D’ Souza (US 20200315403 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Riede discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the space on the lower side of the drive wheel (cord drum 12, fig.2) but does not disclose it has a hexagonal cross section.
D’ Souza discloses a device (automated cooking machine 100, fig.1) comprises a connector (connector 165, coupler 166, figs.5-6) [Par.0031 cited: “…Connector 165 has a hexagonal seat that may connect the matching hexagon base of coupler 166…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drive wheel of Riede, has a hexagonal cross section, as taught by D’ Souza, in order to securely connect parts with a snug fit arrangement (D’ Souza, Par.0031).
Claims 4, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) in view of Repac (US 20120055303 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Riede discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the fastening system (bearing sleeve 172, fig.2) but does not disclose it is a bayonet fastening system.
Repac discloses a fastening system is a bayonet fastening system [Par.0049 cited: “…detachably secured… by means of a bayonet connection…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to replace the fastening system of Riede, by using a bayonet fastening system, as taught by Repac, in order to obtain a fastening means that is easy to produce with little effort (Repac, Par.0049).
Regarding claim 15, Riede discloses
the lid (lid 1, figs.1-2) comprises a fastening system (tabs 142, fig.1) for connecting to the bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2) of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) that immobilizes the lid with respect to the bowl (salad sieve 3) when connected (lid 1).
Regarding claim 19, Riede discloses
the bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2) of the work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) but does not disclose it is a bayonet fastening system or a locking system.
Repac discloses a fastening system is a bayonet fastening system [Par.0049 cited: “…detachably secured… by means of a bayonet connection…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Riede, by using a bayonet fastening system, as taught by Repac, in order to obtain a fastening means that is easy to produce with little effort (Repac, Par.0049).
Claims 14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) in view of Wong (US 20070256315 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Riede discloses
a translational locking system (abutment, Par.0020) for translationally immobilizing the pull string drive device (lid 1, figs.1-2) relative to the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2), the lower side facing the lid (rotation plate 14) when the pull string device (lid 1) is attached to the lid (rotation plate 14) but does not disclose wherein the translational locking system comprises a stop pin extending from lower side of the pull string drive device, and wherein the stop pin is configured to be inserted into the lid to align the drive wheel and the working unit.
Regarding claim 21, Riede discloses
the lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2) includes a housing (housing of rotation plate 14) extending from an exterior surface of the lid (rotation plate 14) away from the bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2) but does not disclose the housing configured to receive the stop pin.
Regarding claim 22, Riede does not disclose
the stop pin is spaced apart from the drive wheel along a longitudinal axis of the pull string device such the handle is closer to the stop pin than the drive wheel.
Regarding claim 23, Riede does not disclose
the stop pin is configured to engage a lid of the second work unit.
Wong discloses a device (salad spinner 10, fig.1) comprises a stop pin (brake pad 354, fig.11) positioned on a lower side of the device (arm 370) and configured to cooperate with a housing (raised ring portion 312, fig.11) for the lid (rotary drive plate 310, fig.11) align a drive wheel (drive gear 332, fig.7) and a work unit (rotary drive plate 310, inner basket 200, figs.2, 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the translational locking system of Riede, by comprising a stop pin, as taught by Wong, in order to obtain the predictable result of arresting the motion of a spinning lid, such that the combination read on the stop pin is spaced apart from the drive wheel along a longitudinal axis of the pull string device such the handle is closer to the stop pin than the drive wheel; and the stop pin is configured to engage a lid of the second work unit, as “a lid of the second work unit” is statement of intended use.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1, filed on 04/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The task of 102 rejections is “a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference”. Verdagaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631,2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In this case, claim 1 is anticipated with each and every element as cited in the claim, that is found by the prior art Riede, with a kitchen appliance (salad spin dryer, fig.1); a self-contained pull string drive device (lid 1, figs.1-2); a work unit (salad sieve 3 and rotation plate 14, fig.1-2); a drive wheel (cord drum 12, fig.2); a return spring (spiral spring 13, fig.2); a string (pull-cord 11); a handle (handle 103, fig.1); a lid (rotation plate 14, figs.1-2); and a bowl (salad sieve 3, figs.1-2). See figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kirschbaum (US 20100083847 A1) is considered as a relevant prior art in field of a salad spinning assembly, as shown in fig.1, with a lid and a bowl, but does not disclose a drive wheel and a return spring…
PNG
media_image2.png
444
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/14/2026
1 The lid 1 can be detachable/removable if needed, during manufacturing assembly or replace a part. See fig.2.
Prosecution Insights