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:
(1) “a lid unit that is configured to close the opening and seal the liquid container via a sealing member” (claims 1, 17 and 18).
(2) “a handle part configured to be held with fingers of a user” (claim 4).
(3) “a mounting part configured such that battery pack is removably coupled thereto” (claim 9).
(4) “the heating part” configured to heat the liquid in claim 9.
(5) “a locking part … configured to position the filter part” in claim 18.
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.
(1) ““a lid unit” (claims 1, 17 and 18) is interpreted as “all structures shown in fig.8, for example: See paragraphs 0059-0077. Fig.8, 50 includes reference numerals 51, 511, 512, 230, 200, 210, 56, 55, 59, 711, 63, 62, 69, 60, 611, 81, 61, 61s, 612”.
(2) “the handle part” (claim 4) is interpreted as “a bracket having a U-shaped-like structure” (see fig.11, a handle part (knob, tab) 230).
(3) “a mounting part” (claim 9) is interpreted as “The mounting unit 190 has the slide rails 192 extending in the up-down direction” (para.0123).
(4) “the heating part” (claim 9) is interpreted as “heater” (para.0056).
(5) “a locking part” (claim 18) is interpreted as “fig.9, 321”
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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodum (US 20140246428) in view of Lin (US 6,997,104).
Regarding claim 1, Bodum discloses “an electric kettle” (figs.1-7), comprising:
“a body unit” (3 and 17 pointed at a body unit) that has “a liquid container” (3 and 17 pointed at body unit forming a liquid container) having “an opening on a top” (2 pointed at the an opening of the liquid container at the top opening) and “configured to store liquid” (the cavity of the liquid container), and “a heating part element” ([0057], i.e., a heating coil 53) “configured to heat the liquid in the liquid container” ([0057], i.e., A heating coil 53 is attached to the bottom side of the heating plate 5 and serves for heating the liquid received in the inner space 9.);
“a lid unit” ([0051] A pivotable lid 2) that is configured to close the opening and seal the liquid container via “a sealing member” (22 pointed at the sealing member);
“a spout” (14) “configured such that the liquid is poured out therefrom” ([0051], i.e., when pouring out the liquid);
“a liquid passage” (fig.2 shows a liquid passage from the inner cavity 9 to the spout 14) that is configured “such that an inside of the liquid container communicates with the spout” (see fig.2 and [0051])
“a filter part” (8) provided in “the liquid passage” (a liquid passage from the inner cavity 9 to the spout 14), wherein “the filter part” (8) is removably provided in “the liquid passage” (a liquid passage from the inner cavity 9 to the spout 14).
Lin teaches “a liquid passage” (fig.4 shows arrows that represent the liquid passage) that is configured “such that an inside of the liquid container communicates with the spout via the lid unit” (an inside of the liquid container (cavity of 1) communicates with the spout (22) via the lid unit (annotated fig.1)); “an opening/closing valve” (5 and 51) that is “configured to provide communication from the inside of the liquid container to the liquid passage by being moved downward” (fig.4 shows the arrows shows the liquid passage when the valve 5 and 51 moved downward), and “by being moved upward, blocking the communication between the liquid container and the liquid passage” (fig.2 shows the valve 5 and 51 moved upward and blocking the communication between the liquid container and the liquid passage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bodum with Lin, by modifying Bodum’s lid unit according to Lin’s lid unit having a valve device, to allow user to manually control dispensing the liquid when needed (figs.2-4) as taught by Lin.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bodum discloses “the filter part” (Bodum, 8) is provided in “a portion of the liquid passage formed in the lid unit” (Lin, fig.4 shows the liquid passe formed in the lid).
Regarding claim 8, Bodum discloses “the filter part is provided in the liquid passage such that a distance between the filter part and the spout in the liquid passage is shorter than a distance between the filter part and the liquid container in the liquid passage” (Bodum, annotated fig.2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodum (US 20140246428) in view of Lin (US 6,997,104) as applied in claims 1-2 and 8, and further in view of Liang (CN 112006536 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bodum discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a battery dock configured such that a battery pack is removably coupled thereto, wherein: the heating element is configured to heat the liquid in the liquid container by power supplied from the battery pack coupled to the battery dock.
Liang teaches “a battery dock” (annotated fig.4) configured such that “a battery pack” (27 pointed at the battery) “is removably coupled thereto” (fig.3), wherein: “the heating element” (12) “is configured to heat the liquid in the liquid container by power supplied from “the battery pack” (27) coupled to “the battery dock” (annotated fig.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bodum with Liang, by replacing Bodum’s power source device with Liang’s portable power source with a base, to allow user to heat the liquid when there is no external power source available.
Regarding claim 10, modified Bodum discloses “the body unit further has a power receiving connection part” (Liang, 11 has a power receiving connection part. On page 5, i.e., the conductive male joint (Liang, 13) is installed in the middle of the big seat body (14)), the electric kettle further comprises “a power supply unit, and the power supply unit” (Liang, annotated fig.4 and 27) includes: “the battery dock” (Liang, annotated fig.4), “a power supply base” (Liang, 26) configured such that “the body unit” (Liang, 11) is placed on top thereof, and “a power supply connection part” (Liang, 20) that is configured to be electrically removably connected to “the power receiving connection part” (Liang, 13) provided on “the power supply base” (Liang, 26), and configured to supply power to “the heating part” (Liang, 12) via “the power receiving connection part” (Liang, 13) from “the battery pack” (Liang, 27) coupled to “the mounting part” (Liang, annotated fig.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1618
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1370
1146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1266
1104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 11-13, 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “claim 1 has been amended to include the allowable subject matter …” on page 7 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended claim 1 is not entirely from claim 3. In this case, examiner has introduced new reference in current rejection with respect to amended claim 1.
Drawing objection has been withdrawn because fig.7 shows the feature.
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