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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses “means of the moving device”. 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)(I)(c).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “is fixedly provided with roller” should be corrected to “is fixedly provided with a roller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein knife resetting position d” should be corrected to “wherein a knife resetting position d”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings appear to be drafted in a dot matrix style and the applicant is reminded that:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 10-13 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 recites “naturally falling”, the examiner interprets this in light of the spec par. 42 for falling due to gravity.
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 driving member” in claim 6 is being interpreted as item 41 which is subject to 112(a) and (b) below.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. A “driving member” lacks written description as Applicant has not provided a description in the original disclosure the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the structure that creates a driving member.
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.
Claim 1 to 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner is unclear what structure is required to meet the limitations of a “moving device” is meant to be as it is not disclosed in the claims. One skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected due to their dependence on one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "two portions of the egg holder ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not previously recited a first and second portion of the egg holder.
Claims 3 are also rejected due to their dependence on one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “driving member” is unclear because the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the structure that creates a driving member and are therefore indefinite and unclear.
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)(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, 7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190159624 A1 Lee
Regarding claim 1,
Lee teaches,
An automatic egg frying machine (cooking device 5, cracking device 4, oil supply unit 52, feeding device 1 per fig. 2), comprising:
a machine frame (see annotated fig. 2 below), wherein an egg opening device and a cooking device are arranged in the machine frame (see annotated fig. 2 below);
the cooking device at least comprising a frying pan (wok 51 comprising first and second woks 51a and 51b);
and the egg opening device (cracking device 4) comprising an egg supporting portion (pressing device 3), a trigger portion (control unit 72 par. 44 is taught to control cracking member 41 to crack egg 2) and an egg knife (cracking member 41), wherein the trigger portion comprises egg receiving position a (claw 312 par. 37), egg cracking position b (pressing position P1 is the position of the egg within claw 312, fig. 6 teaches contact member 31 positioned above egg 2, and cracking member 41 positioned away from egg 2), egg opening position c (fig. 8 teaches the cracking of egg 2 and fig. 9 teaches the dropping of egg liquid 22) and shell dropping position e (fig. 13 teaches the dropping of egg shell 21), one side of the egg opening device is provided with a moving device (pressing device 3 doubles as a moving device and egg supporting position because it includes movable parts that work upon the egg 2 and also includes claw 312 and other parts that support egg 2), and the egg opening device completes the actions of egg receiving, egg cracking from a side surface, egg opening and shell dropping in one direction by means of the moving device (par. 36 to 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6,
Lee teaches,
The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the moving device is of a moving assembly (pressing device 3 doubles as a moving device and egg supporting position because it includes movable parts that work upon the egg 2 and also includes claw 312 and other parts that support egg 2 and is a moving assembly), the moving assembly comprises a driving member (driving member 32), a sliding rod (sliding member 3123) and a sliding block (pressing member 31) slidably arranged on the sliding rod, and the egg opening device and the sliding block are fixedly arranged (figs. 9 and 10 and par. 36 teach the arrangement and movement).
Regarding claim 7,
Lee teaches,
The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein an egg placing device (feeding device 1) is arranged on one side above the machine frame (fig. 2), the egg placing device comprises an egg placing port (see annotated fig. 6 below) and an inclined swing plate (rail 12), and a swing plate trigger portion for triggering the swing plate to swing is arranged at a lower end of the swing plate (par. 41 teaches the use of notch 122 to maneuver rail 12 from a vertical position to an inclined position).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
Lee teaches,
The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the machine frame is further provided with a shell receiving chute (board 61) positioned right below the shell dropping position e and capable of receiving eggshells (par. 39), an egg outlet (see annotated fig. 3 below for the location where the egg exits per par. 46), a cleaning port formed by opening a door plate of the shell receiving chute (see annotated fig. 2 below for the location where the egg exits per par. 46), and a rotary receiving plate device for receiving fried eggs naturally falling from a lower frying pan (par. 18 and 46 teach a plate placed beneath second wok 51b).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
650
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190159624 A1 Lee in view of US 3480056 A WILLSEY.
Regarding claim 2,
Lee teaches, except where struck through,
The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the egg supporting portion comprises an egg holder (claw 312 holds an egg see figs. 6 and 7), one side of the egg holder is fixedly provided with a double-rod push rod (see annotated fig. 13 below also including movable member 3124, 3121, guide portion 3122, and guide positioning member 3123) for driving the egg holder to open or close (par. 36 and 41 to 43), (see annotated fig. 7 below).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: one side of the double-rod push rod is provided with roller.
WILLSEY teaches an egg breaking machine 10 with a mechanism driven by push rods (pivot pin 66 biased by torsion spring 63) where one side of the double-rod push rod (link 65) is provided with roller (cam roller 70) (column 5 lines 1 to 33) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movable member 3124, 3121, guide portion 3122, and guide positioning member 3123 of Lee with the rollers of WILLSEY for the purpose to reduce friction between components.
PNG
media_image5.png
521
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
455
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8,
Lee teaches, except where struck through,
The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 7 (as discussed above),
wherein an egg delivery device (support member 11) is arranged in the machine frame (fig. 2), the egg delivery device is positioned on a lower end surface of the swing plate (figs. 2 and 6),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: and the egg delivery device comprises a conveyor belt, a plurality of freely rotating egg rotating rods and a driving wheel.
WILLSEY teaches the egg delivery device (endless conveyor 11) comprises a conveyor belt (fig. 1), a plurality of freely rotating egg rotating rods and a driving wheel (see annotated fig. 1 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify support member 11 of Lee to be a conveyor as taught by WILLSEY for the purpose of deliver eggs (WILLSEY column 3 lines 20 to 32).
PNG
media_image7.png
819
569
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190159624 A1 Lee in view of US 3480056 A WILLSEY in view of CN2108220U MAO.
Regarding claim 9,
Lee as modified teaches, The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 7 (as discussed above).
Lee as modified by WILLSEY teaches wherein the cooking device is arranged below the egg placing device (Lee fig. 3 teaches this arrangement), the cooking device comprises a frying pan (Lee wok 51) and a fixing plate (see Lee annotated fig. 2 below), the frying pan comprises an upper fry pan (Lee first wok 51a) and a lower frying pan (Lee second wok 51b), one side of the upper frying pan is provided with outlet I (see Lee annotated fig. 3 below), one side of the lower frying pan is provided with outlet II (see Lee annotated fig. 3 below), the outlet I of the upper frying pan is arranged right above the lower frying pan (see Lee annotated fig. 3 below), .
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: and heating pipes for heating eggs are arranged below the upper frying pan and the lower fry pan.
MAO teaches a heat pipe boiler with a pan body and furnace (abstract) and heating pipes (l shaped heating pipes 3 and vertical heat pipes 2) for heating eggs (fig. 2 teaches 3 and 2 arranged in pot body 4 and is therefore configured to cook a variety of food products including eggs) are arranged below the upper frying pan and the lower fry pan (fig. 2 and claims 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating member 511 contained in at least one wok 51 of Lee per par. 38 the l shaped heating pipes 3 and vertical heat pipes 2 of WILLSEY for the purpose of providing heat to a wok.
PNG
media_image8.png
553
436
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
549
379
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190159624 A1 Lee
Regarding claim 5,
Lee teaches, The automatic egg frying machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of wherein knife resetting position d for triggering the egg knife to be reset is arranged above the shell dropping position e of the trigger portion. As discussed above Lee teaches cracking member 41 being arranged below egg 2 per figs. 7, 8, 9, and 13 and fig. 8 teaches a cracking and resetting position of cracking member 41 located below egg 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the orientation of cracking member 41 from below to above egg 2, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange cracking member 41 for the purpose of to be out of the way of the falling egg liquid 22 in fig. 9 of Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights