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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Invention I, Species I, claims 1-11, 14-16, and 19-22 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Furthermore, claim 22 does not read on the elected Species, since it recites “two contour washers” which belong to Species II and III. The elected Species I does not have said “two contour washers”.
Furthermore, claim 10 also does not read on the elected Species I, since it recites that “said other, second [sic] lever is in direct contact with said contour device”. In the elected Species I, the lever (60) is in indirect contact with said contour device (37) via a slider (22).
Accordingly, claims 10 and 22 have been withdrawn from further consideration on the merits along with claims 12, 13, 17, 18, and 23.
The Office action on the elected claims 1-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-21 follows.
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 “two disconnectable connecting contacts” (claim 1, l. 14) and a “holding area” (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 specification is objected. The references to claims (e.g., see par. [0005]) must be deleted as claims are subject to amendments and/or cancellations during prosecution.
Furthermore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, requires the specification to be written in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." The specification contains terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “contact spring arms advantageously consist [sic] of metal” (par. [0010]); “Another contact spring arm of this contact spring reaches the tripping device in electrically contacting manner, or is in contact therewith or with its heating element. This may also be done in flexible manner, but this is immaterial for the invention.” (i.e., a cumbersome clause par. [0010]), etc.
Furthermore, the reference number “53” refers to both - the “connecting contact” (par. [0046]) and the “contact spring arm” (par. [0047]).
Examiner would like to emphasize that aforementioned problems are only the examples. 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. Applicant must carefully review the entire disclosure and to amend the specification and the abstract in proper English, without any artifacts of the incorrect translation from foreign documents. Verbose passages should be streamlined, and sentences with non-standard sentence construction or grammar should be editorially improved. No new matter should be introduced (37 CFR 1.125(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims on numerous instances recite conjunction “or” (e.g., claim 1, ll. 5, 7, 10, 20; claim 6, l. 2; claim 7, l. 3; claim 8, l. 3; claim 15, l. 2; etc.).
The combined and nested use of conjunctions “or”, particularly when applied to different elements that may or may not be present together, creates uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The layering of multiple alternatives and logical dependencies renders the scope of the claims ambiguous, as one cannot determine with reasonable certainty what combinations are included or excluded. Accordingly, all relevant claims must be amended accordingly by deleting multiple conjunctions “or”. Also, the amended claims must read only on the elected Species/Subspecies (e.g., the clause recited in line 20 of claim 1 describing that the disconnector “may be moved directly” must be deleted, as it does not read on the elected Species/Subspecies in which said disconnector (60) is moved indirectly by the slider “22”).
Furthermore, claims on numerous instances refer to the same component(s) with different terminology, e.g., “electrical connections” vs. “at least one
The Office reminds Applicant that the uniform terminology must be used throughout the claims. The claimed terminology should be consistent with the terminology of the specification and should follow the nomenclature of the specification. The terms and phrases used in claims must have a clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Furthermore, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “said one connecting contact” (claim 2), “said other connecting contact” (claim 2), “said two ends of said contact spring arms” (claims 3 and 4), “said ends of said contact spring arms” (claim 6), “said connection” (claim 7, last line), “said rotary position” (claims 8, 10 and 11), “said other second lever” (claims 10 and 11), “said contour washer” (claim 15), etc.
Furthermore, it appears that the “two lever ends” (e.g., see claims 8, 9, etc.) must be “two lever arms” according to the specification. Again, the claimed terminology must be consistent with the terminology of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Furthermore, in claim 9, it appears that the limitation “positioned” (“disposed”, “located”, etc.) must be present between the limitations “said lever is” and “between”.
Claims on numerous instances recite cumbersome and unclear clauses and appear to be a literal translation into English from the foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors (e.g., see last paragraph of claim 1 reciting cumbersome clause “and otherwise not”, etc.). Furthermore some claims as a whole are written in cumbersome and unclear language, e.g., see entire claims 2, 8, 20, etc.
The Office would like to reiterate that aforementioned problems are only the examples. The claims in general a poorly written and containg numerous problems and informalities. Applicant must carefully review all pending claims and amend them accordingly, i.e., in proper English, without any artifacts of the incorrect translation from foreign documents. Verbose passages should be streamlined, and clauses with non-standard sentence construction or grammar should be editorially improved.
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.
Claims 1-7, 15, and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10200801480 to Guenther (cited in IDS, see English translation of record).
Regarding claim 1, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a switching device (11) for an electrical cooking appliance, wherein said switching device has: a housing (inherently present, see also par. [0007]), a switch (13) in said housing, said switch being designed adjustably, in its position inside said housing or in its shape, for setting different cycle times for a cyclic operation of said switch, an adjusting device (24) for setting different cycle times or a different cycle behavior of said switch, which acts mechanically on said switch, wherein said adjusting device has a rotary shaft (25) with a varying contour device (26) arranged thereon, which is arranged on said rotary shaft and has along a circumferential direction a varying contour or a varying radius, an electrothermic tripping device (19) for said switch, wherein said tripping device has a heating element (30) and two electrical connections (par. [0025]) to said heating element, wherein at least one connection has two disconnectable connecting contacts (35b, 39) in a current path of said connection (40, 35a, 35b), wherein said switching device has a disconnector (37) which is designed to act mechanically on one of said connections of said tripping device in order to disconnect its two connecting contacts, said disconnector is designed such that it may be moved directly or indirectly in at least one disconnecting rotary angle range of said rotary shaft by said contour device, in order to disconnect said connecting contacts in a disconnecting rotary angle range, and otherwise not (par. [0026], claims 1-3, Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said switching device has a metal wire contact spring (35) and wherein said one connecting contact (39) is arranged on said housing in a fixed position, wherein said other connecting contact is a contact spring arm (35b), flexibly pressing against it, of said contact spring [sic], and wherein another contact spring arm (35a) of said contact spring reaches said tripping device (19) in electrically contacting manner (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said contact spring (35) is mounted on said housing between said two ends of said contact spring arms (35a, 35b).
Regarding claim 4, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said contact spring (35) is mounted in an area (34) of said housing between said two ends of said contact spring arms (35a, 35b), wherein said area is arranged closer to said tripping (19) device than to said disconnector (37).
Regarding claim 6, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said contact spring (35) has, between said contact spring arms (35a, 35b) or said ends of said contact spring arms (35a, 35b), a holding area extending over a mounting projection (34) on said housing such that said contact spring and said two contact spring arms are rotatable about said mounting projection.
Regarding claim 7, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that a movable transmission member (35c) is arranged between said contour device (26) on said rotary shaft (25) and said connection or connecting contact (35b, 39), wherein said transmission member is arranged / mounted and designed such that a movement of said rotary shaft (25) and said contour device (26) is transmitted to said connection (35b, 39) and to said contact spring (35) in order to move said contact spring and thus to disconnect said connection and said connecting contacts (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said contact spring (35) extends in a different plane vertically to said rotary shaft (25) than said contour device (26) or said contour washer (26) for said disconnector (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Guenther discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that said contact spring (35) extends in a different plane (i.e., the arm (35a) extends in a vertical plane) than said transmission member (37) (extends in a horizontal plane).
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.
Claims 14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther alone.
Regarding claim 14, Guenther does not disclose that said transmission member consists of plastic.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known material, including plastic as claimed, for making of the transmission member in Guenther, in order to achieve desired electrical and mechanical characteristics of the switching device, while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 19-21, the claims recite various rotary angle ranges in which the disconnector disconnects the connecting contacts (i.e., 1 to 60 degrees, 260 to 360 degrees, arranged wherever said cycle times of said switch are such that said switch is permanently closed / switched on).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any desired optimal rotary angle ranges in which the disconnector disconnects the connecting contacts, including as claimed,
in order to achieve desired electrical and mechanical characteristics of the switching device, while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 11, are 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 and subject to obviations of the objections as explained above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations of claim 8 (“said transmission member is a lever mounted for rotatable movement and having two lever subject to obviations of the objections as explained above.
Conclusion
The additional references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various cyclically operated thermally actuated switches with bimetallic elements.
Furthermore, the following references teach cyclically operated thermally actuated switches with bimetallic elements and with supplemental heaters: US 5847636, US 5877670, US 5696479, US 5021762, US 5191310, and US 3869688.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ANATOLY VORTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835