DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species and sub-species:
Species
Species A: steam regulation valve associated with lid (e.g. fig. 19).
Species B: steam regulation valve associated with cooker body (par. 72) .
Sub-species
sub-species 1: figs. 1-2
sub-species 2: figs. 3-4
sub-species 3: figs. 5-6
sub-species 4: figs. 7, 7A, 8 and 8A
sub-species 5: figs. 9 and 10
sub-species 6: figs. 11-13
sub-species 7: figs. 14-17
Sub-sub-species
sub-species i: biasing structure is spring (e.g. par. 68 and fig. 14)
sub-species ii: biasing structure is magnet (e.g. par. 68)
sub-sub-species iii: biasing force is gravity such that there
no spring or magnet (e.g. par. 68)
The species are independent or distinct because they each have mutually exclusive features regarding the location of the steam regulation valve the overall valve structure, and the biasing force. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 28, 33, 38, 60 and 61 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). For example, the structural differences between the separate inventions require divergent search queries relating to location of the steam regulation valve, and the configuration of the valve including the biasing structure.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Jacob Bachman on 04/20/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species A, sub-species 7, sub-sub-species i, claims 28, 29, 31-33, 38, 60, 61, 134-137, 139, 141, 143, 146 and 147. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 30, 138 and 140 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. During the instant conversation it was discussed withdrawing one of claims 31 and 32 and similarly one of claims 135 and 136. However all these instant claims belong to the same embodiment shown in fig. 16 that has been elected. Thus the instant claims have been examined
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 60-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2606775 A1 (Cartigny).
Regarding claim 60, Cartigny discloses (see figs. 1-5) a method of regulating steam release (see page 10, bottom) of a pressure cooker 2 with a steam regulation valve 1, the pressure cooker 2 including a cooker body (the body of the “tank” 4, see page 4 top) enclosing a cooking chamber (4, see figs. 1, 4 and 5), the method comprising: attaching a lid 3 of the pressure cooker 2 to the cooker body for pressurized cooking (see page 4, top); moving a portion 10 of the steam regulation valve 1 to a first position (an intermediate position between that in fig. 4 and that in fig. 5) to release steam (see example flow F in fig. 4) in the cooking chamber via a flow path (at F) through the steam regulation valve 1, the flow path having a first cross-sectional area (the area regarding flow F in figs. 4 and 5 wherein the area being zero in fig. 5 and the area being an intermediate value at the intermediate position) in response to a first pressure (see page 11, top and middle) in the cooking chamber 4; and moving the portion 10 of the steam regulation valve to a second position (see fig. 4) to release steam in the cooking chamber via the flow path (at F) through the steam regulation valve 1, the flow path having a second cross-sectional area (that in fig. 4) in response to a second pressure (see page 11, top and middle) in the cooking chamber, wherein the first pressure is higher than the second pressure (see page 11, top and middle), and wherein the first cross-sectional area is smaller than the second cross-sectional area (see figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 61, Cartigny discloses (see figs. 1-5) wherein a biasing force (by way of spring 13) is applied (see figs. 4-5 and page 11, top and middle) to the portion 10 of the steam regulation valve 1, and wherein the portion of the steam regulation valve is biased (spring 13 biases body 10 downward in fig. 5, see page 11, middle) towards the second position (see second position for example in fig. 4) when the portion 10 of the steam regulation valve 1 is in the first position (an intermediate position between that in fig. 4 and that in fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 31-33, 38, 134-137, 139, 141, 143 and 146 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartigny in view of US 2003/0010216 A1 (Yang).
Regarding claim 28, Cartigny discloses (see figs. 1-5) a pressure cooker 2, comprising: a cooker body (the body of the “tank” 4, see page 4 top) and a lid 3 enclosing a cooking chamber (4, see figs. 1, 4 and 5); the volume of the “tank” where the cooking “contents” are at, see page 4, top); and a steam regulation (see page 10, bottom) valve 1 comprising a valve body 10, wherein the lid 3 is locked onto the cooker body during cooking (the lid can use means such as jaw to lock the lid to the cooker body but Cartigny is silent the means being teeth; see page 8, middle), wherein the steam regulation valve 1 defines a flow path (see flow F in figs. 1, 3 and 4) in fluid communication with the cooking chamber 4, the flow path selectively (see figs. 4 and 5) in fluid communication with an atmosphere (at location X’ in fig. 4) surrounding the pressure cooker 2, and wherein the valve body 10 is movable (see figs. 4 and 5) to decrease a cross-sectional area (the cross-sectional area is zero in fig. 4 and greater than zero in fig. 5; see annotated figure below) of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure (see page 11, top) in the cooking chamber 4, and movable to increase the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to a decrease in pressure (see page 11, middle) in the cooking chamber. Cartigny does not disclose the cooker body includes cooker teeth, the lid includes lid teeth and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch.
[AltContent: textbox (cross-sectional area)]
PNG
media_image1.png
83
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Yang teaches a pressure cooker (see par. 43) and further teaches (see pars. 40-41) a cooker body 22 includes cooker teeth 26, a lid 23 includes lid teeth 27 and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch (to ensure the lid is locked onto the cooker body). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the cooker teeth and lid teeth of Yang for the means of Cartigny for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of locking the lid onto the cooker body during cooking.
Regarding claim 29, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the steam regulation valve 1 is associated with (see fig. 1) the lid 2.
Regarding claim 31, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the valve body 10 is movable to decrease (see figs. 4-5) the cross-sectional area of the flow path linearly (the in response to an increase in pressure in the cooking chamber 4, and movable to increase (see figs. 4-5) the cross-sectional area of the flow path linearly in response to a decrease in pressure in the cooking chamber 4. The area change is inverse to the pressure applied from fluid in the cooking chamber (i.e. the pressure opposes the biasing force of spring (see page 11, top and middle and annotated figure above). Such change is linear as seen by the structure in the annotated figures above (for example the movement of the valve body moves in a linear fashion). In addition for each displacement of the valve body in the linear movement, there is a proportional change in the cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 32, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses the valve body is movable to decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path non-linearly in response to an increase in pressure in the cooking chamber, and movable to increase the cross-sectional area of the flow path non-linearly in response to a decrease in pressure in the cooking chamber. The claim does not appear to specifically recite what claimed decrease is nonlinear with respect to. For example it can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature associated with the cooker (e.g. a temperature in the cooking chamber or another outside of the cooker). Thus the decrease in cross-sectional area can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature in response to the increase in claimed pressure.
Regarding claim 33, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the valve body 10 is movable relative to the cooking chamber 4 between a first position (see fig. 5 wherein the first position may be the position in fig. 5 or an intermediate position between that in fig. 4 and that in fig. 5) and a second position (see fig. 4), wherein the valve body 10 is moved to the first position in response to a first pressure (see page 11, top and middle) applied to the valve body 10, the flow path having a first cross-sectional area (the area regarding flow F in figs. 4 and 5 wherein the area being zero in fig. 5 and the area being an intermediate value at the intermediate position) when the valve body is in the first position, wherein the valve body is moved to the second position (that in fig. 4) in response to a second pressure (see page 11, top and middle) applied to the valve body, the flow path having a second cross-sectional area (that in fig. 4) when the valve body is in the second position, wherein the first pressure is higher than the second pressure (see page 11, top and middle), and wherein the first cross-sectional area of the flow path is smaller (see figs. 4 and 5) than the second cross-sectional area of the flow path.
Regarding claim 38, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the valve body 10 is biased (spring 13 biases body 10 downward in fig. 5, see page 11, middle) towards the second position (see second position for example in fig. 4) when the valve body is in the first position (see first position for example in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 134, Cartigny discloses (see figs. 1-5) a pressure cooker 2, comprising: a cooker body (the body of the “tank” 4, see page 4 top) and a lid 3 enclosing a cooking chamber 4; and a steam regulation valve 1, wherein the lid 3 is locked onto the cooker body during cooking (the lid can use means such as jaw to lock the lid to the cooker body but Cartigny is silent the means being teeth; see page 8, middle), and wherein the steam regulation valve 1 comprises: a sleeve (portion of valve body 5 located at 5 in fig. 5) extending between an upper portion (see upper portion of cylindrical portion in fig. 2) of the sleeve and a lower portion (see lower portion of cylindrical portion in fig. 2) of the sleeve (at 5 in fig. 5), the sleeve having an inner lumen (inner passage; see figs. 2 and 4-5) extending between the upper portion of the sleeve and the lower portion of the sleeve; and a telescoping housing (two piece housing 10,20B extending through (see figs. 2 and 4-5) the inner lumen and including at least one opening (openings 24 and openings between flanges 11 in fig. 2) through which a flow path (air is always present and steam is present during cooking) passes, wherein the telescoping housing 10,20B is movable (portion 10 is moveable, see figs. 4-5) relative to the sleeve (at 5 in fig. 5) to decrease a cross-sectional area (the cross-sectional area is zero in fig. 4 and greater than zero in fig. 5) of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure (see page 11, top) applied to (the portion 10 of housing 10,20B the telescoping housing. Cartigny does not disclose the cooker body includes cooker teeth, the lid includes lid teeth and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch.
Yang teaches a pressure cooker (see par. 43) and further teaches (see pars. 40-41) a cooker body 22 includes cooker teeth 26, a lid 23 includes lid teeth 27 and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch (to ensure the lid is locked onto the cooker body). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the cooker teeth and lid teeth of Yang for the means of Cartigny for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of locking the lid onto the cooker body during cooking.
Regarding claim 135, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the telescoping housing is movable relative to the sleeve to decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path linearly in response to an increase in pressure applied to the telescoping housing. The area change is inverse to the pressure applied from fluid in the cooking chamber (i.e. the pressure opposes the biasing force of spring (see page 11, top and middle and annotated figure above). Such change is linear as seen by the structure in the annotated figures above (for example the movement of the valve body moves in a linear fashion). In addition for each displacement of the valve body in the linear movement, there is a proportional change in the cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 136, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the telescoping housing is movable relative to the sleeve to decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path non-linearly in response to an increase in pressure applied to the telescoping housing. The claim does not appear to specifically recite what claimed decrease is nonlinear with respect to. For example it can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature associated with the cooker (e.g. a temperature in the cooking chamber or another outside of the cooker). Thus for example the decrease in cross-sectional area can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature in response to the increase in claimed pressure.
Regarding claim 137, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the telescoping housing 10,20B is movable (portion 10 thereof) relative to the sleeve (at 5 in fig. 5) to increase (see page 11, middle) the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to a decrease in pressure (see page 11, middle) applied to the telescoping housing (portion 10).
Regarding claim 139, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein as the telescoping housing 10,20B moves (portion 10 thereof) to decrease (movement of portion 10 upwards, see figs. 4-5) the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure applied (see page 11, top and middle) to the telescoping housing 10, a biasing force (from spring 13) resists the movement of the telescoping housing, and changes linearly (spring 13 is a helical spring and thus the force scales with displacement; i.e. Hookes law applies before elastic deformation of spring; this is consistent with applicant par. 47).
Regarding claim 141, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses a cap (at 20A in fig. 4), wherein the telescoping housing (10,20B) is coupled (portion 10 of housing) to the cap via a spring 13 such that the telescoping housing (portion 10 thereof) is movable up and down relative to the sleeve (at 5 in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 143, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the spring 13 is adjustable (see page 5 bottom and page 9, top) to provide varying biasing force.
Regarding claim 146, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the telescoping housing moves in a first direction (upward in figs. 4-5) along the inner lumen (see figs. 45) of the sleeve to decrease (see figs. 4-5) the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure applied (see page 11, top and middle) to the telescoping housing (portion 10), and wherein the telescoping housing (portion 10) moves in a second direction (downwards in figs. 4-5) opposite the first direction along the inner lumen of the sleeve to increase (see figs. 4-5) the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to a decrease (see page 11, top and middle) in pressure applied to the telescoping housing (portion 10).
Claim(s) 32 and 136 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartigny in view of Yang as applied to claims 28 and 134 above, and further in view of KR101069737B1 (Im).
Regarding claim 32, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses the valve body 10 is movable to decrease the cross-sectional area (see annotated figure above) of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure (see page 11, top and middle) in the cooking chamber, and movable (see figs. 4-5) to increase the cross-sectional area of the flow path non-linearly in response to a decrease in pressure (see page 11, top and middle) in the cooking chamber. Cartigny does not explicitly recite the text “non-linearly” regarding decreasing the cross-sectional area non-linearly.
Im teaches a cooker and further teaches non-linearly (Im teaches use of a conical spring; such conical springs having non-linear characteristics; see page 20, bottom). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the non-linear conical spring of Im for the linear spring of Cartigny in view of Yang for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a biasing force of the combination.
Regarding claim 136, Cartigny in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Cartigny discloses wherein the telescoping housing is movable relative to the sleeve to decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure applied to the telescoping housing. Cartigny does not explicitly recite the text “non-linearly” regarding decreasing the cross-sectional area non-linearly.
Im teaches a cooker and further teaches non-linearly (Im teaches use of a conical spring; such conical springs having non-linear characteristics; see page 20, bottom). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the non-linear conical spring of Im for the linear spring of Cartigny in view of Yang for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a biasing force of the combination.
Claim(s) 134, 135-137, 141, 146 and 147 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111743397 A (Li) in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 134, Li discloses (see figs. 1-4) a pressure cooker (see “pressure cooker” at page 11, bottom), comprising: a cooker body (see “cooker body” at Abstract, top) and a lid 10 enclosing a cooking chamber (pressure cookers have a cooking chamber wherein the food to be cooked is placed; this is evidenced by Yang cooking chamber at 24 in fig. 4); and a steam (steam will be present when the contents to be cooled include water) regulation (see “pressure adjusting device” at page 6, middle) valve (at least the parts telescoping housing 30,32,321 and sleeve 22, the housing 30,32,321 including an opening 33,331 to vent steam from the cooking chamber during high pressure cooking, see claim 1, top), and wherein the steam regulation valve comprises: a sleeve 22 extending between an upper portion (the sleeve has a radial dimension and thus extends between an upper portion and a lower portion; such radial dimension blocks steam inlet 331 during high pressure cooking, see page 6, bottom) of the sleeve 22 and a lower portion of the sleeve, the sleeve having an inner lumen (passage through which housing 30,32 travels for example when spring 40 pulls housing 30,32 upward, see page 11, middle wherein “reset member” is spring 40, see page 5, bottom and fig. 4; spring 40 is coupled to housing 30,32,321, see page 6, middle: “the reset member 40 is located in the containing cavity 21 and propped against between the air guide shaft assembly 30 and the base 20”) extending between the upper portion of the sleeve and the lower portion of the sleeve; and a telescoping housing 30,32 extending through (see fig. 2) the inner lumen 22 and including at least one opening 33,331 through which a flow path (steam travels in opening 33,331, then out outlet 323 into the internal volume 21 of base 20 and finally out of air outlets 313, see fig. 4) passes, wherein the telescoping housing 30,32 is movable (portion 10 is moveable, see figs. 4-5) relative to the sleeve 22 to decrease a cross-sectional area (opening 331 is closed in the high pressure state and open in the low pressure state of the pressure cooker, see page 6, bottom) of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure (the spring 40 applies an upward force, see page 6, middle and bottom) applied to the telescoping housing 30,32. Li does not disclose the cooker body includes cooker teeth, the lid includes lid teeth, and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch to ensure the lid is locked onto the cooker body during cooking.
Yang teaches (see pars. 40-41 and 72) a cooker body 22 includes cooker teeth 26, a lid 23 includes lid teeth 27 and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch to ensure the lid is locked onto the cooker body during cooking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Li with the cooker body includes cooker teeth, the lid includes lid teeth, and the cooker teeth and the lid teeth are configured to mutually latch to ensure the lid is locked onto the cooker body during cooking as taught by Yang in order to facilitate providing a convenient attachment structure for the safety of the user to prevent for example scalding of the user (see Yang pars. 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 135, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see fig. 4) wherein the telescoping housing 30,32,321 is movable relative to the sleeve 22 to decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path linearly in response to an increase in pressure applied to the telescoping housing. The shape of the air inlet 331 is uniform and thus as the inlet is gradually blocked by the sleeve 22 then the cross-sectional area would change linearly with respect to displacement of the telescoping housing in response to the increase in pressure (i.e., after the lock 50 is disengaged then the net force acting upon the housing 30,32,321 is increased such that the housing moves upward because the force of the spring pulling the housing upward is greater than the force of gravity pulling the housing downward). It is noted that sleeve 22 is discussed (see page 2, bottom) and shown (see fig. 2) as a through hole and thus one or ordinary skill would also understand the shape of sleeve 22 to be uniform. Pressure can be interpreted as “
Regarding claim 136, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see fig. 4) wherein the telescoping housing 30,32,321 is movable relative to the sleeve 22 to decrease the cross-sectional area (the area of space 321 is decreased as the housing is pulled upward) of the flow path non-linearly in response to an increase in pressure (i.e., after the lock 50 is disengaged then the net force acting upon the housing 30,32,321 is increased such that the housing moves upward because the force of the spring pulling the housing upward is greater than the force of gravity pulling the housing downward) applied to the telescoping housing. The claim does not specifically recite what claimed decrease is nonlinear with respect to. For example the claimed decrease can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature associated with the cooker (e.g. a temperature in the cooking chamber or another outside of the cooker). Thus for example the decrease in cross-sectional area can be nonlinear with respect to a temperature in response to the increase in claimed pressure.
Regarding claim 137, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see figs. 2 and 4) wherein the telescoping housing 30,32,321 is movable relative to the sleeve 22 to increase the cross-sectional area (space 321 is opened with respect to sleeve 22 when the lock 50 is engaged) of the flow path in response to a decrease in pressure (when the lock 50 is engaged, the net force on acting on the housing becomes zero because the housing becomes stationary and thus the pressure is decreased) applied to the telescoping housing.
Regarding claim 141, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see figs. 2-4) a cap (311 or 311,312), wherein the telescoping housing 30,32,321 is coupled to the cap via a spring 40 (see page 11, top) such that the telescoping housing is movable up and down relative to the sleeve 22.
Regarding claim 146, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see fig. 4) wherein the telescoping housing 30,32,321 moves in a first direction (upwards in fig. 4) along the inner lumen (passage through which housing 30,32 travels for example when spring 40 pulls housing 30,32 upward, see page 11, middle wherein “reset member” is spring 40, see page 5, bottom and fig. 4; spring 40 is coupled to housing 30,32,321, see page 6, middle: “the reset member 40 is located in the containing cavity 21 and propped against between the air guide shaft assembly 30 and the base 20”) of the sleeve 22 to decrease the cross-sectional area (the area of space 321 is decreased as the housing is pulled upward) of the flow path in response to an increase in pressure (i.e., after the lock 50 is disengaged then the net force acting upon the housing 30,32,321 is increased such that the housing moves upward because the force of the spring pulling the housing upward is greater than the force of gravity pulling the housing downward) applied to the telescoping housing, and wherein the telescoping housing moves in a second direction (downward in fig. 4) opposite the first direction along the inner lumen of the sleeve 22 to increase the cross-sectional area (space 321 is opened with respect to sleeve 22 when the lock 50 is engaged) of the flow path in response to a decrease in pressure (when the lock 50 is engaged, the net force on acting on the housing becomes zero because the housing becomes stationary and thus the pressure is decreased) applied to the telescoping housing.
Regarding claim 147, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li discloses (see fig. 4) wherein the telescoping housing 30,32 comprises at least one opening 321, and wherein as the telescoping housing moves in a first direction along the inner lumen of the sleeve 22, the at least one opening is at least partially blocked by the lower portion of the sleeve. See page 6, bottom: “If the external force [i.e. lock 50 that is locked during normal pressure cooking, see page 8, middle: “locking structure 50 provides external force to the air guide shaft assembly 30, so that the air guide shaft assembly 30 is fixed with the position of the base 20, so that the bottom of the air guide shaft assembly 30 is lower than the through hole 22”] disappears, the air guide shaft assembly 30 under the action of the reset piece 40 upwards, so that the air guide shaft assembly 30 of the bottom sealing through hole 22, and the air inlet 331 of the exhaust passage 33 is located in the through hole 22 to realize sealing [and thus the opening 331 is at least partially blocked], the cooking appliance is in the high pressure working state.”
Claim(s) 143 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yang as applied to claim 141 above, and further in view of Cartigny.
Regarding claim 143, Li in view of Yang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Li does not explicitly disclose the spring is adjustable to provide varying biasing force.
Cartigny teaches wherein a spring 13 is adjustable (see page 5 bottom and page 9, top) to provide varying biasing force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Li in view of Yang with the spring is adjustable to provide varying biasing force as taught by Cartigny in order to facilitate fine tuning the force needed to expand the spring in order to engage the lock 50 disclosed by Li (see Cartigny page 5 bottom and page 9, top).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
shroud for non-linear cross sectional area change: US 4130130 (abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights