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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 17, 25, 26, and 48 each feature impermissible use of black shading. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “301” has been used to designate both the outer water retaining wall and the inner water retaining wall.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the water guiding lip being disposed right above the base drainage pipe in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: KITCHEN APPLIANCE WITH DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implicit language, i.e. “The present disclosure relates to.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 10 October 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/CN2021/085582 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 6 April 2021. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 10 October 2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of ¶¶ 99 and 153 (twice) of the clean submitted specification, “base 1” should be “base 4.”
In ¶ 102, the last sentence has an unnecessary period between “drainage” and “method.”
In ¶ 216, “tension spring 17” should be “tension spring 50.”
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–16, 20–22, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, l. 9, should have a comma after “cover.”
Claim 2, l. 2, should have a comma after “on the base.”
Claim 2, l. 3, should have a comma after “base drainage pipe.”
Claim 3, ll. 3 and 5, should have a comma after “hole.”
Claim 3, ll. 4–5, should be amended to recite “the other side edge of the drainage hole.”
Claim 4 should have a comma added after “receiving tray surface” on line 3, and “notch” on line 4.
Claim 6, ll. 1–2, should be amended to recite “the second water receiving [[part]] component” to comport with its presentation in claim 1.
Claim 6 should have a comma after “base” on line 3.
Claim 7 should have a comma after “cover” on line 2 and “assembly” on line 3.
Claim 7, l. 3, should be amended to recite “a circle of a second water retaining wall.”
Claim 8 should have a comma after the first “safety link body” on line 3.
Claim 12 should have a comma added after “slit” on line 4.
Claim 12, ll. 5–6, should be amended to recite “a circle of water retaining wall being formed downward from the lower end of the drainage slit.”
Claim 13 should have a comma after “channel” on line 3.
Claim 13, l. 4, should be amended to recite “corresponds.”
Claim 14 should have a comma added between “located” and “or” on line 3.
Claim 15, l. 3, should be amended to recite “suction disc foot assembly, the installation position comprising.”
Claim 15, l. 5 should be amended to recite “assembly to be suspended.”
Claim 15 should be amended to have a semi-colon added after “via hole” on line 5.
Claim 15 is objected to for being presented in a block format, where its sections should be separated and indented. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
Claim 16 should have commas added after “mainframe” and “cup” on line 3, after “link” and “shell” on line 7, after “body” on line 8, after “buckle” and “lid” on line 10, and after “switch” and “mainframe” on line 13.
Claim 20 should have commas added after “of the mainframe” on line 3, “cover” on line 7, and “cover” on the second-to-last line.
Claim 21 should have a comma after “wall” on line 4.
Claim 21, l. 4, should be amended to recite “a circle of an upper cover outer edge.”
Claim 22 should have a comma after “ring” and “wheel” on line 4.
Claim 28 should have a comma after “a screw lid” on line 2, “the screw lid” on line 3, “the lid” on line 4, “the screw lid” on line 6, “wall” on line 7, “ring” on line 9, “displacement of the sealing ring” on line 10, and “portion” on line 13,
All remaining claims are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
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) 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:
The first water receiving part in claim 1 (elements 7 and 8 in the disclosure).
The second water receiving component in claim 1 (element 7 in the disclosure).
The transfer structure in claim 2 (elements 901, 902, and 9 in the disclosure).
The safety link overflow structure and safety link body in claim 9 (altogether, elements 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the disclosure; see ¶ 156 of the submitted specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 15, 16, and 28 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.
Claim 15 recites “the suction disc foot” (l. 4) but this has insufficient antecedent basis because the claim only earlier mentions “a suction disc foot assembly.” The “assembly” appears to be defining, by implication, the presence of a plurality of individual feet, but this should be explicit. The claim terms “via hole” (ll. 3–4) and “via holes” (l. 6) are similarly ambiguous.
Claim 15 recites “the drainage gap” (l. 7), but this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis because it is introduced in dependent claim 12, but claim 15 depends from claim 9. Because the drainage gap relates to the complex structure of claims 9–12 (which are indicated allowable over the prior art), and because claim 15 previously depended from any one of claim 9–14, the Office recognizes it may be removed from the claim, it will be ignored for examination purposes.
Claim 16 recites “the safety link body” (last line), but this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis because it is introduced in claim 9, but claim 16 depends from claim 1. The limitation will be understood simply for examination purposes.
Claim 28 recites “an R angle sealing portion” (ll. 12–13). The limitation renders the claim indefinite because its meaning is unclear. It could be that “R” stands in for an angle value, or is meant to suggest “right-angle,” or something else. Please amend the claim to have a definite form, and cite support from the disclosure for such an amendment.
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 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 109222689 A).
Claim 1: Chen discloses a kitchen appliance, comprising an overflow structure (63, 64) disposed in a mainframe (the motor and related structure in fig. 3) of the kitchen appliance, a motor (14) being assembled in the mainframe, wherein a mainframe upper cover (what is shown as the “bottom” wide portion in fig. 3, which is of course in practice on top) is disposed above the motor, and the mainframe upper cover is connected to the mainframe as a whole piece (evident from fig. 3) and is used to place a container cup assembly (2) of the kitchen appliance (see figs. 1 and 2), a shaft of the motor (the vertically elongated part at or near 3 or 4 as depicted in fig. 4) is connected to a clutch assembly (4) for power transmission, a base (the bottom that surrounds the structure of fig. 3, appreciable at least from fig. 4) is installed at a lower end of the mainframe, wherein the overflow structure comprises:
a mainframe-upper-cover drainage structure (flat portion adjacent 63 in fig. 2) comprising at least one side drainage hole (63) opened at an edge of the mainframe upper cover (see fig. 2) and a first water receiving part (631) for transferring liquid in the side drainage hole; and
an interference drainage structure comprising a water receiving tray (64) for receiving liquid overflowing from a gap between the clutch assembly and the mainframe upper cover (evident from 132 in figs. 2 and 8, “the connecting opening 132 along the vertical direction projection in the connecting surface 641”) and a second water receiving component for transferring liquid in the water receiving tray (65, 643).
Claim 2: Chen discloses that the first water receiving part comprises a base drainage pipe (60) vertically installed on the base (appreciable from fig. 4) and a water receiving pipe (631) inserted into the upper end of the base drainage pipe (see fig. 4) and a lower end of the side drainage hole is tightly connected with an opening end of the water receiving pipe through a transfer structure (appreciable from figs. 2 and 4).
Claim 3: Chen discloses that the transfer structure comprises an inclined transfer bottom surface formed by bending at least once along one side edge of the side drainage hole a connecting surface connected between the transfer bottom surface and other edge of the drainage hole (see the bend from horizontal to angled almost vertical at 631 in fig. 4) and an opening end of the transfer structure faces the water receiving pipe (appreciable from 631 and 60 in fig. 4).
Claim 4: Chen discloses that the water receiving tray comprises a receiving tray surface (641) and a tray wall (642, 66) extending upward along an edge of the receiving tray surface (see fig. 8), one side of the tray wall is formed with a water receiving notch (65) and a water guiding lip (643) extends downward from an edge of the receiving tray surface below the water receiving notch (see fig. 8).
Claim 5: Chen discloses that the receiving tray surface is provided with a first motor hole for the shaft of the motor to extend therethrough (clearly the large hole on 64 in fig. 8, most evident from the tray as depicted in fig. 3, but also evident from 132 in figs. 2 and 8, “the connecting opening 132 along the vertical direction projection in the connecting surface 641,” as well as 64 in fig. 4), and a first water retaining wall extends upward from an edge of the first motor hole (see the wall around 65 in fig. 8).
Claim 6: Chen discloses that the second water receiving part comprises a base drainage pipe (61) vertically installed on the base (see fig. 4) and the water guiding lip is disposed right above the base drainage pipe in the second water receiving part (see 65 and 61 in fig. 4).
Claim 7: Chen discloses that on the mainframe upper cover there is provided a second motor hole (132) for partially inserting the clutch assembly (appreciable from 62 and 63 in figs. 2 and 4) and a circle of second water retaining wall (62) is formed by extending upward from an edge of the second motor hole (see fig. 2).
Claim 8: Chen discloses that a lower part of the clutch assembly is formed with at least two coaxially arranged water retaining walls and a lower end of an outer water retaining wall is higher than a lower end of an inner water retaining wall (see fig. 4 annotated below):
PNG
media_image1.png
436
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Artin (US Pat. 4,095,751) and Carden (US Pub. 2013/0334349).
Comment: See the § 112(b) rejection above regarding the examination of this claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose that each corner end of the base is provided with an installation position for assembling a suction disc foot assembly, the installation position comprising: a via hole for the suction disc foot, the via hole penetrating the base and for the suction disc foot assembly to be suspended and inserted through the via hole and screw posts respectively fixed to a periphery of the via holes for suction disc feet.
However, Chen very clearly appears to imply at least much of this structure given the feet depicted in fig. 4, where elongated means appear to attach suction-cup like arches to the base for contacting a surface.
Regardless, feet of this sort are commonly found on countertop appliances. Artin discloses a countertop appliance, where each corner end of a base (12) is provided with an installation position for assembling a foot assembly (see 18 in figs. 1 and 2), the installation position comprising a via hole (within 16d, see fig. 2) for the foot, the via hole penetrating the base (ibid.) and for the foot assembly to be suspended and inserted through the via hole (fig. 2) and screw posts (col. 4, ll. 22–28, “screws,” clearly shown in fig. 2 between 16d and 18) respectively fixed to a periphery of the via holes for feet (18).
While Artin does not disclose any suction disc feet, these are well-known in the art, as for example shown in Carden (304).
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 suction disc feet of Carden onto Chen using the via holes and screw posts taught by Artin to allow the apparatus to be well-secured to a surface for safety.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ni (CN 110313854 A) and Li (CN 209252561 U).
Chen does not disclose that the kitchen appliance further comprises:
a cover opening protection structure, a container cup assembled on the mainframe a screw lid snapped on the container cup a micro switch and a handle shell fixedly connected to one side of the container cup; wherein the cover opening protection structure comprises: a handle safety link which can move up and down in the handle shell comprises a link body a driving inclined surface and a driving rod respectively provided on an upper part and a lower part of the link body; a hook-type buckle which is fixedly connected to a lower end of the screw lid and has a buckle inclined surface formed at a lower part of the hook-type buckle for driving the handle safety link to move up and down; and the micro switch which is assembled inside the mainframe and the driving rod drives an elastic piece of the micro switch to be pressed down or bounced up through the safety link body in the kitchen appliance.
However, Ni discloses a similar apparatus with a cover opening protection structure (see figs. 23 and 24 for a general disclosure), a container cup (22) assembled on a mainframe (ascertainable from figs. 2 and 7), a screw lid (21) snapped on the container cup, a micro switch (72) and a handle shell (23) fixedly connected to one side of the container cup (see figs. 2, 4, and 16);
wherein the cover opening protection structure comprises:
a handle safety link (26) which can move up and down in the handle shell (see figs. 23 and 24) comprises a link body (26), a driving inclined surface (261), and a driving rod (see the bottom of 26 in figs. 23 and 24) respectively provided on an upper part and a lower part of the link body;
an actuating element (at 211) which is fixedly connected to a lower end of the screw lid and has an inclined surface (211) formed at a lower part of the actuating element for driving the handle safety link to move up and down; and
the micro switch (72) which is assembled inside the mainframe (appreciable from fig. 16) and the driving rod drives an elastic piece of the micro switch (on 72, clearly appreciable from fig. 17) to be pressed down or bounced up (via 27, clearly depicted as a spring in figs. 23 and 24) through the safety link body in the kitchen appliance.
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 cover opening protection structure and micro switch of Ni to the cup and mainframe of Chen as a safety mechanism.
Ni does not disclose a hook-type buckle, and instead discloses an actuating element at 211.
However, Li discloses a similar apparatus with a hook-type buckle (31, which includes a inclined surface, see fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the actuating element of Ni with the hook-type buckle of Li to provide additional structure to prevent the element from moving upward and out of the switch actuating position.
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 9–14, 20–22, and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, neither Chen nor any other prior art of record disclose or suggest, alone or in combination, the safety link overflow structure and safety link body as understood under § 112(f).
Regarding claim 20, Ni (CN 110313854 A) is the closest prior art of record for disclosing a lever (13), locking buckle members (41), and a rotating ring (4, see fig. 12). However, Ni does not disclose that its locking buckle members extend or retract on locking buckle brackets, as they are stationary on the ring.
Regarding claim 28, while sealing ring assemblies are generally known, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, alone or in combination, the specifics of the claimed sealing ring, upper bracket, and lower bracket in the claim.
Conclusion
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 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