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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6, “that comprising” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4, “each another” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3, “the two fastening members at least partially be located facing” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the first and second fastening members". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 5 has “return means” as a claim limitation.
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: fastening device, fastening member, fastening component, actuating mechanism, rotational-locking member, rotational-locking component, rotational-locking device, coupling member, coupling component, coupling in claims 1-24.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chau et al. (2008/0164357).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, the Chau et al. reference discloses a kitchen appliance (Fig. 2), comprising: a work unit comprising a bowl (1), a lid (4) configured to close the bowl and a rotary accessory (3) arranged in the bowl and rotatably mounted around a rotational axis (see Fig. 4); a pull string drive device (6) comprising a main body (61), a drive wheel (63) housed in the main body and configured to be arranged coaxially relative to the rotational axis a string (634) configured to be wound around the drive wheel and that comprising a first end fastened to the drive wheel and a second end opposite the first end, and a handle (635) connected to the second end of the string (634) and configured to pull on the string so as to rotate the drive wheel in one direction of rotation, the pull string drive device (6) being configured to manually cause the rotary accessory to rotate around the rotational axis by pulling the string (15) transversely to the rotational axis; wherein the pull string drive device (6) is self-contained and is configured to be removable relative to the lid (4), and in that the kitchen appliance comprises a locking system (42, 611) configured to fasten the main body (91) of the pull string drive device (6) temporarily and reversibly to the lid, the locking system being further configured to prevent rotational movement of the main body relative to the lid and along the rotational axis when the main body is fastened to the lid (see paragraphs [0023 – 0031]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, the Chau et al. reference further discloses the locking system (42, 611) is configured to prevent, when the main body (61) is fastened to the lid (4), translational movement of the main body relative to the lid in a direction of travel that is parallel to the rotational axis, and translational movement of the main body relative to the lid in a plane of travel that is orthogonal to the rotational axis. See Figures 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 3, the Chau et al. reference further discloses the locking system (42, 611) comprises a fastening device configured to fasten the main body (61) of the pull string drive device (6) temporarily and reversibly to the lid (4), the fastening device comprising at least one fastening member (611) provided on the main body (61) and at least one fastening component (42) provided on the lid (4), the at least one fastening member being configured to occupy a fastening position in which the at least one fastening member is configured to cooperate with the at least one fastening component so as to fasten the main body to the lid, and a release position in which the at least one fastening member is configured to release the at least one fastening component so that the pull string drive device can be removed from the lid. (see paragraphs [0023 – 0031]; see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, the Chau et al. reference further discloses wherein the at least one fastening member (i.e., bolts) is mounted so as to be movable relative to the main body (61) between the fastening position and the release position. See paragraph [0025].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, inasmuch structure that is defined by an “actuating mechanism” the defined bolts meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, the fastening members are defined by the bolts (see para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, absent further defined structure of a rotation-locking member and rotation-locking device, components (42, 611; Figures 2 and 3) of the Chau et al. reference meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 18, the Chau et al. reference further discloses wherein the rotary accessory (3) comprises a coupling member (31) and the drive wheel (63)
comprises a coupling component (633) configured to be mechanically coupled to the coupling member (31) when the main body (61) is fastened to the lid (4), so as to transmit rotational movement from the drive wheel (63) to the rotary accessory (3).
Regarding claim 22, the locking system (42, 611) prevents movement of the main body (61) relative to the lid (4) when fastened to the lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-10, 13-17, 19-21 and 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Plichon et al. reference (US 20230313783 A1) discloses another kitchen appliance with detachable pull string drive device (Figure 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights