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 .
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 1-14 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.
Re Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “for arranging in a kitchen and/or catering device, in particular a cooking device” because a kitchen and a catering device are different and it is unclear what it means to arrange in both (the And of And/or). This is made even more unclear with “a cooking device”, and the in particular is unclear whether it is preferred or required.
While Applicant may be its own lexicographer, it is also unclear what the purpose and definition and metes and bounds of the language “at least one solids unit” is because it is the rest of the claim ed
It is also unclear what the metes and bounds of “a receptacle for inserting a bottle filled with solid additive” is and how this may differ from a bottle not filled with solid additive.
It is also unclear what the metes and bounds of “designed to fix” is because designing does not implicate any structure.
“the respective receptacle” in line 11 also lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as they depend from Claim 1 without curing the deficiency.
Re Claim 2, analogous rejections regarding “in particular rotatably”, ‘designed to fix”, “in particular to abut” and “is designed to operate” are made.
Re Claim 3, “two of the holding elements for two bottles” lacks sufficient antecedent basis because “at least one holding element” was the language used for holding element. It is unclear whether the same at least holding element is being claimed or an additional two holding elements are being claimed. The language “for two bottles” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as bottles are not a claimed element. An analogous rejection is made in Claim 10.
Re Claim 4, an analogous rejection to Claim 1 is made regarding “in particular linearly movably” and “in particular to block”.
Re Claim 8, an analogous rejection to Claim 1 is made regarding “in particular designed as a spring”.
Re Claim 9, analogous rejections regarding to Claim 1, in lines 3 and 6 with the language “designed” are made and “in particular” in line 10.
Re Claim 10, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “designed to simultaneously fix” is because designing does not implicate any structure.
Re Claim 11, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “designed for threadless inserting” is because designing does not implicate any structure.
Re Claim 12, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “designed to lock an operation” is because designing does not implicate any structure.
Re Claims 13-14, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the language “in particular is electrically or…”, “in particular designed as cooking chamber”, “in particular in direction of the collecting container” and “preferably the washing liquor” are as none of these phrases necessitate the structure.
Further examination on the merits is precluded in view of the unascertainable claim scope in view of the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights