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 with respect to claim(s) 21–40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Comment: Although the “control unit” and “user input device” of claims 21, 36, and 37 are formulated as limitations to be interpreted under § 112(f), they are not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the first to be a kind of digital or analog controller, and the second to be any well-known digital or analog input device. 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.”
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.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Office has closely reviewed the original disclosure for support for the limitation that “the washing step is conducted on the bowl unit and the base unit as they are attached to each other.” ¶ 6 of the specification provides that “the cooking vessel, which includes a bowl unit (e.g., a pot) and a base unit, can be submersible and easily washed without exposing control or power components to liquids during cleaning.” Similar language is also found in ¶¶ 33 and 45. Overall, it seems the idea of washing the bowl unit and the base unit while attached to each other is one step beyond what fairly disclosed in the originally-filed application. The Office recommends that this claim be canceled.
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 21, 36, and 37 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.
Independent claims 21 and 37 each recite, “the bowl unit comprising a heating element.” As discussed in the attached Interview Summary, the meaning of this language is unclear, as it would ordinarily suggest that the heating element and the bowl unit were merged (i.e. integrally formed, or joined such that separability was not part of the ordinary design), but such an interpretation was not depicted in Applicant’s figures. As discussed in the interview, the claim will be interpreted broadly to mean that the heating element and the bowl unit only need to interact, and not that they need to be somehow affixed to each other. The claims should be amended to make this clear.
Claim 21 recites, first, “a user input device” (l. 8), followed by “one or more controls” (ll. 12–13). Dependent claim 27 also mentions “the user input device,” and independent claims 36 and 37 have language similar to independent claim 21. The language renders each independent claim indefinite because it’s unclear what the difference between these two elements would be. The specification mentions various language, including “a control unit 24 that can include various controls such as a knob 30” (¶ 31), and “a removable probe unit 76 can include a knob 78 (or digital or automatic control input panel)” (¶ 45). Overall, the disclosure overwhelming suggests that any “user input device” and “one or more controls” would very much be one and the same. The claim could mean the part of the control unit that receives the input has that input actuated by the “controls,” but this is an overly generous interpretation, and the claims are not sufficiently definite.
Claims 22–35 and 38–40 are rejected due to dependency upon rejected claims.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21–26, 30, and 33–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gyeong (KR 10-0896318 B1).
Claim 21: Gyeong discloses a modular cooking appliance (primarily focusing on the embodiment in fig. 7, with joinable features from other embodiments mentioned), the modular cooking appliance comprising:
a bowl unit (15b; “container 15b may be used any one of a frying pan, a meat roasting plate, a hot pot container, and a steaming container selected according to the type or use of the food to be cooked”) having an interior for receiving food to be cooked, the bowl unit comprising a heating element (13; see the § 112(b) rejection above) having an operative electrical connector (14) at a lower portion of the bowl unit (at 11), wherein the heating element is configured to heat the bowl unit at least partially by conduction when the heating element is energized (given the outlined portion of 13, as well as the base of 15, shown in fig. 6, conduction is evident);
a base unit (12a) for supporting the bowl unit, the base unit including an opening (11) for providing access to the operative electrical connector; and
a removable control unit (20) having a control electrical connector (the part of 20 that interfaces with the heating element power supply terminal 14) and a user input device (20a), the removable control unit being selectively insertable through the opening of the base by the user to extend at least partially within the base unit (evident at least by observing fig. 2 (with a partially analogous embodiment) and fig. 7) and as supported in position by the base unit for selective operative electrical connection of the control electrical connector to the operative electrical connector of the heating element (ibid.), the removable control unit also comprising one or more controls of a cooking aspect of the modular cooking appliance (20a; see the § 112(b) rejection above), wherein the removable control unit is configured to interface with and selectively provide power to the heating element such that the bowl unit of the modular cooking appliance is selectively heatable by the heating element according to the user input device when the control electrical connector of the control unit is connected to the operative electrical connector of the bowl unit by the user (the temperature control knob 20a facilitates selective power provision and heating of the heating element).
Claim 22: Gyeong discloses that the bowl unit and base unit are attached to each other (evident from 12a and 15b in fig. 7; Applicant’s own disclosure suggest that the term “attached” broadly means interconnected with, and does not require any positive affixing of the elements to each other) with the removable control unit being removable relative to the attached bowl unit and base unit combination (appreciable from figs. 2 and 7).
Claim 23: Gyeong discloses that the bowl unit and base unit are selectively separable from each other with each of the removable control unit, the bowl unit, and the base unit separable from the others (appreciable from figs. 2 and 7).
Claim 24: Gyeong discloses that the control electrical connector of the control unit operatively connects to the operative electrical connector of the bowl unit using a probe-like connection (power supply terminal features two probe-like connections, see fig. 2).
Claim 25: Gyeong discloses that the operative electrical connector of the bowl unit comprises at least two electrical leads (two electrical leads of 14 clearly shown in fig. 2).
Claim 26: Gyeong discloses that at least one of the bowl unit and the base unit is configured to be submersible in liquid when disconnected from the removable control unit (given its structure, 15b is clearly submersible in liquid).
Claim 30: Gyeong discloses a lid (21) configured to rest on an upper rim of the bowl unit in order to at least partially seal the open top of the bowl unit (depicted in fig. 5).
Claim 33: Gyeong discloses that the heating element is a resistive heating element (Gyeong discloses one example of heat source 13 is a “halogen heat lamp,” which qualifies as a resistive heating element).
Claim 34: Gyeong discloses that at least one of the bowl unit and the base unit is configured to thermally insulate the heating element from a supporting surface (structure of 12a beneath 13 that would thermally insulate the heating element from a supporting surface is clearly shown in at least fig. 7).
Claim 35: Gyeong discloses that the control unit comprises a second connector complementary to the operative electrical connector (power plug 20 would have two connectors to connect to the two prongs of power supply terminal 2).
Claim 36: Gyeong discloses a method of making a modular cooking appliance (primarily focusing on the embodiment in fig. 7, with joinable features from other embodiments mentioned), comprising:
providing a heating element (13) to a bowl unit (15b; “container 15b may be used any one of a frying pan, a meat roasting plate, a hot pot container, and a steaming container selected according to the type or use of the food to be cooked”) having an interior for receiving food to be cooked, the heating element being at least partially in contact with the bowl unit (given the outlined portion of 13, as well as the base of 15, shown in fig. 6, conduction is evident) and having an operative electrical connector (14) extending from a lower portion of the bowl unit (at 11);
attaching a base unit (12a) to the bowl unit for supporting the bowl unit, the base unit including an opening (11) for providing access to the operative electrical connector of the heating element; and
inserting a control unit (20) having a control electrical connector (the part of 20 that interfaces with the heating element power supply terminal 14) at least partially through the opening of the base unit (evident at least by observing fig. 2 (with a partially analogous embodiment) and fig. 7) to connect the control electrical connector with the operative electric connector of the heating element, wherein the control unit comprises a user input device (20a) and one or more controls (20a; see the § 112(b) rejection above) of a cooking aspect of the modular cooking appliance, wherein the removable control unit is configured to interface with and selectively provide power to the heating element such that the bowl unit of the modular cooking appliance is selectively heatable by the heating element according to the user input device when the control electrical connector of the control unit is connected to the operative electrical connector of the bowl unit (the temperature control knob 20a facilitates selective power provision to, and heating of, the heating element).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of De’ Longhi (WO 2018/216042).
Gyeong discloses that the control unit comprises a temperature or time based cooking control (20a is temperature-based), wherein the control unit is configured to receive a user input at the user input device via analog or digital interface (20a is an analog interface), and wherein the control unit is configured to receive the user input at the user input device via manual or automatic interface (20a is a manual interface).
Gyeong arguably does not disclose that the control unit selectively provides the modular cooking appliance functionality of a multi-cooker or a slow cooker.
However, De’ Longhi discloses a similar apparatus with a control unit (24) that selectively provides the modular cooking appliance functionality of a multi-cooker or a slow cooker (p. 4, ll. 5–9, “cooking in a pan (slow cooker) or in a multicooker, steaming (in a steamer) or grilling (on the grill)”; this passage clearly suggests different heat and power levels for these different modes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the functionality of a multi-cooker or slow cooker, as taught by De’ Longhi, into the control unit of Gyeong to allow for more varied modes of operation.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wagner (US Pat. 7,167,642).
Geyong does not disclose that the bowl unit comprises only anodized aluminum.
However, Wagner discloses a similar apparatus including a bowl unit (20) that comprises only anodized aluminum (“anodized aluminum” mentioned repeatedly in col. 5, ll. 29–63).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the bowl unit of Gyeong out of the anodized aluminum taught by Wagner as a known material with suitable weight and heat transfer properties.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Leon et al. (US Pub. 2007/0137449).
Gyeong does not disclose that the bowl unit comprises at least one handle.
However, Leon discloses a similar apparatus with a bowl unit (16) that comprises at least one handle (¶ 39, “tabs 30 can function as handles”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the handle taught by Leon to the bowl unit of Gyeong to make the bowl unit easier to handle.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Patterson et al. (US Pub. 2003/0173352).
Gyeong discloses the control unit comprises a power unit configured to receive alternating current from a wall power socket via a power cord (a plug for a mains is clearly shown in fig. 7).
Gyeong does not explicitly disclose that its power unit converts the alternating current to direct current.
However, converting AC to DC is common in the art. Patterson discloses a similar apparatus that converts AC to DC for heating unit (see claim 9; see also ¶ 67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the AC to DC conversion taught by Patterson into the power unit of Gyeong to supply a suitable form of electric power to the heating element.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cao (US Pub. 2020/0008601).
Gyeong does not disclose that the heating unit is at least partially embedded or recessed within a channel of the lower portion of the cooking vessel.
However, this feature is already known in the art, as disclosed in Cao (see heat conducting groove 58 in fig. 10, its interaction with a second heating element 6 described in ¶ 38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the lower portion channel taught by Cao into the bowl unit of Gyeong to improve heater transfer from the heating element.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong in view of DuBois et al. (US Pat. 4,195,560).
Gyeong discloses a method of using a modular cooking appliance (primarily focusing on the embodiment in fig. 7, with joinable features from other embodiments mentioned) that comprises a bowl unit (15b; “container 15b may be used any one of a frying pan, a meat roasting plate, a hot pot container, and a steaming container selected according to the type or use of the food to be cooked”) having an interior for receiving food to be cooked, the bowl unit comprising a heating element (13; see the § 112(b) rejection above) having an operative electrical connector (14) at a lower portion of the bowl unit (at 11), wherein the heating element is configured to heat the bowl unit at least partially by conduction when the heating element is energized (given the outlined portion of 13, as well as the base of 15, shown in fig. 6, conduction is evident); a base unit (12a) for supporting the bowl unit, the base unit including an opening (11) for providing access to the operative electrical connector; and a removable control unit (20) having a control electrical connector (the part of 20 that interfaces with the heating element power supply terminal 14) and a user input device (20a), the removable control unit insertable through the opening of the base unit to extend at least partially within the base unit (evident at least from fig. 2 (with a partially analogous embodiment) and fig. 7) and as supported in position by the base unit for selective operative electrical connection of the control electrical connector to the operative electrical connector of the heating element according to the user input device (ibid.), the removable control unit also comprising one or more controls (20a; see the § 112(b) rejection above) of a cooking aspect of the modular cooking appliance, wherein the removable control unit is configured to interface with and selectively provide power to the heating element such that the bowl unit of the modular cooking appliance is selectively heatable by the heating element when the control electrical connector of the control unit is connected to the operative electrical connector of the bowl unit (the temperature control knob 20a facilitates selective power provision and heating of the heating element), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a user input at the user input device (the ordinary operation of 20a);
cooking food within the interior of the bowl unit according to the received user input by providing electrical power to the heating element and transferring heat to the bowl unit and to the food (the ordinary operation of 13, 15b, and 20); and
removing the removable control unit after the food is cooked as desired according to the received user input by disinserting the removable control unit from within the opening of the base unit and thus separating the control electrical connector from the operative electrical connector of the heating element (this ordinary functionality of 20 shown in fig. 2).
Gyeong never explicitly discloses powering off the heating element by the one or more controls of the removable control unit.
However, powering off a heating element is a well-known feature of controls. DuBois discloses an apparatus with a similar control unit input (76) that allows an associated heating element to be powered off (col. 5, ll. 8–11, “knob 76 provided on the end of the control shaft 72 permits rotation of the knob 76 between an “off” position, a “warming” position, a “frying” position and a “crepe making” position”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the “off” position taught by DuBois onto the control of the removable control unit of Gyeong to allow a user to conveniently power off the heating element without having to disconnect the control unit.
Claims 38–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyeong in view of DuBois as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Goto (JP H06-38828 U, cited by the Office).
Claim 38: Gyeong does not disclose a step of washing the bowl unit and the base unit without the removable control unit.
However, Goto discloses a highly similar apparatus with an element analogous to the claimed bowl unit (12) and a base unit (11). Goto further discloses that its element analogous to the claimed bowl unit is removable for purposes of washing (“Since the receiving member is detachably attached to the heating and cooking device, when the cleaning is required, the receiving member can be appropriately removed and cleaned”).
Goto does not disclose washing the base unit. However, the benefits of washing components are generally understood in the art, at least as evidenced by the washing explicitly taught in Goto, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been willing to wash the base unit of Goto for common reasons, e.g. sanitary effect and aesthetic effect.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wash the bowl unit and the base unit of Gyeong without the removable control unit, as suggested by Goto, to make it easier to clean these parts.
Comment: If this claim was narrowed such that the washing involved submerging the base in liquid, the Office would argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have drawn, at least from the structure of support members 25 of Goto in fig. 1, that Goto’s own heating element 24 could, or could be modified to, be removable, to permit a safe, more intense washing of the base. As the claim is, these parts may be washed by soapy and wet paper towels to satisfy the washing step.
Claim 39: Modified as per claim 38 above, Goto does not disclose that the washing step is conducted on the bowl unit and the base unit as they are attached to each other.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wash the bowl unit and base unit as they are attached to each other (e.g. using a wet rag) for convenience.
Claim 40: Modified as per claim 38 above, Goto discloses detaching and separating its element analogous to the bowl unit and the base unit from each other, wherein the washing step is conducted on the bowl unit (“Since the receiving member is detachably attached to the heating and cooking device, when the cleaning is required, the receiving member can be appropriately removed and cleaned”) when it is separated from the base unit. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to clean the base unit when separated, at least since it would give easier access to parts of the base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Shi et al. (US Pub. 2019/0082876) is similar prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights