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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/24/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, examiner suggests the following amendments:
in lines 6 – 7: “of a a medium exchange trunk-line”;
in lines 14 – 15: “a medium transfer pump and a power supply”; and
in line 19: “
Regarding claim 2, examiner suggests replacing “said container” with “said food heating container” to distinguish between the food heating container and the hot medium container.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “switching module” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 limitation “switching module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV. Claims 2 – 5 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 5 are 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 1 limitation “switching module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2 – 5 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites, “the channel of hot medium.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear if the channel of hot medium corresponds to one, or both, of the trunk-lines, or some other element.
Claim 2 recites, “a thermally insulated container.” It is unclear if this is the same thermally insulated container as that recited in claim 1, or if this is another thermally insulated container.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al. (US 2021/0345743) in view of Donarski et al. (US 2016/0374499) and Chen (CN 109380995).
Regarding claim 1, Ribeiro discloses a device for delivering and reheating food, comprising
a housing in which a food heating container is located (Fig. 2 shows housing / “base 3” [0110] in which food heating container / “container 4 for holding food” [0114]),
a hot medium container (Fig. 2, “heating cavity 20 to receive water for heating or steaming the food” [0115]),
a switching module switching various modes of operation of the device (Fig. 2, “switch device 50” [0117]; “a switch device (50) which can be switched from a first state to a second state; wherein the lunchbox (1) is designed in the first state of the switch device (50) to heat food arranged in the food cavity (10), and in the second state of the switch device (50) to steam food arranged in the food cavity (10)” [Abstract]), wherein
the hot medium container is made in the form of a thermally insulated container (“only the part with the food to be steamed is opened, and the lunchbox is operated in the second state of the switch device. In this way, the food is steamed in the opened part, while the other part remains thermally insulated and is thus only heated” [0076]),
the thermally insulated container has a temperature sensor located within (“A recess is preferably formed in the base 3, in which recess at least one first temperature sensor 95 and/or a cable connection between a first temperature sensor 95 and the circuit board 89 arranged inside the base 3 is arranged. This first temperature sensor 95 can also be arranged inside the water cavity 21. Preferably, however, it is located in the area of the heating cavity where it comes into contact with air and/or water vapour and/or with an air/water vapour mixture” [0132]).
Ribeiro does not expressly disclose wherein the hot medium container is connected by a medium exchange trunk-line to the food heating container, wherein the medium exchange trunk-line is made as two lines – a trunk-line for supplying hot medium from the thermally insulated container to the food heating container, and a return trunk-line for supplying the medium from the food heating container to the thermally insulated container.
Donarski is directed to a “steam generator system for a cooking appliance” [Abstract]. Donarski discloses wherein a hot medium container (Fig. 1, “water reservoir 12” [0014]) is connected by a medium exchange trunk-line (described below) to a food heating container (Fig. 1, “cooking cavity 30” [0014]), wherein the medium exchange trunk-line is made as two lines – a trunk-line for supplying hot medium from the thermally insulated container / hot medium container to the food heating container (Fig. 1, trunk line for supplying hot medium comprises supply lines 20, 22: “steam S and hot water HW are then carried as a mixture M to a separator 18 through supply lines 20, 22 in a substantially vertical direction 23 via a first bubble pump BP” [0014]), and a return trunk-line for supplying the medium from the food heating container to the thermally insulated container / hot medium container (Fig. 1, return trunk line comprises return lines 34, 36: “hot water HW is fed back into the boiler 15 through return lines 34, 36” [0016]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the hot medium container is connected by a medium exchange trunk-line to the food heating container, wherein the medium exchange trunk-line is made as two lines – a trunk-line for supplying hot medium from the thermally insulated container to the food heating container, and a return trunk-line for supplying the medium from the food heating container to the thermally insulated container. The use of a supply trunk line and a return trunk line allows for circulation of steam through the food heating container.
Chen is directed to steam cabinet for cooking [Abstract]. Chen discloses wherein a switching module is connected to a medium transfer pump and a power supply (page 2 of the attached translation describes wherein the steam cabinet comprises a switching module that can switch between three modes (braising mode, steaming-boiling heat preservation mode, and fresh-keeping mode); an electromagnetic valve in fluid communication with a water pump is either opened or closed depending on the selected mode; the presence of an electromagnetic valve indicates the presences of a power supply). Chen further discloses the switching module having a data exchange unit configured to communicate over wireless networks (“the electric control unit is provided with a WiFi module on the mobile phone mounting the corresponding APP, performing a cooking operation for the respective drawer by mobile phone. said switch adjusting button is revolving coding switch matched with the built-in coder, finishing setting of the braising program, opening and closing the switch adjusting button operation data to the real-time feedback mobile phone APP, when using the mobile phone to a cooking operation, braising time and mode may be displayed on the corresponding display screen” [page 2]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the switching module is connected to a medium transfer pump and a power supply, the switching module having a data exchange unit configured to communicate over the wireless networks. This allows for adjusting the medium flow based on a selected mode, and allows for controlling the steam device remotely.
Regarding claim 4, Ribeiro discloses wherein the thermally insulated container (Fig. 2, “heating cavity 20” [0115]) is in the form of a removable thermal reservoir (Fig. 2 shows wherein heating cavity 20 is removable from container 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al. (US 2021/0345743) in view of Donarski et al. (US 2016/0374499) and Chen (CN 109380995), further in view of Cloutier (US 10,258,192).
Regarding claim 2, Ribeiro does not expressly disclose wherein the food heating container has a convection line with holes, located on the inner surface of said [food heating] container, connected to the channel of hot medium from a thermally insulated container.
Cloutier is directed to a steaming device [Abstract]. Cloutier discloses wherein a food heating container (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 11, food heating container / “steamer insert pan 26” [Col. 2, line 60]) has a convection line with holes (Figs. 1, 2, 4, convection line / “steamer dome 28” [Col. 2, lines 61-62], shown with holes in Figs. 1, 2, 4), located on the inner surface of said [food heating] container (Figs. 1, 2, 4), connected to a channel of hot medium from a container (hot medium / steam flows through convection line / steamer dome 28 from “cooking pan 24” [Col. 3, line 57]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the food heating container has a convection line with holes, located on the inner surface of said [food heating] container, connected to the channel of hot medium from a thermally insulated container. The use of a convection line with holes is a known, alternative way of providing steam, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al. (US 2021/0345743) in view of Donarski et al. (US 2016/0374499) and Chen (CN 109380995), further in view of Takeda (US 5,287,798).
Regarding claim 3, Ribeiro does not expressly disclose wherein the food heating container has a plurality of convection baffles.
Takeda is directed to a steam cooking utensil [Abstract]. Takeda discloses wherein a food heating container has a plurality of convection baffles (Figs. 1 – 3 show food heating container / “tray 2” comprising a plurality of convection baffles, which are shown as “guide segments 4a” of “steam baffle 4” [Col. 2, lines 17-20]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the food heating container has a plurality of convection baffles. The convection baffles function to guide steam toward the food that is being cooked and/or heated.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al. (US 2021/0345743) in view of Donarski et al. (US 2016/0374499) and Chen (CN 109380995), further in view of Li et al. (WO 2019/227766).
Regarding claim 5, Ribeiro does not expressly disclose wherein the heating food container has a source of ultrasonic vibrations.
Li is directed to a cooking utensil [Abstract]. Li discloses wherein a heating food container has a source of ultrasonic vibrations (“the steam generating component further includes: an ultrasonic generator, which is arranged in cooperation with the liquid storage unit to generate ultrasonic radiation of a specified frequency, and the ultrasonic radiation is used to atomize the liquid into steam” [page 8 of attached translation]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the heating food container has a source of ultrasonic vibrations. The use of an ultrasonic generator “can effectively improve the efficiency of steam generation” [page 8].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761