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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 12, and 15 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are as previously presented. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pg. 5, regarding the objection to the claims has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pg. 5, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been considered and is persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pg. 6, under Section “1. Cheng’s Drive Mechanism is Not Detachable from a Lid”, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that as Cheng teaches that a drive mechanism 112 itself cannot be separated from cover assembly 108 that Cheng does not teach wherein the pull string drive device is configured to be detachable from the lid of the bowl. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “independent detachment” of drive mechanism 112 is not required by the claims. The drive mechanism 112 of Cheng is included in cover assembly 108 [0024]. Cover assembly 108 is removably coupled to lid 106 [0024]. Thus, drive mechanism 112 is detached from lid 106 when cover assembly 108 is detached as in Fig. 1 which satisfies the limitations of claim 1.The rejection of the claims under has been upheld.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pgs. 6-7, under Section “2. The Claimed Invention is Fundamentally Different”, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application does not include the pull string drive device as part of a larger cover assembly. Examiner agrees but notes that the lack of a larger cover assembly is not required by the claims and does not affect functioning of the pull string drive device. Thus, the rejection of the claims under has been upheld.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pg. 7, under Section “3. Cheng Teaches Away from the Claimed Invention”, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that as Cheng teaches a drive mechanism 112 situated inside a cover assembly 108 that Cheng teaches away from the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear how Cheng’s teaching that the drive mechanism 112 being situated in a cover assembly 108 teaches away from the claimed invention, as no other prior art of record is referenced relative to which Cheng might teach away. “Teaching away” concerns the combination of references. Furthermore, none of the prior art of record, including Cheng, is relied on as teaching the separation of its drive mechanism from a cover assembly. See MPEP §§ 2144.05(III)(B), 2145(X)(D)(2). Applicant also argues that Cheng does not address the technical problem of the instant application which is providing a modular drive mechanism. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technical problem of the instant application concerns pull-string based devices for transferring rotational motion to kitchen accessories which Cheng is also directed toward. Thus, the rejection of the claims under has been upheld.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/30/2025 on pgs. 7-8, under Section “4. The Combination Lacks a Motivation with Reasonable Expectation of Success”, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that as there is no teaching in Riede or Cheng to extract the drive mechanism 112 of Cheng from cover assembly 108 that Modified Riede does not teach the claimed invention. Examiner argues that this point is moot, as Cheng has not been relied on to teach extracting drive mechanism 121 from cover assembly 108 and that this feature is not required by the claims. Applicant argues that there is motivation lacking for combinations that are not made. Thus, the rejection of the claims under has been upheld.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Riede teaches a kitchen appliance (salad spin dryer, Fig. 1) comprising a self-contained pull string drive device (drive 10 “is located” [0012] in lid 1, Fig. 1) and a work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1), wherein the pull string drive device is configured for manually rotating the work unit (“cable pull drive by which the salad sieve can be rotated” [Abstract]) around a rotation axis (vertical axis 100, Fig. 1) by pulling a string (pull-cord 11, Fig. 1) transversely to the rotation axis (Fig. 1 shows extension of pull-cord 11 through horizontal direction which is at least partially transverse to vertical axis 100),
- the pull string drive device 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 (Fig. 2 shows coaxial placement of cord drum 12 and spiral spring 13 around axis 100), the string (pull-cord 11, Fig. 1), wherein one end of the string is wound around the drive wheel (end of pull-cord 11 which “may be wound or unwound” around “cord drum 12” [0013], Fig. 2) and the other end of the string is connected to (end of pull-cord 11 which “pull-cord 11 connects the handle 103” [0012], Fig. 1) a handle (handle 103); - the work unit comprising a lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1) closing a bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1); …and in that the lid comprises a male or a female part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) joined to a drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2), so as to cooperate with the drive wheel (“the cord drum 12 is turned in a first direction. The first lower free-wheel means 16 by way of this is brought into the blocking position and co-rotated. Via the already described positive-fit cam connection the free-wheel means also sets the rotating plate 14 into rotation in the first rotational direction” [0019]) by mechanical coupling (“rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 which are arranged about a central opening of the rotating plate 14 engages into corresponding openings on the lower side of a lower free-wheel means 16” [0015]; Cam and opening engagement is construed as mechanical coupling) in order to transmit a rotational movement from the device to the work unit (“first lower free-wheel means 16 on account of the renewed pulling-out of the pull-cord 11 again comes into a blocking function and effects a renewed movement of the free-wheel means and the rotating plate 14 connected to it, in the first rotational direction together with the cord drum 12” [0022]).
While Riede teaches the pull string drive device (drive 10, Fig. 1) and the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1) of the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1), Riede does not teach wherein the pull string drive device is configured to be detachable from the lid of the bowl.
Cheng teaches wherein a pull string drive device (drive mechanism 112, Fig. 1) is configured to be detachable (“cover assembly 108 is removeably coupled to lid 106, e.g., via a protrusion extending from lid 106. Cover assembly 108 includes a drive mechanism 112” [0024]; Drive mechanism 112 is included in cover assembly 108 which is detachable from lid 106.) from a lid (lid 106, Fig 1.) of a bowl (basket 104, Fig. 1).
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 pull string drive device of Riede to detach from a lid. Riede and Cheng are analogous arts because they both relate to pull-string operated salad spinners. Riede teaches a pull string device within a lid coupled to a rotating plate. Cheng teaches a pull string drive within a cover removably coupled to a rotating lid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a pull string drive device detachable from a lid. By doing so, one would be able to more easily remove parts for purposes like cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the pull string drive device (drive 10, Fig. 1; Riede) is configured to be releasable, attachable, or detachable (“cover assembly 108 is removeably coupled to lid 106, e.g., via a protrusion extending from lid 106. Cover assembly 108 includes a drive mechanism 112” [0024]; Drive mechanism 112 is included in cover assembly 108 which is detachable from lid 106.; Cheng) from the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) of the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede).
Regarding claim 3, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the kitchen appliance (salad spin dryer, Fig. 1; Riede) has a fastening system (bearing sleeve 172 and cover 18, Fig. 2; Riede) enabling the pull string drive device (drive 10, Fig. 1; Riede) to be temporarily and reversibly fastened (“cover assembly 108 is removeably coupled to lid 106, e.g., via a protrusion extending from lid 106. Cover assembly 108 includes a drive mechanism 112” [0024]; Drive mechanism 112 is included in cover assembly 108 which is detachable from lid 106.; Cheng) to the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) closing the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit.
Regarding claim 5, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the mechanical coupling (“rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 which are arranged about a central opening of the rotating plate 14 engages into corresponding openings on the lower side of a lower free-wheel means 16” [0015]; Cam and opening engagement is construed as mechanical coupling; Riede) is of the male/female type (“openings” [0015] and “cams” [0015] are construed as a female and male type respectively; Riede).
Regarding claim 6, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the drive wheel (cord drum 12, Fig. 2; Riede) comprises a female part (“corresponding openings on the lower side of a lower free-wheel means 16” [0015] also defined by walls of cord drum 12; Riede) cooperating with the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2; Riede) of the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede).
Regarding claim 7, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 6 (see mapping to claim 6 above), wherein the female part (“corresponding openings on the lower side of a lower free-wheel means 16” [0015]; Riede) comprises a space (“openings” [0015] are spaces; Riede) on a lower side (Fig. 2 depicts lower free-wheel means 16 as at least partially above upwardly projecting cams 142 and thus the “openings” are construed as being “on a lower side” of cord drum 12; Riede) of the drive wheel (cord drum 12, Fig. 2; Riede) for the mechanical coupling (“rotating plate 14 with a plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 which are arranged about a central opening of the rotating plate 14 engages into corresponding openings on the lower side of a lower free-wheel means 16” [0015]; Cam and opening engagement is construed as mechanical coupling; Riede) in order to transmit the rotational movement (“renewed movement of the free-wheel means” 16 “and the rotating plate 14 connected to it, in the first rotational direction” [0022]; Riede).
Regarding claim 10, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) and the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) or the drive interface and the female part are immobilized relative to each other (As lower free-wheel means 16 and cams 141 of rotating plate 14 are connected and rotate together [0022], cams 141 and means 16 are construed as being immobilized relative to each other; Riede).
Regarding claim 11, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 10 (see mapping to claim 10 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) and the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) or the drive interface and the female part are connected by locking means (“cams” [0015]; Riede).
Regarding claim 13, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), further comprising a translational locking system (“An abutment” [0020]; Riede) for translationally immobilizing (“An abutment prevents the pull-cord 11 from being pulled too far” [0020] is construed as preventing continued motion of pull-cord 11; Riede) the pull string drive device (drive 10, Fig. 1; Riede) relative to the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede).
Claims 4, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Repac (US 20120055303 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 3 (see mapping to claim 3 above), wherein the fastening system (bearing sleeve 172 and cover 18, Fig. 2; Riede).
Riede and Cheng do not teach is a bayonet fastening system.
Repac teaches is a bayonet fastening system (“detachably secured… by means of a bayonet connection” [0049]).
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 fastening system of Modified Riede to comprise a bayonet connection. Riede, Cheng, and Repac are analogous arts because they all relate to salad spinners. Riede teaches a bearing sleeve and cover for connecting a rotating plate and drive. Cheng teaches a pull string drive cover removably coupled to a rotating lid. Repac teaches a bayonet connecting for detachably securing a lid to a container. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a bayonet connection. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a fastening means that is “easy to produce with little effort” [0049], as identified by Repac.
Regarding claim 15, Riede, Cheng, and Repac teach the kitchen appliance according to claim 4 (see mapping to claim 4 above), wherein the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) comprises a system (tabs 142, Fig. 1; Riede) for connecting to the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Riede, Cheng, and Repac teach the kitchen appliance according to claim 4 (see mapping to claim 4 above), wherein the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) comprises a bayonet fastening system (“detachably secured… by means of a bayonet connection” [0049]; Repac) for connecting to the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede).
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 lid of Modified Riede to comprise a bayonet connection. Riede, Cheng, and Repac are analogous arts because they all relate to salad spinners. Riede teaches tabs/lugs for connecting a lid to a bowl. Cheng teaches protrusions for connecting a lid and a bowl. Repac teaches a bayonet connecting for detachably securing a lid to a container. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a bayonet connection. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a fastening means that is “easy to produce with little effort” [0049], as identified by Repac.
Regarding claim 20, Riede, Cheng, and Repac teach the kitchen appliance according to claim 4 (see mapping to claim 4 above), wherein the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) comprises a locking system (tabs 142 “serve as lugs” [0012], lugs are construed as performing locking; Riede) for connecting to the bowl (salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and D’Souza (US 20200315403 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 7 (see mapping to claim 7 above), wherein the space (“openings” [0015] are spaces; Riede) on the lower side (lower free-wheel means 16 are disposed on a “lower side” of cord drum 12, Fig. 2; Riede) of the drive wheel (cord drum 12, Fig. 2; Riede).
Modified Riede does not teach has a hexagonal cross section.
D’Souza teaches has a hexagonal cross section (“Connector 165 has a hexagonal seat that may connect the matching hexagon base of coupler 166” [0031], Figs. 5-6).
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 space of Modified Riede to comprise a hexagonal shape. Riede, Cheng, and D’Souza are analogous arts because they all relate to rotating kitchen appliances. Riede teaches a space on a drive wheel. Cheng teaches a hexagonally shaped output gear. D’Souza teaches a hexagonally shaped opening for coupling. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a hexagonal shape. By doing so, one would be able to securely connect pieces with a “snug fit arrangement” [0031], as identified by D’Souza.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Wong (US 20070256315 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above).
While Riede teaches the drive wheel (cord drum 12, Fig. 2; Riede) and the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede) of the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1; Riede), Riede does not teach wherein the drive wheel comprises a male part cooperating with the female part of the lid of the work unit. Wong teaches a drive wheel (drive gear 332, Fig. 7) comprising a male part (actuator 336, Fig. 7) cooperating with (“drive gear 332 engageable with the hub member 316 of the rotary drive plate 310 by use of an actuator 336” [0041]) a female part (hub member 316, Fig. 6) of a lid (rotary drive plate 310, Fig. 4) of a work unit (basket 200 and rotary drive plate 310, Fig. 4).
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 drive wheel and lid of Modified Riede to comprise male and female parts respectively. Riede, Cheng, and Wong are analogous arts because they all relate to salad spinners. Riede teaches spaces/female parts on a drive wheel. Cheng teaches a lid and output gear. Wong teaches an output gear with protruding parts that engage with a hub member on a lid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide male and female parts on a drive wheel and lid respectively. By doing so, one would be able to obtain the predictable result of engaging a drive wheel with a lid to facilitate rotation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Chau et al. (US 20080164357 A1), hereinafter Chau.
Regarding claim 12, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 1 (see mapping to claim 1 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) comprises a housing (Walls of means 16 define a housing around vertical axis 100, Fig. 2; Riede).
While Riede teaches the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1), Modified Riede does not teach for receiving a drive shaft positioned in the work unit.
Chau teaches a hole (circular hole 52, Fig. 2) for receiving a drive shaft (round axis 621 of the lower part of the torque-receiving device 62, Fig. 2) positioned in a work unit (lower lid 5, Fig. 2).
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 drive interface of Modified Riede to receive a drive shaft. Riede, Cheng, and Chau are analogous arts because they all relate to spinning kitchen appliances. Riede teaches a drive interface comprising housing/walls. Cheng teaches a lid and output gear. Chau teaches a drive shaft running through walls inside a lid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a drive shaft. By doing so, one would be able to obtain expand device functionality and transmit rotational power to other devices like “torque-receiving device 62 to rotate the blade assembly 3 to achieve the cutting of the food” [0035], as identified by Chau.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng; Chau et al. (US 20080164357 A1), hereinafter Chau, and Wong (US 20070256315 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Riede, Cheng, and Chau teach the kitchen appliance according to claim 12 (see mapping to claim 12 above), wherein the translational locking system (“An abutment” [0020]; Riede).
While Riede teaches a lower side (lower side of cord drum 12 of drive 10 above bearing element 19’, Fig. 2) of the pull string drive device (drive 10, Fig. 1), the lid (rotating plate 14, Fig. 1; Riede), the drive wheel (cord drum 12, Fig. 2), and the work unit (rotating plate 14 and salad sieve 3, Fig. 1), Modified Riede does not teach comprises a stop pin positioned on a lower side of a device and configured to cooperate with a housing for the lid to align the drive wheel and the work unit.
Wong teaches a stop pin (brake pad 354, Fig. 11) positioned on a lower side of a device (lower side of turning arm 370, Fig. 10) and configured to cooperate with a housing (raised ring portion 312, Fig. 11) for the lid (rotary drive plate 310, Fig. 11) to align a drive wheel (drive gear 332, Fig. 7) and a work unit (rotary drive plate 310 and inner basket 200, Figs. 4, 11).
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 locking system of Modified Riede to comprise male and female parts respectively. Riede, Cheng, Chau, and Wong are analogous arts because they all relate to spinning kitchen appliances. Riede teaches an abutment for stopping translational movement of a cord. Cheng teaches a lid and output gear. Chau teaches a lid. Wong teaches a stop pin positioned on a lower side of a device that impacts a lid housing. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a stop pin and housing. By doing so, one would be able to obtain the predictable result of arresting the motion of a spinning lid.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Wan (US 20080078296 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 10 (see mapping to claim 10 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) and the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) or the drive interface and the female part are connected by screws, keys, or pins.
Modified Riede does not teach are connected by screws, keys, or pins.
Wan teaches are connected by screws (posts 28 have a “threaded portion” [0021], Figs. 5, 7), keys, or pins.
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 connection of Modified Riede to comprise screws. Riede, Cheng, and Wan are analogous arts because they all relate to salad spinners. Riede teaches an opening and cam arrangement. Cheng teaches a lid. Wan teaches screwing plate and drive support elements together. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide screws. By doing so, one would be able to better “secure” elements “for simultaneous movement” [0021], as identified by Wan.
Regarding claim 18, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 10 (see mapping to claim 10 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) and the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) or the drive interface and the female part.
Modified Riede does not teach are connected by pins.
Wan teaches are connected by pins (non-threaded portion of posts 28, Fig. 7).
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 connection of Modified Riede to comprise pins. Riede, Cheng, and Wan are analogous arts because they all relate to salad spinners. Riede teaches an opening and cam arrangement. Cheng teaches a lid. Wan teaches joining multiple elements through the non-threaded body of a post/pin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide pins. By doing so, one would be able to achieve the predictable result of connecting two objects.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riede (US 20040168583 A1) further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20060144257 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Krebs (US 20170105578 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Riede and Cheng teaches the kitchen appliance according to claim 10 (see mapping to claim 10 above), wherein the drive interface (lower free-wheel means 16, Fig. 2; Riede) and the male part (plurality of upwardly projecting cams 141 are construed as male parts, Fig. 2) or the drive interface and the female part
Modified Riede does not teach are connected by keys.
Krebs teaches are connected by keys (“complementary coupling means, such as internal lugs, keys” [0004]).
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 connectivity of Modified Riede to comprise keys. Riede, Cheng, and Krebs are analogous arts because they all relate to kitchen appliances. Riede teaches an opening and cam arrangement. Cheng teaches a lid. Krebs teaches keys for coupling elements. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide keys. By doing so, one would be able to obtain elements “removed quickly and conveniently” [0004], as identified by Krebs.
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 ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (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.
/A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761