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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 13 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 26 under § 103 in view of Zhou have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 103 rejection of claim 26 in view of Zhou has been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Luxembourg on 25 October 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Luxembourgish application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 552 (fig. 5B), 554 (fig. 5B).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 19, l. 34 of the submitted specification, it seems that “heating element 202” should be “heating element 103.”
On p. 30, l. 24 of the submitted specification, “container 106” should be “container 101.”
Claim Objections
Claims 41, 42, and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41 recites “a/the cooling element,” but antecedent basis for this element is clearly provided by independent claim 26, and so these should simply recite “the cooling element.”
In claim 42 on line 7, “deactive” should be “deactivate.”
Claim 46 recite “a/the controller,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim, so it should simply recite “a controller.”
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) 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:
The cooling element in claim 26 (only a fan is disclosed as the structure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Comment: Although the “heating element” of claim 26 is formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), it is not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a resistive heater, an induction heater, or the like. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the resilient element in claim 44 to be a spring, a compressed elastic element, or the like, and the tool configured to agitate contents in claim 50 to be a rotating or moving blade or piece or the like.
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.
Claims 30, 40, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 30 depends from claim 27, but claim 27 has been canceled, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 40, the phrase “preferably” renders 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 46 recites “the controller,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim, so it should be amended to recite “a controller.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 28, 29, 31–37, 39, 43, 44, 47, and 50 are allowed.
All of claims 30, 40–42, and 46 would inherit allowability if amended to overcome the objections, as well as the rejections under § 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that Zhou does not disclose or suggest a cooling element configured to drive fluid along a fluid flow path which is defined by the heating element and the outer surface of the container, to exhaust through the container receiving member, as now claimed. This argument is persuasive.
Qiu et al. (CN 109287018 A) comes incidentally very close to reading on the reference. Qiu’s inductor coil disc 400 arguably qualifies as a container as claimed, and support structure 410 along with support wall 413 arguably qualify as the claimed container receiving member. With the heating element on the outer surface of 400, and a flow path 1 being defined by the heating element and the outer surface of the container, Qiu still does not seem to disclose that the fluid flow path exhausts through the container receiving member. Although it’s not clear how flow path 1 finds its way to its end as suggested in fig. 1, nothing disclosed in Qiu suggests that the fluid flow path exhausts through what we are considered as qualifying as the container receiving member. One guess is that the path flows to the upper end of 413 and out laterally through the structure of the container 400 that caps 413, as shown in figs. 1 and 4, since this structure has a limited lateral extent, as evident by fig. 4. Even if it were to be argued that 413 (better shown in fig. 4, though better labeled in fig. 1) was structured such that it had lateral gaps along its flow path formed with 400 (as arguably suggested by the interface between the elements depicted in fig. 4), this would still not truly be the fluid flow path exhausting through the container receiving member, since this would really be the flow path flowing around the container receiving member. The Office also notes that the depiction of 410 in fig. 9 is clearly oversimplified and cannot be relied on to show minute structural details.
The Office points out that even this is arguably a stretched interpretation, since, though not explicitly disclosed in Qiu, the true container would be a removable container received and heated by 400, which would be the true container receiving member. Element 400 would never be the container (i.e. for cooking) because it has electronics attached and is not suitable for being removed and washed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Cheng et al. (CN 109276159) is similar to the claimed invention.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761