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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the egg” in line 6 of the claim. Should read “an egg”.
Claim 3 recites “the other side” in line 2 of the claim. Should read “another side”.
Claim 4 recites “at one end of the side edge” in line 10 of the claim. Should read “at one end of a side edge”.
Claim 4 recites “at the other end” in line 11 of the claim. Should read “at another end”.
Claim 6 recites “the locking groove (31)” in line 2 of the claim. Should read “the locking groove (1321)”.
Claim 6 recites “the other end of the sliding hook” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “another end of the sliding hook”.
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.
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:
“A left blade connecting member (122)” in claim 4 (line 4 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “connecting” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a left blade connecting member (122)” will be interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
“A right blade connecting member (112)” in claim 4 (lines 5-6 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “connecting” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a right blade connecting member (112)” will be interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
“An energy storage device (5)” in claim 4 (lines 8-9 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “storage” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “an energy storage device (5)” will be interpreted as “a spring”, and equivalents, as indicated by: “a spring is employed to serve as the energy storage device 5” (Pg. 6, paragraph 0040).
“An elastic egg blade member (15)” in claim 4 (line 11 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “elastic” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “an elastic egg blade member (15)” will be interpreted as any component that is elastic, and equivalents.
“A left egg holder connecting member (221)” in claim 8 (lines 2-3 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “connecting” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a left egg holder connecting member (221)” will be interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
“A right egg holder connecting member (211)” in claim 8 (lines 3-4 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “connecting” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a right egg holder connecting member (211)” will be interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
“An egg holder elastic member (24)” in claim 8 (line 5 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “member” (Prong A); the term “member” is modified by functional language “elastic” (Prong B); and the term “member” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “an egg holder elastic member (24)” will be interpreted as any component that is elastic, and equivalents.
“A trigger mechanism (4)” in claim 10 (lines 1-2 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “trigger” (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a trigger mechanism (4)” will be interpreted as “an egg-cracking trigger portion 41, a reset trigger portion 42 and an egg holder trigger portion 43”, and equivalents, as indicated by: “the trigger mechanism 4 includes an egg-cracking trigger portion 41, a reset trigger portion 42 and an egg holder trigger portion 43” (Pg. 11, paragraph 0046).
“A driving device (8)” in claim 10 (line 2 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “driving” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a driving device (8)” will be interpreted as “a ball screw and an electric motor”, and equivalents, as indicated by: “a ball screw and an electric motor are employed in the driving device 8” (Pg. 11, paragraph 0046).
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “a left blade connecting member (122)” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “a left blade connecting member (122)” and what it encompasses. “A left blade connecting member (122)” is being interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
Claim 4 recites “a right blade connecting member (112)” in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “a right blade connecting member (112)” and what it encompasses. “A right blade connecting member (112)” is being interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
Claim 4 recites “an elastic egg blade member (15)” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “an elastic egg blade member (15)” and what it encompasses. “An elastic egg blade member (15)” is being interpreted as any component that is elastic, and equivalents.
Claim 8 recites “a left egg holder connecting member (221)” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “a left egg holder connecting member (221)” and what it encompasses. “A left egg holder connecting member (221)” is being interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
Claim 8 recites “a right egg holder connecting member (211)” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “a right egg holder connecting member (211)” and what it encompasses. “A right egg holder connecting member (211)” is being interpreted as any component that can connect, and equivalents.
Claim 8 recites “an egg holder elastic member (24)” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “an egg holder elastic member (24)” and what it encompasses. “An egg holder elastic member (24)” is being interpreted as any component that is elastic, and equivalents.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 1-10 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 “the egg holder (2)” in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg holders (2)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg holder (2)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the egg holders (2)” or “an egg holder (2)”.
Claim 1 recites “the egg cracking knife (1)” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (1)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg cracking knife (1)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “at least one side of the egg-cracking knives (1)” or “at least one side of an egg-cracking knife (1)”, as well as, whether that applicant is claiming a plurality of knives or a singular knife.
Claim 2 recites “the egg cracking knife (1)” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (1)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg cracking knife (1)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “both sides of the egg-cracking knives (1)” or “both sides of an egg-cracking knife (1)”, as well as, whether that applicant is claiming a plurality of knives or a singular knife.
Claim 3 recites “the egg cracking knife (1)” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (1)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg cracking knife (1)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “one side of the egg-cracking knives (1)” or “one side of an egg-cracking knife (1)”, as well as, whether that applicant is claiming a plurality of knives or a singular knife.
Claim 4 recites “the egg cracking knife (1)” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (1)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg cracking knife (1)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the egg-cracking knives (1)” or “an egg-cracking knife (1)”, as well as, whether that applicant is claiming a plurality of knives or a singular knife.
Claim 4 recites “a left blade connecting member (122)” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a left blade connecting member (122)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 4 recites “a right blade connecting member (112)” in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a right blade connecting member (112)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 4 recites “the egg cracking knife (1)” in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (1)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg cracking knife (1)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the egg-cracking knives (1)” or “an egg-cracking knife (1)”, as well as, whether that applicant is claiming a plurality of knives or a singular knife.
Claim 4 recites “close to a locking direction” in line 10 of the claim. The term “close” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the energy storage device (5) and locking direction as been rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “an elastic egg blade member (15)” in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “an elastic egg blade member (15)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 7 recites “the egg holder (2)” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “two symmetrically-arranged egg holders (2)” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg holder (2)” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the egg holders (2)” or “an egg holder (2)”.
Claim 7 recites “the egg trough” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “egg troughs” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the egg trough” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the egg troughs” or “an egg trough”.
Claim 7 recites “the upward opening” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “upward openings” was previously set forth in claim 1, thus “the upward opening” makes the scope of the claim unclear. There is a lack of clarity as to whether applicant intends to state “the upward openings” or “an upward opening”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fixing frame” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1, and the limitation “a fixing frame” is introduced in claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “a left egg holder connecting member (221)” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a left egg holder connecting member (221)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 8 recites “a right egg holder connecting member (211)” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a right egg holder connecting member (211)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 8 recites “an egg holder elastic member (24)” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “an egg holder elastic member (24)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 9 recites “a left blade connecting member (122)” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a left blade connecting member (122)” and what it encompasses.
Claim 9 recites “a right blade connecting member (112)” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient description for the “a right blade connecting member (112)” and what it encompasses.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banks et al. (G.B. 2238952), hereinafter Banks.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Banks)
PNG
media_image2.png
545
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Banks)
PNG
media_image3.png
543
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Banks)
Regarding claim 1, Banks disclose an automatic egg cracker, comprising two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (Annotated Fig. 3, “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) and two symmetrically-arranged egg holders (Annotated Fig. 2 “flexible band 112” [Pg. 7, line 2]), wherein the egg holders (Annotated Fig. 2 “flexible band 112” [Pg. 7, line 2]) are provided with upward openings to form egg troughs, the egg-cracking knives (Annotated Fig. 3 “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) impact eggs from side surfaces for cracking, and a push rod (Annotated Fig. 2, “arms 82 and 84” [Pg. 7, line 23]) is arranged behind the egg holder (Annotated Fig. 2, “flexible band 112” [Pg. 7, line 2]) to synchronously drive at least one side of the egg-cracking knife (Annotated Fig. 3 “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) to open to crack the egg. (“The forward end of the actuator is urged by the link into engagement with the limb 104 of the T-piece 106 and the prongs 114 slide forwardly as the tubular members 90 move along the respective arms 82 and 84. The eggshell is thereby pierced by the prongs 114” [Pg. 7, lines 19-24]; “As the arms move outwardly the tubular members 90 also move outwardly and therefore the ends of the band, which are attached to the plates 92 and which carry the prongs 114, are also moved outwardly and the egg is thereby cracked in half” [Pg. 7, lines 29-33]).
Regarding claim 2, Banks further discloses wherein both sides of the egg-cracking knife (Annotated Fig. 3, “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) are opened simultaneously to crack the egg. (With further movement of the trigger the rear extension 100 of the actuator 98 is forced into abutment with the lobes 94 of the two arms and the arms are thereby pivoted outwardly. As the arms move outwardly the tubular members 90 also move outwardly and therefore the ends of the band, which are attached to the plates 92 and which carry the prongs 114, are also moved outwardly and the egg is thereby cracked in half” [Pg. 7, lines 26-33]; “It is to be understood that in Figures 2, 3 and 4 certain springs and biasing devices have been omitted for the purposes of clarity of illustration. Thus the trigger 68 acts against a spring, not shown. Similarly the arms 82 and 84, when moved outwardly, move against a spring which thereafter, upon release of the trigger, restores the arms to the positions shown In Figure 3” [Pg. 8, lines 13-19]; “ A device for cracking an egg which includes a cradle which supports an egg, a pair of jaws which include respective shell piercing formations which are located substantially adjacent each other, and means for actuating the jaws so that the formations are caused to move in a first direction thereby to pierce the shell and thereafter are caused to move in a second direction to part the shell into two sections… actuator means for causing sliding movement of the members, relatively to the arms, thereby to advance the shell piercing formations in a first direction and thereby pierce the shell of the egg, and then to cause pivotal movement of the arms, away from each other so that the shell piercing formations also move away from each other and thereby part the shell Into two [Pg. 10, lines 20-36, Pg. 11, lines 1-8]).
Regarding claim 7, Banks further discloses wherein the egg holder (Annotated Fig. 2, “flexible band 112” [Pg. 7, line 2]) comprises a left egg supporting block (Annotated Fig. 2 “left egg supporting block” [Pg. 7, lines 1-5]) and a right egg supporting block (Annotated Fig. 2 “right egg supporting block” [Pg. 7, lines 1-5]), and when the left egg supporting block (Annotated Fig. 2, “left egg supporting block” [Pg. 7, lines 1-5]) and the right egg supporting block (Annotated Fig. 2, “right egg supporting block” [Pg. 7, lines 1-5]) get close to each other side by side, the egg trough with the upward opening for placing the egg is formed.
Regarding claim 8, Banks further discloses wherein the push rod (Annotated Fig. 2, “arms 82 and 84” [Pg. 7, line 23]) is a double-rod push rod, the push rod (Annotated Fig. 2, “arms 82 and 84” [Pg. 7, line 23]) is fixedly arranged below the fixing frame (Annotated Fig. 1, “cover piece 122” [Pg. 8, lines 2-3]), a left egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “left egg holder connecting member”) and a right egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “right egg holder connecting member”) are arranged on both sides of the push rod (Annotated Fig. 2, “arms 82 and 84” [Pg. 7, line 23]), an egg holder trigger rod (Annotated Fig. 1, “actuator 98” [Pg. 7, lines 26-29]) is arranged at one end of the push rod (Annotated Fig. 2, “arms 82 and 84” [Pg. 7, line 23]), and an egg holder elastic member (Annotated Fig. 2, “egg holder elastic member”; “In Figures 2, 3 and 4 certain springs and biasing devices have been omitted for the purposes of clarity of illustration… Similarly the arms 82 and 84, when moved outwardly, move against a spring which thereafter, upon release of the trigger, restores the arms to the positions shown In Figure 3” [Pg. 8, lines 13-19]) is arranged between the left egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “left egg holder connecting member”) and the right egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “right egg holder connecting member”).
Regarding claim 9, Banks further discloses wherein an upper end of the left egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “left egg holder connecting member”) is provided with a left guide block (Annotated Fig. 2, “left guide block” or left side wall of “body portion 64” [Pg. 6, lines 4-5]) with an inclined plane, a lower end of the left blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 92” [Pg. 7, lines 5-7]) is provided with a left convex block (Annotated Fig. 1, left half of “cradle 66” [Pg. 7, line 1]) extending downwards, an upper end of the right egg holder connecting member (Annotated Fig. 3, “right egg holder connecting member”) is provided with a right guide block (Annotated Fig. 2, “right guide block” or right side wall of “body portion 64” [Pg. 6, lines 4-5]) with an inclined plane, a lower end of the right blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 92” [Pg. 7, lines 5-7]) is provided with a right convex block (Annotated Fig. 1, right half of “cradle 66” [Pg. 7, line 1]) extending downwards, and the left guide block (Annotated Fig. 2, “left guide block” or left side wall of “body portion 64” [Pg. 6, lines 4-5]) and the right guide block (Annotated Fig. 2, “right guide block” or right side wall of “body portion 64” [Pg. 6, lines 4-5]), and the left convex block (Annotated Fig. 1, left half of “cradle 66” [Pg. 7, line 1]) and the right convex block (Annotated Fig. 1, right half of “cradle 66” [Pg. 7, line 1]) are both symmetrically arranged.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (G.B. 2238952) in view of Hampton (U.S. 4554866).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 7, 8, and 9 (Hampton)
Regarding claim 3, Banks does not explicitly disclose wherein one side of the egg-cracking knife is fixed, and the other side is opened to crack the egg.
However, Hampton discloses an automatic egg cracker (Hampton’s Figs. 7, 8, and 9, “apparatus for rapidly breaking eggs” [Col. 1, line 25]) wherein one side of the egg cracking knife (Hampton’s Figs. 7, 8, and 9, “stationary knife blades 138” [Col. 7, lines 15-17]) is fixed, and the other side (Hampton’s Figs. 7, 8, and 9, “sliding knife blades 142” [Col. 7, lines 15-17]) is opened to crack the egg.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Banks to incorporate the teachings of Hampton to have one side of the egg-cracking knife is fixed, and the other side is opened to crack the egg. Doing so allows for the egg to be cracked and the contents to be drained from the egg through the space provided by the separation of the knives/blades, as recognized by Hampton, “From this position, movable frame 144 can be moved to the right, as shown, and thereby causing the sliding knife blades 142 to move away from the stationary knife blades 138 into a spaced-apart position. The space between the stationary and sliding knife blades provides room for the contents of an egg broken by the knife blades to drain out” [Col. 7, lines 17-23]. This is advantageous to the user so they do not have to touch the internal egg contents when cracking the egg.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (G.B. 2238952) in view of Feng (C.N. 201104816) and Antonio (E.S. 1236799).
Regarding claim 4, Banks further discloses wherein the egg-cracking knife (Annotated Fig. 3, “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) comprises a left blade (Annotated Fig. 3, “left blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]), a right blade (Annotated Fig. 3, “right blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]), a sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 18-21]) and a fixing frame (Annotated Fig. 1, “cover piece 122” [Pg. 8, lines 2-3]) for mounting the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 18-21]), the left blade (Annotated Fig. 3, “left blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]) is fixedly arranged on the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 18-21]) by means of a left blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 92” [Pg. 7, lines 5-7]), the right blade (Annotated Fig. 3 “right blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]) is fixedly arranged on the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 18-21]) by means of a right blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 2, “plates 92” [Pg. 7, lines 5-7]), the left blade (Annotated Fig. 3, “left blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]) and the right blade (Annotated Fig. 3, “right blade” [Pg. 2, lines 5-7]) are slidably mounted in a sliding groove (Annotated Fig. 1, “slot” [Pg. 6, lines 32-35]) at an upper portion of the fixing frame (Annotated Fig. 1, “cover piece 122” [Pg. 8, lines 2-3]) by means of the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 32-35]), an energy storage device (Annotated Fig. 1, “energy storage device”; “In Figures 2, 3 and 4 certain springs and biasing devices have been omitted for the purposes of clarity of illustration. Thus the trigger 68 acts against a spring, not shown” [Pg. 8, lines 13-19]) configured for pushing the egg-cracking knife (Annotated Fig. 3, “prongs 114” [Pg. 7, line 5]) to crack the egg is arranged at one end of the side edge (Annotated Fig. 1, “Bottom End of Side Edge of the Sliding Block” [Pg. 8, lines 13-19]), close to a direction, of the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 2, “tubular members 90” [Pg. 6, lines 18-21]), a reset trigger rod (Annotated Fig. 1, “central limb 104” [Pg. 6, lines 28-33]) is arranged at the other end (Annotated Fig. 1, “Top End of the Side Edge of the Sliding Block” [Pg. 7, line 36 and Pg. 8., lines 1-11]).
Banks does not explicitly disclose a locking assembly is arranged on the sliding block, a locking direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
518
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Feng)
However, Feng discloses an automatic egg cracker (Annotated Fig. 4, “a cutting-type egg beater“ [0002]) wherein a locking assembly (Annotated Fig. 4, “locking device 6” [0021]) is arranged on the sliding block (Annotated Fig. 4, “movable blade layer 3” [0020]), a locking direction (Annotated Fig. 4, “Locking Direction” [0021]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Banks to incorporate the teachings of Feng to have a locking assembly is arranged on the sliding block. Doing so allows for more convenience to the user, such as reducing accidental cuts from the blades, when operating the egg cracker, as recognized by Feng, “The lowest movable position of the movable blade layer is provided with a common locking device to lock the movable blade layer so that it cannot move up and down and remains in the ready-to-beat egg state. This makes it more convenient to use the egg beater. It should be noted that the locking device is a common structure and the egg beater can be used normally even without the locking device” [0009].
Banks does not explicitly disclose an elastic egg blade member is arranged between the left blade connecting member and the right blade connecting member.
PNG
media_image6.png
461
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Antonio)
However, Antonio discloses an automatic egg cracker (Annotated Fig. 5, “egg cracker” [0007]) wherein an elastic egg blade member (Annotated Fig. 5, “spring 1.8” [0065]) is arranged between the left blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 5, “left blade connecting member” [0077]) and the right blade connecting member (Annotated Fig. 5, “right blade connecting member” [0077]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Banks to incorporate the teachings of Antonio to have an elastic egg blade member arranged between the left blade connecting member and the right blade connecting member. Doing so allows for the right blade connecting member and left blade connecting member to be joined and for the egg cracker to blades to be closed when not in use, as recognized by Antonio, “the spring (1.8) that keeps the egg cracker closed” [0065] and “the spring (1.8) is attached by fastening means to the two arms (1.1) so that the tension of the spring (1.8) keeps them joined at their ends” [0079]. This is beneficial to the user because it creates additional means for joining the blades together, when the egg cracker is not in use, which can help prevent injuries and cuts from the blades.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banks (G.B. 2238952) in view of Zhao et al. (C.N. 110250448), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 10, Banks further discloses a trigger mechanism (Annotated Fig. 1, “trigger 68”, “T-piece 74”, and “link 78” [Pg. 6, lines 7-14]), wherein the trigger mechanism (Annotated Fig. 1, “trigger 68”, “T-piece 74”, and “link 78” [Pg. 6, lines 7-14]) comprises an egg-cracking trigger portion (Annotated Fig. 1, “T-piece 74” [Pg. 6, lines 10-11]), a reset trigger portion (Annotated Fig. 1, “trigger 68” [Pg. 6, lines 7-9]) and an egg holder trigger portion (Annotated Fig. 1, “link 78” [Pg. 6, lines 13-14]), and the egg holder trigger portion (Annotated Fig. 1, “link 78” [Pg. 6, lines 13-14]) is also configured for triggering egg cracking (Annotated Fig. 1, “If the trigger 68 is pulled it pivots in the direction of an arrow 118 against a cam surface of the limb 76. The pivot point 80 moves downwardly and the link 78 is advanced. The forward end of the actuator is urged by the link into engagement with the limb 104 of the T-piece 106 and the prongs 114 slide forwardly as the tubular members 90 move along the respective arms 82 and 84. The eggshell is thereby pierced by the prongs 114” [Pg. 7, lines 16-24]).
Banks does not explicitly disclose a driving device.
PNG
media_image7.png
708
680
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Zhao)
However, Zhao discloses an automatic egg cracker (Zhao’s Fig. 3, “a vertical egg-breaking machine” [Pg. 2, paragraph 0002]) comprising a driving device (Zhao’s Fig. 3, “ball screw 609” and “stepper motor 607” [Pg. 7, paragraph 0037]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Banks to incorporate the teachings of Zhao to have a driving device. Doing so allows for the automatic egg cracker to have a controlled and repeatable motion limiting the amount of egg shells from entering the internal contents of the egg after cracking, as recognized by Zhao, “Vertical egg-cracking machines belong to the field of automated egg processing supplies… The drive assembly includes a push plate, a motor mounting bracket, a stepper motor, a ball screw, and a ball screw nut. The device can efficiently and stably crack eggshells without over-cracking, and can effectively separate the eggshell from the egg liquid without mixing them” [Pg. 1, paragraph 0001], and “and the use of a stepper motor drive ensures smooth and accurate movement of the egg fixing assembly” [Pg. 5, paragraph 0016].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Banks and Feng disclose a sliding hook (Annotated Fig. 4, “locking device 6” [0021]), and as stated above in regards to claim 4, Banks in view of Feng teaches the sliding block with a locking assembly. However, Banks and Feng do not disclose “the locking assembly comprises a sliding and buckling block (132) arranged on the sliding block (13), a locking groove (1321) is formed at a side edge of the sliding and buckling block (132), and a sliding hook (14) matching the locking groove (1321) is arranged on the sliding and buckling block (132).”
Regarding claim 6, Banks and Feng disclose a sliding hook (Annotated Fig. 4, “locking device 6” [0021]), and as stated above in regards to claim 4, Banks in view of Feng teaches the sliding block with a locking assembly. However, Banks and Feng do not disclose “wherein one end of the sliding hook (14) is configured for fixing the locking groove (31) in the sliding and buckling block (132), the other end of the sliding hook is provided with an egg-cracking trigger rod (142), and a middle portion of the sliding hook is fixed by means of a shaft pin (141) so as to enable both ends to rotate.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Leonard et al. (U.S. 3111150), hereinafter Leonard, discloses:
PNG
media_image8.png
786
707
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Leonard)
An automatic egg cracker, comprising two symmetrically-arranged egg-cracking knives (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “knife halves 4a, 4b” [Col. 5, lines 37-38]) and two symmetrically-arranged egg holders (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “cup halves 2a, 2b” [Col. 5, line 37]), wherein the egg holders (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “cup halves 2a, 2b” [Col. 5, line 37]) are provided with upward openings to form egg troughs, the egg-cracking knives (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “knife halves 4a, 4b” [Col. 5, lines 37-38]) impact eggs from side surfaces for cracking, and a push rod (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “finger rod 52” [Col. 6, lines 1-6]) is arranged behind the egg holder (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “cup halves 2a, 2b” [Col. 5, line 37]) to synchronously drive at least one side of the egg-cracking knife (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “knife halves 4a, 4b” [Col. 5, lines 37-38]) to open to crack the egg (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “means for rotating the cup halves and associated fingers and knife halves away from each other whereby the egg shell will be split open and the contents drained therefrom” [Col. 8, lines 64-67]).
Wherein both sides of the egg-cracking knife (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “knife halves 4a, 4b” [Col. 5, lines 37-38]) are opened simultaneously to crack the egg (Leonard’s Fig. 4, “means for rotating the cup halves and associated fingers and knife halves away from each other whereby the egg shell will be split open and the contents drained therefrom” [Col. 8, lines 64-67]).
Regarding claim 4, 5, and 6, Wang (T.W. M613162) discloses:
PNG
media_image9.png
567
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Wang)
A locking assembly (Wang’s Fig. 4, “hook 22” [00044]) is arranged on the sliding block (Wang’s Fig. 4, “sliding cover 3” [00044]). Wherein the locking assembly (Wang’s Fig. 4, “hook 22” [00044]) comprises a sliding hook (Wang’s Fig. 4, “hook 22” [00044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/22/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights