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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 02/24/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of EP22158604.3 application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, "the guide contour is configured as a handle element on the outside of the preparation vessel" as claimed in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract contains legal phraseology "means". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites "to move the actuating." It is missing “means” at the end of the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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. The claim limitations using the word “means” are:
actuating means interpreted as ring as described in Fig. 4 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
valve actuating means interpreted as rod as described in Fig. 5 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
locking means interpreted as ring as described in Fig. 5 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
drive means interpreted as ring as described in Fig. 2 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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:
intermediate element in claim 4, interpreted as described in Fig. 5 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
locking contour in claim 12, interpreted as described in Fig. 4 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
safety device in claim 13, interpreted as valve as described in paragraph [69 ] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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(b)
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least indirectly”. It is not clear what structure is referred to by “at least indirectly”.
Claim 3 recites “at least indirectly moveable”. It is not clear what structure is referred to by “at least indirectly”.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 depend on claim 1, and recite “A preparation vessel”. It is not clear if the dependent claims are referring to the same or different preparation vessel as cited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the guide contour is configured as a handle element on the outside of the preparation vessel”. It is not clear what structure of guide contour is handle.
Claim 10 depends on claims 1 and 9, and recites “the actuator tooth bar”. However, tooth bar is not mentioned in claims 1 and 9.
Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected based on their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Falkenbach , US 4297038 (hereafter Falkenbach).
Regarding claim 1,
A preparation vessel (container 1) arranged on a kitchen appliance base (motor base 4) of a kitchen appliance having at least one preparation space (Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
554
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Falkenbach
at least one lid (10) for locking the preparation space,
at least one actuator element (lock ring 9),
and at least one actuating means (holder 2),
wherein the actuator element is movably mounted in an interface area relative to the kitchen appliance base (Fig. 3),
the actuating means is actuated by the actuator element, (Column 2, lines 47-54 teaches “When the holder 2 is placed on the motor base 4 the projections 7 move in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) and press against the lock bolts 8, three of which are distributed about the circumference of a lock ring 9 arranged on the inside of the motor base, and thus make the interlocking mechanism (shown in FIGS. 6 and 7) capable of operation.” )
PNG
media_image2.png
567
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 in Falkenbach
and locking and unlocking of the lid is realized by actuating the actuating means
PNG
media_image3.png
555
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Falkenbach
wherein at least one valve (switch 27) and at least one valve actuating means (lock rod 26) are provided,
and that the valve actuating means is actuated at least indirectly with the actuating means. ( The claim is interpreted as valve is actuated when lid is locked/unlocked.
Abstract teaches “The blender further includes a lock bar 11 which has a stud on one end and which defines a recess 29. The stud is adapted to cooperate with the lock ring for the rotation thereof, and the recess is adapted to selectively block or allow movement of a lock rod 26 equipped with a shoulder, which prevents rotation of said electric operating switch when the above locking elements are in their unlocked positions.”)
Regarding claim 2,
The preparation vessel according to claim 1,wherein the actuating means is at least partially rotatably mounted about a common first axis of rotation (X1) with the actuator element or the actuating means is at least partially rotatably mounted about a second axis of rotation (X2). (The claim is interpreted as the actuating means is partially rotatable around an axis. Fig. 6 and 7 teaches rotatable lock ring 9.)
Regarding claim 3,
The preparation vessel according to claim 1 wherein a locking means is provided (edge 20 of holder 2), the locking means is at least indirectly moveable by the actuating means for locking the lid (edge 20 moves with holder 2 as taught in Fig. 3), and the locking means is moveable by the actuating means at least between a release position and a locking position. (Fig. 3 teaches a locking position of edge 20 and holder 2. It is implied that when holder is in release position, edge 20 is also in release position.)
Regarding claim 4,
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein a displaceable intermediate element is provided (Fig. 3), the intermediate element is moveable by the actuating means (Fig. 3),
wherein a locking means (edge 20) is moveable at least between a release position and a locking position with the intermediate element, and/or the valve actuating means is actuated with the intermediate element. (Fig. 3 teaches a locking position of edge 20 and holder 2. It is implied that when holder is in release position, edge 20 is also in release position.)
Regarding claim 5,
The preparation vessel according to claim 4, wherein the intermediate element , (Annotated Fig. 3 )
PNG
media_image4.png
392
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Part of Fig. 3 in Falkenbach
and the valve actuating means is actuated with the contact slope. (Fig. 3, 6, 7 teach that lock rod 26 is activated after holder 2 is mounted on the lid 10.)
Regarding claim 6,
A preparation vessel according to claim 4, wherein the intermediate element is movably mounted in a guide contour, (Fig. 4 teaches holder 2 with guide surfaces 35, 36, 37)
and the guide contour is configured as a handle element on the outside of the preparation vessel. (The claim is interpreted as guide contour is accessible by a user. Fig. 1 teaches that guide contours of holder 2 is accessible to a user.)
Regarding claim 9,
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein the actuator element interacts in a form-fitting manner with the actuating means to move the actuating. (Fig. 7 teaches lock bolt 8 of lock ring 9 moves into the lock bolt support 12 in holder 2.)
Regarding claim 12,
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein the actuator element has at least one locking contour, and the locking contour is configured for interacting with a mating locking contour on the kitchen appliance base. (Column 2, line 65- column 3, line 1 teaches “The lock ring 9 also has three longitudinal holes 17 distributed about its circumference, and screws 14 with springs 16 pass through each of these longitudinal holes, the screws being attached at 15 to the motor base 4.”)
Regarding claim 14,
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein the valve actuating means (Fig. 1 and 2 imply that a user manually actuates holder.)
Regarding claim 15,
A kitchen appliance having at least one kitchen appliance base and at least one preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein the preparation vessel is arranged in a receiving area on the kitchen appliance base (Fig. 3) ; wherein the kitchen appliance base has a drive means for interacting with the actuator element of the preparation vessel in the state of the preparation vessel in which it is arranged in the receiving area. (Column 2, line 65- column 3, line 1 teaches “The lock ring 9 also has three longitudinal holes 17 distributed about its circumference, and screws 14 with springs 16 pass through each of these longitudinal holes, the screws being attached at 15 to the motor base 4.” Here 15 is drive means.)
Regarding claim 16,
The preparation vessel according to claim 3, wherein the valve actuating means is configured to be actuated by the locking means. ( The claim is interpreted as valve is actuated when lid is locked/unlocked.
Abstract teaches “The blender further includes a lock bar 11 which has a stud on one end and which defines a recess 29. The stud is adapted to cooperate with the lock ring for the rotation thereof, and the recess is adapted to selectively block or allow movement of a lock rod 26 equipped with a shoulder, which prevents rotation of said electric operating switch when the above locking elements are in their unlocked positions.”)
Regarding claim 17,
The preparation vessel according to claim 5, wherein the contact slope is arranged at one end area of the intermediate element. (Annotated Fig. 3 )
PNG
media_image4.png
392
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Part of Fig. 3 in Falkenbach
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenbach as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Juriga, US 20020071340(hereafter Juriga).
The preparation vessel according to claim 4, wherein the intermediate element . (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Juriga teaches coupling means to couple lid and base in Fig. 1. Column 5, lines 6-8 teaches “coupling means may also be realized in another manner, for example with the aid of gear transmissions comprising toothed racks and toothed wheels.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coupling between intermediate element and actuating means with gear transmission comprising tooth as taught in Juriga in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “both the first coupling means (36) and the second coupling means (37) are constructed in such a manner that an automatic activation of the safety device (9) can be achieved by these two coupling means (36, 37)” as taught in abstract in Juriga.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenbach as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juriga, US 20020071340(hereafter Juriga).
Regarding claim 8,
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein the actuating means has at least a first tooth ring and at least a second tooth ring. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Juriga teaches coupling means to couple lid and base in Fig. 1. Column 5, lines 6-8 teaches “coupling means may also be realized in another manner, for example with the aid of gear transmissions comprising toothed racks and toothed wheels.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coupling between intermediate element and actuating means with gear transmission comprising tooth racks and tooth wheels as taught in Juriga in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “both the first coupling means (36) and the second coupling means (37) are constructed in such a manner that an automatic activation of the safety device (9) can be achieved by these two coupling means (36, 37)” as taught in abstract in Juriga.
Regarding claim 18,
The preparation vessel according to claim 8, wherein the first tooth ring and the second tooth ring have different toothing properties to realize a translation. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Juriga teaches coupling means to couple lid and base in Fig. 1. Column 5, lines 6-8 teaches “coupling means may also be realized in another manner, for example with the aid of gear transmissions comprising toothed racks and toothed wheels.” It is implied that toothed racks and wheels are optimized to achieve desired translation. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05-II sets forth that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective
variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coupling between intermediate element and actuating means with gear transmission comprising tooth as taught in Juriga in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “both the first coupling means (36) and the second coupling means (37) are constructed in such a manner that an automatic activation of the safety device (9) can be achieved by these two coupling means (36, 37)” as taught in abstract in Juriga.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenbach as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Appleby, US 1141299 (hereafter Appleby).
Regarding claim 10,
The preparation vessel according to claim 9, wherein the actuator tooth bar has at least a first tooth bar section and at least a second tooth bar section, and the first tooth bar section and the second tooth bar section are spaced apart from one another by at least one intermediate area. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Appleby teaches gears 31 and 32 in Fig. 8 wherein gear 32 has discontinued tooth.)
PNG
media_image5.png
176
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Appleby
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a gear system with discontinued tooth as taught in Appleby in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The gear wheel 32 has its teeth discontinued at one portion as indicated in Fig. 8, that is, the gear 32 is mutilated at one portion of its periphery so as to be relieved of engagement with the gear 31 at this point” as taught in page 2, lines 100-106 in Appleby.
Regarding claim 20,
The preparation vessel according to claim 10, wherein the first tooth bar section and the second tooth bar section are spaced apart from one another by at least one intermediate area, such that no force is transmitted from the actuator element to the actuating element in the intermediate area. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Appleby teaches gears 31 and 32 in Fig. 8 wherein gear 32 has discontinued tooth.)
PNG
media_image5.png
176
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Appleby
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a gear system with discontinued tooth as taught in Appleby in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The gear wheel 32 has its teeth discontinued at one portion as indicated in Fig. 8, that is, the gear 32 is mutilated at one portion of its periphery so as to be relieved of engagement with the gear 31 at this point” as taught in page 2, lines 100-106 in Appleby.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenbach as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anota et al., US 9526367 (hereafter Anota).
A preparation vessel according to claim 1, wherein at least one safety device is provided, the safety device being arranged and configured to prevent the lid for as long as a threshold value of a pressure in the preparation space is exceeded. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Anota teaches in column 2, lines 55-65 “the cooking utensil is provided with at least one locking valve mounted on the lid and suitable, under the effect of the pressure prevailing inside the utensil, for taking up a sealing high position and a leakage low position, said locking valve being mounted so that, when said at least one locking member is in the locking position, it is free to take up its high position, thereby locking said at least one locking member in its locking position.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the safety device as taught in Anota in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “said locking valve being mounted so that, when said at least one locking member is in the locking position, it is free to take up its high position, thereby locking said at least one locking member in its locking position” as taught in column 2, lines 58-65 in Anota.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenbach as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Juriga, US 20020071340(hereafter Juriga).
The preparation vessel according to claim 9, wherein the actuator element has at least one actuator tooth bar. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Juriga teaches coupling means to couple lid and base in Fig. 1. Column 5, lines 6-8 teaches “coupling means may also be realized in another manner, for example with the aid of gear transmissions comprising toothed racks and toothed wheels.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coupling between intermediate element and actuating means with gear transmission comprising tooth as taught in Juriga in the vessel of Falkenbach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “both the first coupling means (36) and the second coupling means (37) are constructed in such a manner that an automatic activation of the safety device (9) can be achieved by these two coupling means (36, 37)” as taught in abstract in Juriga.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights