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 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.
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:
Claim 1, line 7, “an adjustment element for displacement from a start position to a desired heating setting input”
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional language attributed the “element” includes: “adjustment”
Structure “read into” the claim from the specification to support the claimed functional language includes: Pg. 4, lines 15-17: “adjustment element for example comprises a rotary adjustment for rotation from the start position to the desired heating setting input” and Pg. 5, lines 16-17: “a control knob”
Claim 3, lines 2-3, “a return mechanism for returning the adjustment element”
The generic placeholder is “mechanism” and the functional language attributed the “mechanism” includes: “return”
Structure “read into” the claim from the specification to support the claimed functional language includes: Pg. 3, line 21: “return mechanism for example comprises a mechanical spring system”
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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2778921 by Ivar Jepson (“Jepson”) in view of US Patent 3097285 by Irving Page (“Page”).
Regarding claim 1, Jepson teaches a bottle warmer (Fig. 1, baby bottle warmer 20), comprising:
a vessel (chamber 22) for receiving a bottle (baby bottle 40) to be warmed and for receiving water to surround and heat the bottle (Col. 4, lines 43-65);
a heater for heating the water and thereby the bottle (Col. 3, lines 62-64: “a suitable electrical heating element”);
a thermostat for switching at a set temperature thereby for controlling the heater in dependence on the thermostat (Col. 3, lines 62-64: “a thermostatically controlled switch”);
an adjustment element (Col. 4, lines 64-75: “combined handle and measuring device 44 comprises a knob element 45”) for displacement from a start position to a desired heating setting input, based at least on volume information in respect of the bottle contents (Col. 5, lines 66-75: “the edge of the piston … is adjusted to the scale indication for the number of ounces of liquid to be heated in the baby bottle”),
and
an alarm for providing an alarm output when the timing value has elapsed (Col. 4, lines 5-16: “a suitable signal device … is included so that the operator is given an audible or, if desired, a visual signal indicating that the heating operation has terminated”). Jepson does not expressly disclose wherein the adjustment element is coupled to the thermostat for setting the thermostat at a set temperature; and a mechanical timer having a timing value set by a position of the adjustment element.
However, Page teaches an adjustment element for heat and timing control (Figs. 1-3, Col. 1, lines 11-14: “timing devices for cooking purposes where thermostatic means are employed for starting the timing cycle”) wherein the adjustment element (knob 12) is coupled to the thermostat for setting the thermostat at a set temperature (Fig. 8, Col. 2, lines 53-61: “[t]o adjust the temperature setting of the breaker points a temperature setting adjusting screw 23 is provided which biases a spring 24 … the more the spring 24 is compressed by the screw 23 the higher the temperature of the heating element has to become before … disconnecting the electric circuit through the heating coil 22”); and a mechanical timer having a timing value set by a position of the adjustment element (Col. 2, lines 24-35: “a knob 12 is used to set the time … mechanical timing mechanism 11 is of the well-known type of clock timing mechanism“).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the bottle warmer of Jepson with the thermostatic timing device of Page. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to “provide an improved means for controlling and timing a heating cycle” which enhances the experience of a user with additional features.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Jepson further teaches wherein the heater is configured to turn off when the alarm output is provided, and
wherein the alarm comprises:
an audible output device; and/or
a visual output device (Col. 4, lines 5-16: “manual control knob 32 which is moved to the “on” position to initiate a heating operation and which is automatically moved to the “off” position when the desired ultimate temperature is obtained … a suitable signal device … is included so that the operator is given an audible or, if desired, a visual signal indicating that the heating operation has terminated”).
Regarding claims 3-5, Jepson does not expressly disclose wherein the mechanical timer comprises a return mechanism for returning the adjustment element to the start position, and wherein the alarm is for providing an additional output when the adjustment element has returned to the start position;
wherein the return mechanism comprises a mechanical spring system; and
wherein the thermostat comprises a bimetal switch.
However, Page teaches a heating control mechanism (Figs. 1-3, Col. 1, lines 11-14) that utilizes a mechanical timer (Fig. 1), wherein the mechanical timer comprises a return mechanism for returning the adjustment element to the start position (Col. 3, lines 33-39: “[w]hen the time that the timer was set for has expired the cam 27 returns to its off position and pushes the switch lever 28 so as to break the contact of the breaker points”), and wherein the alarm is for providing an additional output when the adjustment element has returned to the start position (Col. 1, lines 55-59: “after the period of time, which the timer has been set for, has expired the timer will break the contact of the breaker points thereby shutting off the current to the heating element”);
wherein the return mechanism comprises a mechanical spring system (Col. 2, lines 24-35: “timing mechanism 11 is of the well-known type of clock timing mechanism having a spring, gearing, and escapement mechanism”); and
wherein the thermostat comprises a bimetal switch (Fig. 1, Col. 4, lines 8-24: “bimetallic element 16”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the bottle warmer of Jepson with the thermostatic timing device of Page. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to “provide an improved means for controlling and timing a heating cycle” which enhances the experience of a user with additional features.
Regarding claims 7-9, Jepson further teaches the bottle warmer further comprising a set of visual heating setting indicators along the adjustment element (Figs. 4 and 5), wherein each heating setting indicator comprises an indication of a volume amount (Col. 5, lines 66-75: “adjusted to the scale indication for the number of ounces of liquid to be heated in the baby bottle”), and wherein the visual heating setting indicators further comprise an indication of an initial milk temperature, such that the desired heating setting input is further based on initial temperature information in respect of contents in the bottle (Col. 5, lines 66-75: “the scale utilized for this purpose depends upon whether the baby bottle is taken out of the refrigerator or is roughly at room temperature” Figs. 5 and 6 show a 40 and 72 degree scale), and wherein the visual heating setting indicators comprise a first scale for measuring a first initial milk temperature (Fig. 4, 40 degrees) and a second scale for measuring a second initial milk temperature (Fig. 5, 72 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jepson further teaches wherein the adjustment element comprises a rotary adjustment element for rotation from the start position to the desired heating setting input (Fig. 7, Col. 5, lines 26-53: “adjusting knob 54 … having a knurled surface 55 … to facilitate manipulation of the adjusting knob”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2778921 by Ivar Jepson (“Jepson”) in view of US Patent 3097285 by Irving Page (“Page”) above, and further in view of US 2017/0086620 by Paulus Duineveld (“Duineveld”).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Jepson does not expressly disclose wherein the visual heating setting indicators further comprise an indication of a remaining heating time and wherein the set temperature of the thermostat and the timing value have a linear relationship.
However, Duineveld teaches a bottle warmer (Fig. 1) wherein the visual heating setting indicators further comprise an indication of a remaining heating time (Para. [0052]: “user interface 12 is used … for providing information to the user”, para. [0055]: “the temperature gradient over time of the fluid 2 and the turn-off time, turn-on time and/or power of the heating unit 5 over time. The estimated temperature may then be issued via the user interface 12 in order to inform the user about the current heating status”) and wherein the set temperature of the thermostat and the timing value have a linear relationship (Para. [0060]: “the fluid temperature increases almost linearly and the gradient of the fluid is determined mainly by the power of the heating unit 5 and the amount of fluid 2 in the chamber 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the bottle warmer and control mechanism of Jepson and Page with the temperature and timing control for a bottle warmer as taught by Duineveld. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the features of determining the remaining time for a bottle to be warmed in order to improve convenience for a user and prevent spoilage of milk (Paras. [0002]-[0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see Notice of References Cited.
US Patent 3043936 by Irving Page discloses a thermostatic-timer mechanism for controlling heating cycles and timing control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761