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: a coupling member in claim 5 wherein coupling is a functional language with the recited term “member” is a generic placeholder for means.
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.
Th coupling member is interpreted to be as a permanent magnet as disclosed in para 0014 of the specification or its 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCartney (US 4,042,806).
McCartney discloses a heating unit structure claimed including a first terminal (60-62) with a resistance heating type heater (12) connected to the first terminal.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, McCartney further discloses a shape of the heater (12) that forms a circular column shape as illustrated in Figure 5, and the heater having a top view and a bottom view that are the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney (US 4,042,806) in view of Arntz et al (US 2003/0111456).
McCartney discloses the heat unit structure claimed including the resistance heater that is formed of a sheathed heating element but does not explicitly disclose that the heater has a rod shape.
Arntz discloses it is known to provide a resistance heater (90) that is formed of a sheathed heating element having a rod shape (para 0017; Figure 3) which is well known in the art.
In view of Arntz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCartney with the resistance heater made of a sheathed heating element having a rod shape that is well known in the art used as a heating unit for cooking unit.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney (US 4,042,806) in view of Zhang et al (US 2022/0320796) and Tanaka (US 5,151,040).
With respect to claims 5 and 10, McCartney discloses a heating cooker/appliance comprising the heater unit claimed including a connector unit (socket/receptacle 23) having a second terminal configured to be electrically connected to a power supply, the second terminal having a contact surface that is configured to come into contact with the first terminal (60-62) wherein the connector unit is relatively removable with respect to the first terminal, but McCartney does not show the heater unit or the connector unit having a coupling member and a first elastic member as claimed.
Zhang shows it is known to provide an electrical connector having a coupling member such as a magnet (3 and 102) that allows for electrical terminals (e.g., 2) to be detachably coupled to another electrical terminals (101).
Tanaka shows it is known to provide a socket connector having a first elastic member (shown by a coil spring 13) coupled to a terminal (10) wherein when a mating terminal (6) is pushed, the mating terminal presses toward the other terminal (10).
In view of Zhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCartney with the heater unit or the connector unit that is provided with a coupling member such as a magnet that allows the heater unit and the connector unit to be magnetically attracted to each providing a firm contact therebetween wherein in view of Tanaka, it would have been obvious to further adapt the heater unit or the connector unit that includes a first elastic member associated which allows one of the first or second terminals to press toward the other terminal and make a repeated electrical connection therebetween without damaging due to misaligned terminal connections.
With respect to claim 6, Tanaka shows the socket connector having a contact surface that includes a concave surface within which a portion of a first terminal (6) that comes into contact with the contact surface is smaller than the contact surface (also, see Figure 3).
With respect to claim 7, McCartney shows the heat unit (12) that is capable of being inverted upside down and coupled to the connector unit (23) as the connector unit provides second terminals (41, 42, 43, 44) that can be connected to the first terminals (61-63) as McCartney disclose another heating unit shown by a cooking cartridge (13) showing terminals that are in reverse arrangement to that of the heating unit (12) which is capable of being coupled to the socket connector (23).
With respect to claim 8, McCartney shows the heater unit having a heater casing (shown by a plug/block where the first terminals are provided) in which the first terminal is disposed, the connector unit (23) having a connector casing (shown by the socket/receptacle 23) installed in the heating cooker/appliance in which the second terminal is disposed. Zhang shows the coupling member as the magnet (3 and 102) disposed in a mating casing (103) and an outer housing/casing (6) that allows the mating casing and the outer housing to be adhere by magnetic force wherein it would have been obvious to provide the magnet or magnetic material in the heater casing and the connector casing of McCartney which would predictably allow the heating casing and the connector casing to be magnetically adhere to each other resulting in a firm contact with each other.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka as applied to claims 5-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Pickering et al (US 5,287,799).
McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka shows the heater cooker claimed including the connector unit (23) with its contact surface of the second terminal is exposed for the heater unit that is coupled to the connector unit, but McCartney does not show an outer casing having a sidewall with a first opening, an inner casing with a sidewall with a second opening wherein the connector unit is fixed to an outer surface of the sidewall of the outer casing with the heating unit that is inserted into the first opening and the second opening as claimed.
Pickering shows a heating cooker with an outer casing with a first opening (13j), an inner casing with a second opening (31f) wherein a heater unit (34) is inserted into the first opening and the second opening to be coupled with a connector that is carried in the first opening (13j; also, see column 6, lines 51-57).
In view of Pickering, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCartney, as modified by Zhang and Tanaka, with an outer casing and an inner casing with corresponding openings through which the heating unit is inserted to be connected to the connector unit that is provided outer surface of the outer casing away from the inner casing where much heat is generated to protect the connector unit from being heat damaged.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka as applied to claims 5-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Hawkins (US 4,862,795).
McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka shows the heater cooker claimed except for a reflection member as claimed.
Hawkins shows it is known to provide a reflection member (40) disposed below a heater to reflect heat radiated from the heater.
In view of Hawkins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCartney, as modified by Zhang and Tanaka, with a reflection member to radiate heat from the heater so that more concentrated heat can be radiated toward an intended heating surface.
With respect to claim 15, Hawking further shows the heater unit having two heaters (each heater shown with its respective terminals as illustrated in Figure 4) separated from each other wherein the reflection member are shown with through portions (concave portions) with a crest portion provided between the two trough portions (also, see Figure 4).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka as applied to claims 5-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Arntz et al (US 2003/0111456).
McCartney in view of Zhang and Tanaka shows the heater cooker claimed except for a heater cover as claimed.
Arntz shows a heater unit (90) with a heater cover (112) that covers over the heater unit as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
In view of Arntz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCartney, as modified by Zhang and Tanaka, with a heater cover as taught by Arntz to prevent the heater unit to come directly with food or any other materials including dirt to keep the heater unit clean without any heat impeding build-ups thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12 and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761