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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a kitchen appliance, classified in A47J 43/0727.
II. Claims 9-15, drawn to a connecting element, classified in B01F 35/2205.
III. Claim 16, drawn to a method for transmitting, classified in H04W 4/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination kitchen appliance does not require the cable connection between first and second communication elements. The subcombination has separate utility such as for use in a home security system.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions III and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the kitchen appliance could be used merely to store liquids, without transmitting a signal between communication modules.
Inventions III and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the connecting element could be used for other than transmitting a signal between communication modules of a kitchen appliance. For example, the connecting element could be used/swapped for wireless communication in a home security system.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions are separately classified and would necessitate distinct search queries if examined together. Searching across multiple classification with differing search queries is a serious search and examination burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with John McIlvaine on 9/8/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-6 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 4, each of the three instances of the phrase "in particular" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the first communication element" and “the second communication element” in the final two lines of the claim.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation "the cable connection between the first communication element and the second communication element” in the final two lines of the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (EP3841926A1 – see attached machine translation) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. 2011/0149677), hereinafter referred to as Lang and Davis, respectively.
As to claim 1, Lang discloses a kitchen appliance (kitchen appliance 1, Figure 4) with a base unit (base area in lower shell of kitchen appliance 1, paragraph 22, Figure 4), wherein the base unit has a first communication module (wireless communication module 31 of control unit 30 of base area, paragraphs 31 and 40) configured for wireless communication, with a receiving vessel (container 3, paragraph 23 and Figure 4), wherein the receiving vessel has a wall (wall of container 3, paragraph 23 and Figure 4) and with an accessory part (accessory part 2, Figure 4), wherein the accessory part has a second communication module (wireless communication module of accessory part 2, paragraph 40) configured for wireless communication, wherein a connecting element (functional element 10 comprising bridge unit 13, paragraph 32) is provided, the connecting element is adapted for arrangement in the bottom portion (see Figure 4) of the receiving vessel, and the connecting element is configured for transmitting signals between the first and second communication modules (see paragraph 32). Lang further discloses their accessory part and connecting element are disposed at a lower portion of their container (see Figure 4).
Lang does not explicitly disclose their receiving vessel wall has a penetrating opening, with the connecting element adapted for arrangement in the penetrating opening of the wall.
However, Davis discloses a kitchen appliance (paragraph 56 and Figure 3) comprising an accessory element (stirring element 112, Figure 3; blade element may be permanently or removably attached to the connecting element 110, paragraph 80), wherein a connecting element (connecting element 110, Figure 3) is arranged within a penetrating opening (connecting element 110 is arranged in lower penetrating opening of vessel 34, Figure 3) of a wall of a receiving vessel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to look to the prior art and utilize the configuration comprising a connecting element protruding through a lower wall constructed in the bottom of a vessel from Davis for the kitchen applicant of Lang since such a configuration permits easier removable and cleaning, as disclosed in Davis (paragraph 71). Such a modification would have involved utilizing a knowing technique and applying it to a device ready for such an upgrade – since Lang does not specify how their accessory element 2 (see Lang, Figure 4) is driven – to yield predictable results.
As to claim 2, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance wherein the wall of the receiving vessel is formed at least partially from a material (Lang, stainless steel walls of container 3, impervious to wireless data communication, paragraphs 23 and 35) which is at least partially impermeable to electromagnetic waves.
As to claim 3, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance wherein the connecting element comprises a first communication element (Lang, accessory section 13.1, paragraph 32) and a second communication element (Lang, control section 13.2, paragraph 32), the first communication element is configured for wireless communication with the first communication module of the base unit (Lang, control section 13.2 is configured for communication with communication module of control unit 30, paragraph 32) and the second communication element is configured for wireless communication with the second communication module of the accessory part (Lang, accessory section 13.1 is configured for communication with communication module of accessory part 2, paragraph 32), and the first communication element and the second communication element are connected via a cable connection (Lang, electrical or data communication connection between accessory section 13.1 and control section 13.2, paragraph 32).
As to claim 4, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance the first communication module of the base unit is a near-field communication reader module, in particular an RFID reader module or an NFC reader module, the second communication module of the accessory part is a near-field communication transponder, in particular an RFID transponder or an NFC transponder, and the first communication element, the second communication element and their connection form a passive near-field repeating module, in particular an RFID repeating module or an NFC repeating module (Lang, NFC interfaces of communication modules, paragraph 36).
As to claim 5, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance wherein the connecting element has a base body with a first distal portion, with a transition portion and with a second distal portion, the first distal portion and the second distal portion are arranged in opposite directions and the transition portion connects the first distal portion and the second distal portion, and the first communication element is arranged at the first distal portion and the second communication element is arranged at the second distal portion (Lang, accessory section 13.1 and control section 13.2 are arranged at opposite ends of functional element 10, with a transition portion therebetween, paragraph 32 and Figure 3), wherein the transition portion is adapted to be disposed in the penetrating opening in the wall of the receiving vessel (Davis, entirety of connecting element 110 is arranged in lower penetrating opening of vessel 34, Figure 3).
As to claim 6, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance wherein the transition portion has a cable guide (Lang, plastic overmolding covering and sealing electrical components/connections, paragraph 18), and the cable guide guides the cable connection between the first communication element and the second communication element.
As to claim 8, Lang in view of Davis discloses the appliance wherein the base unit has a drive (Davis, drive in lower base, paragraph 58), and the connecting element is adapted to transmit a drive force from the drive of the base unit to the accessory part (Davis, connecting element 110 transmits drive force from base unit to stirring element 112, paragraph 106 and Figure 3 .
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Davis and further in view of Chang (U.S. 6,826,434).
As to claim 7, Lang discloses the appliance wherein the connecting element has at least partially an electrically conductive material forming at least a portion of the cable connection (Lang, electrical/data communication connection between accessory section 13.1 and control section 13.2 (i.e. including their terminals, paragraph 32). Lang in view of Davis further discloses that their cable connection is for data communication (Lang, data communication connection, paragraph 32).
Lang in view of Davis does not explicitly specify that the cable connection has a coaxial conductor.
However, Chang discloses that coaxial cable is appropriate for data communication (column 4, lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to look to the prior art and utilize a coaxial cable as suggested in Chang for the cable connection of Lang in view of Davis since such a modification would have been suitable for data communication (Chang, column 4, lines 20-22), which is the desired outcome for the cable connection Lang in view of Davis (Lang, data communication connection, paragraph 32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abbas Rashid whose telephone number is (571)270-7457. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights