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
In the IDS filed 15 February 2023, foreign patent document citation numbers 37 and 38 do not have document IDs that match with names and dates, and do not appear included as attached documents either. Hence, they have been struck as non-considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 28 of the submitted specification recites “hinge 36,” but element 36 is the second end of the hollow shaft 31.
¶ 28 of the submitted specification also mentions “button 38,” but in none of the figures does 38 point to any button. In figs. 4, 6, and 8, it clearly appears to point to a hinge.
In ¶ 32 of the submitted specification, “first end 32” should be “first end 33.”
Claim Objections
Claims 4–7 and 9–15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4 on line 2, “The” should being with a lowercase letter.
In claim 4 on line 2, “lid” should be “the lid.”
In claim 7 on line 2, “a first coking mode” should be “a first cooking mode.”
In claim 9 on line 5, “at least one weight sensor” should be amended to recite “the at least one weight sensor” to recognize the antecedent basis for the term provided earlier in the claim.
In claim 14 on line 5, “at least one weight sensor” should be amended to recite “the at least one weight sensor” to recognize the antecedent basis for the term provided in claim 9 from which it depends.
In claim 15, “at least one weight sensor” should be amended to recite “the at least one weight sensor” to recognize the antecedent basis for the term provided in claim 9 from which it depends.
Claims 5, 6, and 10–13 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The heat resistive element in claim 6 (“molded silicone or the like”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4–6 and 9–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a bottom wall of the basket.” This language renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear how it differs from the lower wall of the basket from claim 1. The disclosure seems to suggest that these elements are the same.
Claim 9 provides for “at least one weight sensor operably associated with the heating cavity for monitoring a weight thereof.” The language renders the claim indefinite because a cavity, as an empty space, should have no weight. Applicant clearly means to suggest that this should be something like the weight of the basket, but should amend the claim to clarify.
Claim 14 recites a grammatically out-of-place “supply” (l. 2). It’s unclear what this is supposed to be from the claim, but a best guess is that it’s supposed to recite “the water supply,” except that the water supply is introduced in dependent claim 10, whereas claim 14 depends from claim 9.
Claim 16 may be related to claim 14, since it recites “the supply line” (l. 4), but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 5, 6, 10–13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected due to dependency upon rejected claims.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 108652429 A).
Xu discloses an appliance for heating a food product, comprising:
a housing (7) having an interior with a heating cavity therein (appreciable from fig. 3);
a lid (11) enclosing an upper opening of the heating cavity (see fig. 3);
a water supply (4, 5, 12) including a portion directed through the lid (12) for introducing water to the heating cavity;
a heating element (2) adjacent a lower portion of the heating cavity (see fig. 3); and
a steamer basket (8) receivable within the heating cavity (“cooker 8 is detachably located and mounted in the inner container 7”) and defining a body with a perforated lower wall (10) positionable above the lower portion of the heating cavity (see fig. 3) such that the food product is suspended above the lower portion of the heating cavity during heating of water (17) therein and such that steam generated by heating water within the lower portion of the heating cavity permeates the food product, the steamer basket further including a hollow shaft (9) extending from a first end generally vertically aligned with an upper rim of the body (where it meets 12, see fig. 3) to a second end in communication with a dispensing opening through the lower wall (the bottom of 9, see fig. 3), the first end being positionable adjacent the portion of the water supply directed through the lid to further direct the water through the lower wall of the body without contacting the food product within the steamer basket (see 12 and 9 in fig. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goyon et al. (WO 2018/142086 A1).
Xu does not disclose a vessel receivable within the interior of the housing, wherein: the heating cavity is defined within the vessel; and the steamer basket is receivable within the vessel.
However, Goyon discloses a similar apparatus where a vessel (5) is receivable within an interior of a housing (4), wherein: the heating cavity is defined within the vessel; and a similar steamer plate (10) is receivable within the vessel.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the simple housing of Xu with the housing and vessel of Goyon (with the vessel of Goyon taking the functional place of the housing of Xu) to provide superior support and heat retention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (WO 2021/175159 A1)
Xu discloses a water tank (4) connectable with the water supply for receipt of water therein from the water tank (see 4, 5, and 6 in fig. 4).
Xu does not disclose that the housing defines a base and a cooking body extending from the base, the cooking body defining the heating cavity, the appliance further comprising: a water tank removably receivable on the base.
However, Zhu discloses a similar apparatus with a housing that defines a base (100) and a cooking body extending from the base (110, 122), the cooking body defining a heating cavity (with 300), the appliance further comprising: a water tank (labeled as 140 in fig. 2, not discussed in the disclosure, but its function made clear given water tank support seat 128 that is discussed in the disclosure) removably receivable on the base (evident from fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the base and cooking body of Zhu onto the housing of Xu to provide structural support for these elements (Xu does not describe how it sits on anything, particularly since there is nothing beneath its heating element 2).
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 110179315 A).
Claim 4: Xu discloses that a hollow shaft (9) is coupled with a bottom wall of the basket (see 9 and 10 in fig. 3).
Xu does not disclose that the portion of the water supply directed through lid is a nozzle that is generally centrally disposed within the lid; and the hollow shaft is at a horizontal center thereof.
However, Liu discloses a similar apparatus where a portion of a water supply directed through a lid (20, 32, 33) is a nozzle (24) that is generally centrally disposed within the lid (see figs. 1 and 2); and a hollow shaft (6) is at a horizontal center thereof (see figs. 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove Xu’s water joint 13 and the associated pipe 6, and to in its place reconfigure the pumping mechanism 5, water inlet joint 12, and water pipe 9 of Xu to adopt a central configuration, as suggested by Liu, to simplify the water supply and conveniently provide water directly to the center of the heater.
Claim 5: Xu modified by Liu discloses that the hollow shaft (Xu: 9) extends vertically from the bottom wall of the basket to a position adjacent the lid (Xu: see fig. 3) and positioned around the nozzle to receive water therefrom (Liu: see figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 6: Xu does not disclose its hollow shaft including a free end having a heat resistive element.
However, Xu discloses a “water inlet pipe port sleeve rubber sleeve,” and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated how the heat resistance and flexibility of the rubber sleeve of Xu would render it helpful to facilitate a connection between the parts while at the same time resisting damage from the hot cooking environment, and would have added it to the hollow shaft of Xu for that reason.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wanat (US Pub. 2005/0005778) and Zhou et al. (CN 107969931 A).
Xu does not disclose a controller configured to: execute a first cooking mode including controlling the heating element to heat the lower portion of the heating cavity to a heating temperature selected to cause evaporation of water received within the lower portion of the heating cavity at an evaporation rate selected to match a known steam absorption rate of the food product; and execute a second heating mode, wherein water is maintained at a predetermined temperature to heat the food product when immersed in a liquid received within the heating cavity.
However, Wanat discloses a similar apparatus with a controller (10) configured to execute a first cooking mode (¶ 42, “at least two modes,” “steaming”; facilitated by the temperature control clearly suggested in ¶¶ 45 and 46 in conjunction with dial 48, including temperatures that produce steam) including controlling a heating element (¶ 35, “heater”) to heat a lower portion of a heating cavity (described in ¶ 35) to a heat temperature selected to cause evaporation of water received within the lower portion of the heating cavity; and a execute a second heating mode (¶ 42, “at least two modes, boiling”; facilitated at least by the temperature control to sub-steaming temperature described in ¶¶ 45 and 46), wherein water is maintained at a predetermined temperature to heat the food product when immersed in a liquid received within the heating cavity (ibid.).
Furthermore, Zhou discloses a controller (“control module”) configured to control a heating element (4) to a heating temperature selected to cause evaporation of water at an evaporation rate selected to match a known absorption rate of the food product (“Because the type of food steam oven cooking, and food such as roast chicken, roasting or cake, bread different types and humidity environment to be different, Therefore, as preferred. stored in the memory preset humidity value P0 is corresponding to different food humidity requirement of multiple humidity value”; although the steam absorption rate of the food product is not mentioned here, the variable evaporation rates of Zhou would invariably, and could be selected to, match with the steam absorption rates of different food products).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement controller with first and second cooking modes taught by Wanat into Xu to enable it to be alternately used for steaming and boiling, and to incorporate the evaporation rate selection feature of Zhou into a same type of controller to improve the steaming mode by aligning it better with the type of food being steamed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Zhou.
Xu discloses an appliance for heating a food product, comprising:
a housing (7) having an interior with a heating cavity therein (appreciable from fig. 3);
a heating element (2) adjacent a lower portion of the heating cavity (see fig. 3); and
a steamer basket (8) receivable within the heating cavity (see fig. 3) and defining a body with a perforated lower wall (10) positionable above the lower portion of the heating cavity (see fig. 3) such that the food product can be suspended above the lower portion of the heating cavity during heating of a quantity of water (17) therein and such that steam generated by heating water within the lower portion of the heating cavity permeates the food product for heating thereof.
Xu does not disclose a controller configured to control the heating element to heat the lower portion of the heating cavity to a heating temperature selected to cause evaporation of water received within the lower portion of the heating cavity at an evaporation rate selected to match a known steam absorption rate of the food product.
However, Zhou discloses a controller (“control module”) to control a heating element (4) to a heating temperature selected to cause evaporation of water at an evaporation rate selected to match a known steam absorption rate of the food product (“Because the type of food steam oven cooking, and food such as roast chicken, roasting or cake, bread different types and humidity environment to be different, Therefore, as preferred. stored in the memory preset humidity value P0 is corresponding to different food humidity requirement of multiple humidity value”; although the steam absorption rate of the food product is not mentioned here, the variable evaporation rates of Zhou would invariably, and could be selected to, match with the steam absorption rates of different food products).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the heating element controller, with a selectable evaporation rate, of Zhou into Xu to improve the steaming by aligning it better with the type of food being steamed.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Zhou as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Leung (US Pub. 2017/0127871) and Tinkler et al. (US Pub. 2011/0200726).
Claim 16: Xu modified by Zhou does not disclose that the controller controls the heating element during execution of a heating cycle.
However, heating cycles are well-known in the steam cooking arts. Leung discloses its own controller (26, 200) controlling a heating element (106, 104) during execution of a heating cycle (¶ 50, “cooking/steaming cycle,” “preset duration”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the heating cycle control feature of Leung into the controller of Xu modified by Zhou to automate the heating time.
Neither Xu nor Leung disclose that, upon completion of the heating cycle, the controller completes a purge function wherein water is removed from the supply line.
However, the problem of water remaining in supply lines, and solutions therefor, are generally known in the cooking and beverage arts. Tinkler discloses a beverage-making apparatus that solves the same sort of problem, whereby upon completion of a hot water delivery cycle, a controller (9) completes a purge function wherein water is removed from a supply line (¶ 31, “The timing of the air pump operation may be arranged so that mainly air is pumped at the end of the cycle, e.g., to help purge the cartridge 2 of any remaining beverage, as well as to help dry the heater tank 8 and the line 96”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the purge function taught by Tinkler into the water supply of Xu to prevent stale water from being in the apparatus (see ¶ 2 of Tinkler).
Claim 17: Modified as per claim 16 above, Xu modified Tinkler discloses that the water supply further includes a water reservoir (Xu: 4) and a pump (Xu: pumping mechanism 5) for forcing water from the reservoir through the supply line; and
when completing the purge function, the controller closes the water reservoir (borrowing from Tinkler, reservoir 5, closed via valve 7) from the pump (Tinkler: 92) and causes the pump to run, thereby forcing air through the supply line to remove water from the supply line (as described in ¶ 31).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Zhou, Leung, and Tinkler as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US Pub. 2015/0083110).
Xu modified by Zhou or Tinkler does not disclose that the controller is further configured to execute a self-cleaning function, wherein water is moved, using the pump, from the reservoir and through the supply line until the reservoir reaches an empty condition, the controller further running the pump with the reservoir in the empty condition for a predetermined time interval to purge the supply line.
However, Shibuya discloses a similar apparatus with a controller (10) is further configured to execute a self-cleaning function (¶ 88, “manual water discharge mode . . . to clean up the steam generator 20”), wherein water is moved, using a pump (28), from a reservoir (29) and through a line (27, 30) until the reservoir reaches an empty condition (¶ 94, “the water supply tank 29 becomes empty by the continuous operation of the water supply pump 28”), the controller further running the pump with the reservoir in the empty condition for a predetermined time interval to purge the supply line (¶ 94, “the water supply pump 28 pushes out the water in the water supply passage 27 into the water storage chamber 19 by the air, and thereby discharging water from the water discharge passage 30”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the self-cleaning function taught by Shibuya into the controller and pump of Xu modified by Zhou and Tinkler to facilitate the removal of scales and water stains (see ¶ 96 of Shibuya).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Zhou as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xie (US Pub. 2012/0321760).
Xu does not disclose at least one weight sensor assembly operably associated with the heating cavity and with the controller for monitoring a weight of contents within the heating cavity, at least one of the weight sensor assembly or the controller being configured to mitigate an effect of heat from the heating element on a measurement obtained from a transducer within the weight sensor assembly.
However, Xie discloses a similar apparatus with at least one weight sensor assembly (52) operably associated with a heating cavity (1, 2) and with a controller (531 and associated elements, see fig. 16) for monitoring a weight of contents within the heating cavity (via 533), at least one of the weight sensor assembly or the controller being configured to mitigate an effect of heat from the heating element on a measurement obtained from a transducer within the weight sensor assembly (this limitation is broad enough to read on the way the mere physical structure of the weight sensor assembly in Xie inhibits heat from traveling thereto and interfering; it is also broad enough to read on the way that tray 51 also inhibits thermal interference at 52 underneath).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the weight sensor assembly and controller of Xie into the Xu to assist in the management of a proper amount of water added for steaming.
Comment: Luo et al. (US Pub. 2021/0161330) discloses a sufficiently analogous apparatus with a weight sensing unit structurally associated with a material with a low thermal expansion coefficient to reduce unwanted thermal on the weight sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 9–15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the disclosure explains that the weight sensor monitors the absorption rate of the food product by gauging an estimated evaporation rate against the measured weight of the cooking vessel, where the vessel’s weight decreases with evaporation but also has its weight maintained where the food product absorbs the steam.
Xie (US Pub. 2012/0321760) discloses a weight sensor associated with a cooking apparatus where steaming occurs, where the weight sensor monitors how evaporation affects the weight of the contents, but it does not monitor the absorption rate.
Chen et al. (US Pub. 2020/0178583) discloses using a weight sensor to determine the amount of moisture added to the food ingredients during steaming, and discloses adjusting the steaming time in response, but it does not disclose monitoring and adjusting literally the absorption rate because it is primarily concerned with adding an appropriate amount of steam to be absorbed into the food by the time its treatment is complete.
Mai et al. (CN 112273987 A) is relevant for disclosing the monitoring of the “target water consumption” of the steam cooking device, but this seems to relate to the water consumption of the steam generator, and not to consumption (i.e. absorption) of water by the food product.
Claims 10–15 each depend from claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761