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 .
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 Objections
Claims 1-7 and 10-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the base connector engages with vessel connector to activate the heating element and prevent pivotal movement of the vessel” should be changed to “the base connector engages with vessel connector to activate the heating element and restricted pivotal movement of the vessel” because restrict movement and prevent movement are not the same because they represent different degrees of limitation. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted the above claim limitation to be “the base connector engages with vessel connector to activate the heating element and restricted pivotal movement of the vessel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-22 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the base connector engages with vessel connector to activate the heating element and prevent pivotal movement of the vessel”. However, nothing in the original specification teaches or suggest the base connector engages with vessel connector to prevent pivotal movement of the vessel. For example: [0012, 0052] of instant publication application states “For example, the vessel connector may comprise a receptacle for receiving the base connector such that pivotal movement of the vessel is restricted.” [0067] states “the base connector 108 extends into the aperture 158 of the second frame part 142 pivotal movement of the vessel 102 is restricted”. That is, the pivotal movement of vessel is restricted not prevented. Examiner noted that restrict movement and prevent movement are not the same because they represent different degrees of limitation (hence, restrict movement means limitation and prevent movement means immobilization).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742).
Regarding claim 1, Hill discloses “a kettle” (figs.1-2) “for heating liquid” (intended use), “the kettle” (figs.1-2) comprising:
“a base” (7) comprising “a base connector” (annotated fig.2) with electrical contact that is connectable to a power source” (the base is configured to connect with power. Abstract, i.e., An electric kettle K is pivotally mounts on a stand 7 and fed through the stand with water from a mains water supply 5), and
“a vessel” (item K) “for holding the liquid” (functional language) and comprising “a heating element” (16) “for heating the liquid” (functional language), “the vessel” (item K) further comprising “a vessel connector with another electrical contact” (annotated fig.2 shows the vessel connector, the vessel connector has an upper portion with another electrical contact in order to connected to heating element 16) connected to “the heating element” (16);
wherein “the vessel” (item K) is pivotably connected to “the base” (7) “such that by pivoting the vessel relative to the base” (fig.2 shows pivoting the vessel K relative to the base 3), “the liquid in the vessel flows through an opening located at a top portion of the vessel” (1 pointed at lid of the vessel. On page 2, i.e., The vessel has a pouring spout 12), and
wherein “the vessel connector comprises a receptacle” (14) into which “the base connector” (fig.2 shows the base 7 has connector (14 pointed at connector at the base)) is received in “the engaged position” (See fig.1) such that when “the base connector” (annotated fig.2) of “the base” (7) is in “the engaged position” (fig.1), “the base connector” (annotated fig.2) engages with “the vessel connector” (annotated fig.2) to activate “the heating element” (16) and “restricted pivotal movement of the vessel” (See claim objection above for examiner’s interpretation. examiner noted that when the vessel connector and the base connector are connected, the pivotable movement of the device relative to the base is generally restricted or limited due to mechanical integrity which imposes physical constraint on the movement of the connected parts), and when “the base connector” (annotated fig.2) is in the disengaged position, “the vessel is pivotable relative to the base for pouring the liquid through the opening of the vessel” (fig.2 shows the vessel K is pivotable relative to the base 7 for pouring the liquid through the opening or spout the vessel).
Hill is silent regarding electrical power is supplied through the base connector, the base connector of the base being movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position.
Balandier teaches “electrical power is supplied through the base connector” (fig.2 shows the vessel placed on the base the shaft 51 pivot and moves the base connector 22 for supplying electricity), “the base connector” (figs.1-2, at least 22) of the base being movable between “an engaged position and a disengaged position” (See figs.1-2 with respect to the shaft 51 movement in relation to the base connector 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Balandier, by replacing Hill’s connectors mechanism with Balandier’s connectors mechanism, to provide automatic electrical connection and disconnection (see figs.1-2) as taught by Balandier.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hill discloses “the base connector comprises a plug having the electrical contact of the base” (Balandier, figs.1-2 shows the base connector 21 pointed at the connector portion comprises a plug (21 pointed at the plug structure having a top horizontal surface) having electrical contact 22 of the base 3), “the plug” ((21 pointed at the plug structure having a top horizontal surface)) being received into “the receptacle of the vessel connector” (15 and 16 pointed at the receptacle of the vessel connector 12) in the engaged position.
Regarding claim 18, modified Hill discloses “the heating element being incorporated within a wall portion of the vessel” (Hill, the heating element 16 being incorporated within exterior of kettle wall of kettle (item K)).
Hill is silent regarding the kettle comprises an electrical switch for connecting the electrical contacts of the vessel and the base to activate the heating element in the vessel, the heating element being incorporated within a wall portion of the vessel.
Balandier teaches “the kettle” (2) comprises “an electrical switch” (22) “for connecting “the electrical contacts of the vessel” (12) and “the base” (21 pointed at the base) to activate the heating element in the vessel” (figs.1-2, 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Balandier, by replacing Hill’s connectors mechanism with Balandier’s connectors mechanism, to provide automatic electrical connection and disconnection (see figs.1-2) as taught by Balandier.
PNG
media_image1.png
1492
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742) as applied in claims 1-2 and 18 above, and further in view of Su (CN 203027509).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hill discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above except for the kettle is configured such that force needs to be applied to move the base connector from the engaged position to the disengaged position and that the base connector automatically returns to the engaged position.
Su teaches “the kettle is configured such that force needs to be applied to move the base connector from the engaged position to the disengaged position and that the base connector automatically returns to the engaged position” ([0147] Picture 3 displays the electrifying state user operation three-dimensional cutaway view of actuator assembly 800, wherein through the user, for example, when first actuator 801 pushed inward to actuate the control device 60, the control device 60 of the over-centre mechanism interacts with the second actuator 802 and provides a force, so that the second actuator 802 is opposite along the radial direction outward and away from the instrument sub base 19 surface movement, so the indicator is in the on state. [0149] advantageously, for example, if the liquid reaches a predetermined temperature or boiling condition is detected, then the actuators 801, 802 in response to the control device 60 the thermal actuator to the over-centre mechanism combined with the unlocking rod 594 function returns to the off state. See fig.15p and fig.15q, 594). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Su, by adding Su’s control mechanism to Hill’s base, to provide automatic return to off state to prevent overheating (para.0149) as taught by Su.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hill discloses the base comprises “a handle” (Su, 801 and 802) “for facilitating to move the base connector from the engaged position to the disengaged position” (Su, [0148] control device 60 may be through a user pressing the second actuator 802 returns to the off state).
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742) as applied in claims 1-2 and 18 above, and further in view of Lim (US 2012/0091119).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hill discloses “the vessel comprises a handle for holding the vessel” (Hill, vessel comprises a handle. See figs.1-2).
Hill is silent regarding wherein the handle comprises a protrusion located at a top portion of the handle that is configured to facilitate pivoting of the vessel by manually pushing against the protrusion.
Lim teaches “the handle” (40 and 42) comprises “a protrusion” (42) located at “a top portion of the handle” (40) that is “configured to facilitate pivoting of the vessel by manually pushing against the protrusion” (figs.12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Lim, by modifying Hill’s handle according to Lim’s handle, to facilitate easy rotate the kettle downwardly to pour liquid in the mug (para.0056) as taught by Lim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742) as applied in claims 1-2 and 18 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 109171464).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hill discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a light source for emitting light, wherein a frequency of the emitted light is selected based on a temperature of the liquid within the vessel.
Xu teaches “a light source for emitting light, wherein a frequency of the emitted light is selected based on a temperature of the liquid within the vessel” (on page 2, i.e., temperature display module 1 and a water quantity display module 2 is an LED display screen or an LCD display screen, a screen is provided with the light emitting diodes of different colours. It is inherently and necessarily that different colors having different frequencies). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Xu, by adding Xu’s LED display screen to Hill’s vessel, to allow user to know the kettle temperature (on page 2) as taught by Xu.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742) as applied in claims 1-2 and 18 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 109171464) and Li (US 2011/0265562).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hill discloses “a light source for emitting light onto at least one defined surface area” (Xu, on page 2, i.e., temperature display module 1 and a water quantity display module 2 is an LED display screen or an LCD display screen, a screen is provided with the light emitting diodes of different colours. It is inherently and necessarily that different colors having different frequencies. Examiner noted that at least one defined surface area can be the surface of the vessel) in proximity of “the base” (Hill, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Xu, by adding Xu’s LED display screen to Hill’s vessel, to allow user to know the kettle temperature (on page 2) as taught by Xu.
Modified Hill is silent regarding wherein the at least one defined surface area is indicative of a position receiving liquid when the vessel is pivoted to pour liquid through the opening of the vessel
Li teaches “the at least one defined surface area is indicative of a position receiving liquid when the vessel is pivoted to pour liquid through the opening of the vessel” (the sidewall of vessel having a water window 140 indicates the position of receiving liquid when user pivots the vessel to pour liquid the opening or spout of the vessel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Li, by adding Li’s water window to Hill’s vessel, to allow user to know the kettle water level (abstract) as taught by Li.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (GB 2331141) in view of Balandier (EP 0895742) as applied in claims 1-2 and 18 above, and further in view of Haroni (US 2018/0310748) and Zhang (CN 101972108 A)
Regarding claim 22, modified Hill discloses all the claim features as set forth above except for the vessel comprises a light source for illuminating liquid within the vessel and a battery for powering the light source, wherein the kettle is configured such that when the base connector is in the disengaged position the light source is powered by the battery.
Haroni teaches “the vessel comprises a light source for illuminating liquid within the vessel” ([0079], i.e., The light emitting portion S1, S2, S3 of the sensor may illuminate the kettle form inside or form outside). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Haroni, by adding Haroni’s light emitting portion S1-S3 to Hill’s vessel, to allow user visually indicate the specific preselected temperature (para.0079) as taught by Haroni.
Zhang teaches “a battery for powering the light source, wherein the kettle is configured such that when the base connector is in the disengaged position the light source is powered by the battery” ([0018] indication lamp 4 is provided with a user water of respectively represent green habit grade, orange, red three. the microcomputer control chip 2 by a detachable battery, being able to charge battery. [0030] can display the user utilization habit of the heat water, micro-computer control chip is detachable, capable of repeatedly charging battery or photovoltaic energy power supply even under the condition of cutting off the power. Examiner noted that the indication lamp is on the vessel and the indication lamp is operatable even under cutting off the power from the power base 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hill with Zhang, by adding Zhang’s display with battery to Hill’s vessel, to indicate water level even under power has been cut off so that user can visually determine the habit of water level based on user preference (para.0012 and abstract) as taught by Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability cannot be determined due to 35 USC 112 1st paragraph with respect to claims 1-7 and 10-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues “35 USC 103 … Hill in view of Balandier fail to teach or suggest each and every element of amended claim 1 …” on pages 6-7.
In response, the amendment to claim changed the scope of invention and examiner has provided different interpretation in current rejection. In addition, the amendment to claim raises 35 USC 112 new matter issue.
(2) With respect to Lim in view of Balandier. The amendment to claims overcome Lim in view of Balandier so that this portion of rejections have been withdrawn. However, with respect to Hill in view of Balandier, this portion of rejection is maintained because the amendment to claim changed the scope of invention and examiner has provided different interpretation in current rejection.
Conclusion
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761