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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19, 24, 26, 28, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/2026. Applicant has cancelled claims 19, 24, 26, 28, and 30. Claims 1-11, 14-15, 33-34, and 44-48 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2023, 2/28/2024, 6/26/2024, 7/15/2024, and 3/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,078 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,220,078 B2 anticipates instant claims 1 and 7. The table below compares the claims.
Instant application 18/035,057
U.S. Patent No. 12,220,078 B2
1. A liquid heating appliance for placement upon an induction hob, the appliance comprising:
a liquid vessel;
a ferromagnetic heating plate mounted within the liquid vessel;
a thermally sensitive actuator in thermal communication with the ferromagnetic heating plate and configured to detect when the temperature of the ferromagnetic heating plate exceeds a predefined temperature; and
a lifting mechanism mounting the heating plate and operable to move the heating plate upwards within the liquid vessel in response to the thermally sensitive actuator detecting that the temperature of the heating plate exceeds the predefined temperature.
1. A liquid heating device for use on an induction hob, comprising:
a vessel to accept, contain, heat and dispense water, the vessel made from a non-ferromagnetic material;
a ferromagnetic heating plate arranged to be located inside the vessel adjacent to the base of the vessel, wherein the ferromagnetic heating plate is arranged to be movable vertically in a perpendicular direction away from the base of the vessel and return; and
an arrangement to lift the ferromagnetic heating plate comprising a thermally sensitive actuator, wherein the ferromagnetic heating plate is mechanically coupled to the thermally sensitive actuator;
the thermally sensitive actuator comprising:
a means to store potential energy;
a steam chamber fluidly connected to the vessel; and
a releasable latching mechanism for the actuator which incorporates a thermally sensitive device set to operate at a predetermined temperature when influenced by the proximity of steam entering the steam chamber from boiling water in the vessel, wherein release of the latching mechanism permits the stored potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy and cause the actuator to move and lift the ferromagnetic heating plate;
wherein, in a first mode of operation, the latching mechanism is configured to be released when the thermally sensitive device operates at the predetermined temperature so as to permit the stored potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy and cause the actuator to move and lift the ferromagnetic heating plate;
the liquid heating device further comprising a push-button or switch;
wherein, in a manual-intervention mode of operation, the latching mechanism is configured to be released by a user pressing down on the push-button or switch so as to permit the stored potential energy to be converted to kinetic energy and cause the actuator to move and lift the ferromagnetic heating plate, whereby the latching mechanism is released by moving or deflecting part of that latching mechanism.
7. The liquid heating appliance of claim 1, further comprising a manual intervention part arranged to operate the lifting mechanism of the appliance.
1. … the liquid heating device further comprising a push-button or switch; wherein, in a manual-intervention mode of operation, the latching mechanism is configured to be released by a user pressing down on the push-button or switch so as to permit the stored potential energy to be converted to kinetic energy and cause the actuator to move and lift the ferromagnetic heating plate, whereby the latching mechanism is released by moving or deflecting part of that latching mechanism.
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:
“lifting mechanism” in claims 1, 5, 7, 44, and 47;
“lifting biasing member” in claims 2 and 10;
“intermediary mechanism” in claims 3 and 4;
“steam sensing arrangement” in claims 5 and 6;
“manual intervention part” in claims 7 and 8;
“plate biasing member” in claims 9, 10, and 11;
“damping mechanism” in claim 44;
“protection component” in claim 48.
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.
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “lifting mechanism” as follows: “The lifting mechanism may comprise a plunger by which the heating plate is mounted within the liquid vessel” (para [0049] of Applicant’s published application); “in some embodiments, the lifting mechanism comprises a plunger mounting the heating plate and at least one lifting biasing member arranged to act on the plunger to move the heating plate” [0050]; “In some embodiments, the lifting mechanism comprises a latch” [0051]; “The lifting mechanism may comprise a latch release part” [0052];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “lifting biasing member” as follows: “for example a pair of lifting biasing members (such a springs)” [0050];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “intermediary mechanism” as follows: “The intermediary mechanism may comprise a rod, arranged to be moved (e.g. lifted) by the thermally sensitive actuator”; “ The intermediary mechanism may further comprise a lever. The rod may be arranged to act on the latch release part via the lever” [0063];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “steam sensing arrangement” as follows: “The steam sensing arrangement may comprise a steam sensitive actuator (e.g. a bimetallic actuator)” [0061];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “manual intervention part” as follows: “The manual intervention part may comprise a push button” [0059];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “plate biasing member” as follows: “a plate biasing member (in this embodiment, a compression spring)” [0175];
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “damping mechanism” as follows: “The damping mechanism may comprise a damping spring arranged to act on a second surface of the piston head(s) (e.g. the opposite side of the piston head(s) to the first surface). The damping spring may be a separate component from the lifting biasing spring(s). In some embodiments, the lifting biasing spring(s) and the damping spring are different portions of a single spring” [0057].
Applicant’s disclosure describes the “protection component” as follows: “the protection component comprises a heating plate cover mounted to the ferromagnetic heating plate” [0082].
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN 200945093).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses a liquid heating appliance (“Induction Cooker” [Title] for heating “water” [page 3 of attached translation]) for placement upon an induction hob (Figs. 1 and 2, “electromagnetic oven” [page 3]), the appliance comprising:
a liquid vessel (Figs. 1 and 2, “container 1” [page 3]);
a ferromagnetic heating plate mounted within the liquid vessel (Figs. 1 and 2, “magnetic heating body 3” [page 3]);
a thermally sensitive actuator (Figs. 1 and 2, “double-metal sheet 6” [page 3]) in thermal communication with the ferromagnetic heating plate (double-metal sheet 6 is in thermal communication with plate 3, since heating the plate results in heating the liquid, and heating the atmosphere surrounding double-metal sheet 6) and configured to detect when the temperature of the ferromagnetic heating plate exceeds a predefined temperature (“as the temperature inside the container is raised, the produced steam can pass through guide holes 11 into the cover body 2, the double-metal sheet 6 heated, when it reaches a certain temperature, the double-metal sheet 6 is deformed” [page 3]); and
a lifting mechanism (Figs. 1 and 2, “shaft 4” [page 3]) mounting the heating plate (Figs. 1 and 2, magnetic heating body 3”) and operable to move the heating plate upwards within the liquid vessel (in Fig. 2, plate 3 has moved upwards) in response to the thermally sensitive actuator detecting that the temperature of the heating plate exceeds the predefined temperature (“as the temperature inside the container is raised, the produced steam can pass through guide holes 11 into the cover body 2, the double-metal sheet 6 heated, when it reaches a certain temperature, the double-metal sheet 6 is deformed, the fixing pin 5 from the fixed position, under the elastic force of pressure spring 9, the shaft 4 moves upwards, lifting magnetic conducting heating body 3, away from the metallic container 1 bottom, which makes the electromagnetic oven 13, automatic shutdown and stop heating” [page 3]).
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a plunger (Figs. 1 and 2, “shaft 4” [page 3]) mounting the heating plate (Figs. 1 and 2, “magnetic heating body 3”) at a lower end (Figs. 1 and 2) and a lifting biasing member (Figs. 1 and 2, “pressure spring” [page 3]) arranged to act on the plunger at an upper end to move the heating plate upwards when the lifting mechanism operates (described in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses a manual intervention part arranged to operate the lifting mechanism of the appliance (Figs. 1 and 2, element 12 can be manually lifted up or pressed down to operate lifting mechanism / shaft 4).
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses the liquid heating appliance of claim 1, further comprising a plate biasing member (Figs. 1 and 2, “pressure spring” [page 3]) arranged to bias the heating plate downwards.
Regarding claim 10, Pan discloses wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a plunger (Figs. 1 and 2, “shaft 4” [page 3]) mounting the heating plate (Figs. 1 and 2, “magnetic heating body 3”) at a lower end (Figs. 1 and 2) and the plate biasing member (Figs. 1 and 2, “pressure spring”) is arranged to act on the plunger at an upper end to bias the heating plate downwards (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 44, Pan discloses a damping mechanism (Figs. 1 and 2, “pressure spring 9” [page 3]) arranged to slow the movement of the heating plate (Figs. 1 and 2, “magnetic heating body 3” [page 3]) as the heating plate is moved upwards by the lifting mechanism (Figs. 1 and 2, “shaft 4” [page 3]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093) in view of Shepherd (US 2004/0217843).
Regarding claim 5, Pan does not expressly disclose a steam sensing arrangement arranged to detect when liquid within the liquid vessel reaches boiling and, in response, configured to operate the lifting mechanism.
Shepherd is directed to a “steam-responsive switch for use in an electrical water boiling appliance” [Abstract]. Shepherd discloses a steam sensing arrangement arranged to detect when liquid within the liquid vessel reaches boiling (“steam-sensing switch 10 which serves to automatically break the electrical circuit supplying power to the heating element” [0038]).
Pan discloses wherein a sensor (double-metal sheet 6) is configured to operate a lifting mechanism, as described above.
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 a steam sensing arrangement arranged to detect when liquid within the liquid vessel reaches boiling and, in response, configured to operate the lifting mechanism. This stops the heating element from operating once the water begins boiling and producing steam.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093) in view of Gaeta et al. (GB 2499267).
Regarding claim 14, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the heating plate comprises a heat bridge arranged to conduct heat from one or more portions of the heating plate to the thermally sensitive actuator.
Gaeta is directed to a heated liquid vessel [Title]. Gaeta discloses wherein a heating plate (Fig. 53, “element plate 12” [00216]) comprises a heat bridge (Fig. 53, “chassis 590” [00216]) arranged to conduct heat from one or more portions of the heating plate to the thermally sensitive actuator (Fig. 53, “bimetal 577” [00216]).
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 plate comprises a heat bridge arranged to conduct heat from one or more portions of the heating plate to the thermally sensitive actuator. This is a known placement of a thermally sensitive actuator with respect to the heating plate, applied to a known liquid heating appliance, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the thermally sensitive actuator is mounted on the heat bridge on an upper side of the heating plate.
Gaeta discloses wherein the thermally sensitive actuator (Fig. 53qca (page 15 of attached document), “bimetal 577” [00182]) is mounted on the heat bridge (Fig. 53qca, “chassis 590” [00182]) on an upper side of the heating plate (Fig. 53qca, “element plate 12” [00181]).
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 thermally sensitive actuator is mounted on the heat bridge on an upper side of the heating plate. This is a known placement of a thermally sensitive actuator with respect to the heating plate, applied to a known liquid heating appliance, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093) in view of Zeng (CN 202051519).
Regarding claim 33, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the appliance comprises one or more separators arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a base of the liquid vessel.
Zeng is directed to an induction cooker heating kettle [Title]. Zeng discloses one or more separators arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a base of the liquid vessel (Fig. 5 shows a separator arranged between ferromagnetic heating plate / “movable heating disc 3” ([0032] of attached translation) and a base of the liquid vessel / “bottom wall 25 of the kettle” [0032]; separator is located to the right of element 6 in Fig. 5.
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 appliance comprises one or more separators arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a base of the liquid vessel. This prevents the base of the kettle from overheating by direct contact with the ferromagnetic plate.
Regarding claim 34, Pan / Zeng does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more separators are arranged such that, when the appliance is placed on an induction hob and the induction hob is energized to inductively heat the heating plate, the one or more separators are arranged to abut a region of the ferromagnetic heating plate that is less heated than an inductively heated region of the heating plate.
However, 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 one or more separators are arranged such that, when the appliance is placed on an induction hob and the induction hob is energized to inductively heat the heating plate, the one or more separators are arranged to abut a region of the ferromagnetic heating plate that is less heated than an inductively heated region of the heating plate. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093) in view of Hellmers et al. (US 2022/0151425).
Regarding claim 45, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the heating plate comprises one or more apertures that extend through the heating plate, the one or more apertures arranged around the thermally sensitive actuator.
Hellmers is directed to an induction kettle [Title]. Hellmers discloses wherein a heating plate (Fig. 6, “plate 50” [0057]) comprises one or more apertures (Fig. 6) that extend through the heating plate, the one or more apertures arranged around the thermally sensitive actuator (Fig. 6, “bimetallic members 58” [0057]).
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 plate comprises one or more apertures that extend through the heating plate, the one or more apertures arranged around the thermally sensitive actuator. Apertures in the heating plate and arranged around the thermally sensitive actuator advantageously allow the heating plate to move easily due to flow paths created by the apertures, without which the liquid would need to travel around the edges of the heating plate.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093)
Regarding claim 46, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the heating plate comprises a major axis and a minor axis, and wherein the heat bridge extends along the minor axis of the heating plate.
However, 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 plate comprises a major axis and a minor axis, and wherein the heat bridge extends along the minor axis of the heating plate. The heating plate comprising a major axis and a minor axis is simply a change in the shape of the heating plate from circular to elliptical. The courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B. The placement of the heat bridge to extend along the minor axis of the heating plate is simply a rearrangement of the position of the heat bridge. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 47, Pan does not expressly disclose wherein the lifting mechanism mounting the heating plate is removable from the liquid vessel.
However, 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 lifting mechanism mounting the heating plate is removable from the liquid vessel. The court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 200945093) in view of Cave et al. (US 2018/0125284).
Regarding claim 48, Pan does not expressly disclose a protection component arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a side wall of the liquid vessel.
Cave is directed to a kettle [Abstract]. Cave discloses a protection component arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a side wall of the liquid vessel (protection component / “covers”: Fig. 3, “The floor of the boiling chamber 3c incorporates the electrical heating element/boiling plate 6c of the boiling chamber 3c” [0045]; “Retractable covers could protect the hot surfaces of both top and lower hot plates” [0057]; “The heating elements of the kettle may be directly powered resistance heating elements/coils or may be inductively powered heating elements” [0019]).
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 a protection component arranged between the ferromagnetic heating plate and a side wall of the liquid vessel. This provides physical protection for both the heating plate and the liquid vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the invention of claim 3, which requires wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a latch and a latch release part arranged at the upper end of the plunger, the latch being moved by the latch release part between a latched configuration, wherein the latch is arranged to restrict upwards movement of the plunger, and an unlatched configuration, wherein the latch is arranged to allow movement of the plunger; and the liquid heating appliance further comprising an intermediary mechanism arranged to be acted on by the thermally sensitive actuator so as to operate the lifting mechanism by moving the latch release part. While fixing pin 5 of Pan can be considered part of a latch, Pan does not disclose wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a latch release part as claimed. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify Pan to include this limitation, as Pan already discloses a latching function (using fixing pin 5 and double-metal sheet 6). Claim 4 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 3.
Claims 6 and 8 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. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the invention of claim 6, which requires wherein the lifting mechanism comprises: a plunger mounting the heating plate at a lower end; and a latch and a latch release part arranged at an upper end of the plunger; wherein the steam sensing arrangement is arranged at the upper end of the plunger so as to operate the lifting mechanism by moving the latch release part. Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the invention of claim 8, which requires wherein the lifting mechanism comprises: a plunger mounting the heating plate at a lower end; and a latch and a latch release part arranged at an upper end of the plunger; wherein the manual intervention part is arranged at the upper end of the plunger so as to operate the lifting mechanism by moving the latch release part. Pan does not disclose wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a latch release part as claimed.
Claim 11 is 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. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the invention of claim 11, which requires wherein the plunger comprises an inner shaft moveable within an outer sleeve surrounding the inner shaft, wherein the plate biasing member is arranged to act on the inner shaft to bias the heating plate downwards, and wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a lifting biasing member arranged to act on the outer sleeve to move the heating plate upwards when the lifting mechanism operates.
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
Prosecution Insights