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 .
This office action supersedes the previous office action because examiner has provided a new reference with respect to filter has handle.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “a plate extending in an up-down direction” at line 2. It is unclear what is an up-down direction. Does that mean the plate first extending in up direction and then down direction or something else.
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) and Cohen et al. (US 2010/0270284).
Regarding claim 1, Bodum discloses “an electric kettle” (figs.1-7), comprising:
“a body” (3 and 17 pointed at a body) 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” ([0051] A pivotable lid 2) that is configured to close the opening and seal the liquid container via “a seal” (22 pointed at the sealing);
“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” (8) provided in “the liquid passage” (a liquid passage from the inner cavity 9 to the spout 14), wherein “the filter” (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.
Cohen et al. discloses “the filter has a handle configured to be held with fingers of a user” (fig.6, filter 51 has handle 63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bodum with Cohen et al., by adding Cohen et al.’s handle, to facilitate user to remove and reinsert the filter (0024) as taught by Cohen et al.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bodum discloses “the filter” (Bodum, 8) is provided in “a portion of the liquid passage formed in the lid” (Lin, fig.4 shows the liquid passe formed in the lid).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bodum discloses “the filter is provided in the liquid passage such that a distance between the filter and the spout in the liquid passage is shorter than a distance between the filter 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) and Cohen et al. (US 2010/0270284) 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 terminal” (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, and the power supply” (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” (Liang, 11) is placed on top thereof, and “a power supply connection terminal” (Liang, 20) that is configured to be electrically removably connected to “the power receiving terminal” (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 terminal” (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 7, 11-13 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark has been reviewed. 112f interpretation has been withdrawn due to amendment to claims. However, examiner has provided new reference in current rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights