Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “toasting device” and “heating device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “toasting device” in line 3. There is insufficient description for the “toasting device” and what it encompasses.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “toasting device” to be any device that toasts.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “toasting device” in line 3. There is insufficient description for the “toasting device” and what it encompasses.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
For examination purposes examiner has interpreted “toasting device” to be any device that toasts.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1 (Xiong)
PNG
media_image2.png
385
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2 (Xiong)
PNG
media_image3.png
338
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3 (Xiong)
PNG
media_image4.png
387
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4 (Xiong)
PNG
media_image5.png
457
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5 (Brown)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong (C.N. Patent Document No. 209951099) in view of Brown (W.O. Patent Document No. 0100073).
Xiong teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figures 1 and 2 above) a toaster (1) comprising a toaster body (11). Wherein the toaster body (11) defines a plurality of toasting grooves (Modified Figure 1). The plurality of toasting grooves (Modified Figure 1) is arranged from front to rear. A toasting device (2) is arranged in each of the toasting grooves (Modified Figures 1 and 2). A support base (Modified Figure 1) is arranged on a lower end (Modified Figure 1) of a front side (Modified Figure 1) of the toaster body (11). The support base (Modified Figure 1) extends forwards. A heating device (Modified Figure 2) is arranged on the support base (Modified Figure 1). A heating box (3) is detachably arranged on the heating device (Modified Figure 2). A first control panel (Modified Figure 1) configured to control each toasting device (2) and a second control panel (Modified Figure 1) configured to control the heating device (Modified Figure 2). “A control module 101, which controls the operation of the heating plate and the bread toaster 2” (Pg. 3, Paragraph 32, Line 3). The examiner is interpreting the first control panel (Modified Figure 1) on the toaster body (11) side to control each toasting device (2) and the second control panel (Modified Figure 1) nearest to the heating device (Modified Figure 2) to control the heating device (Modified Figure 2). The first control panel (Modified Figure 1) and the second control panel (Modified Figure 1) are arranged adjacent to the plurality of toasting grooves (Modified Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 3 above), wherein the toaster body (11) comprises a bottom shell (Modified Figure 2). The support base (Modified Figure 1) comprises a bottom cover (Modified Figure 2) and a main body (Modified Figure 1). The bottom cover (Modified Figure 2) is integrally formed with the bottom shell (Modified Figure 1). The bottom cover (Modified Figure 2) extends forwards from a front side of the bottom shell (Modified Figure 2). The main body (Modified Figure 1) is arranged on the bottom cover (Modified Figure 2). An upper surface of the main body (Modified Figure 3) recesses to form a concave cavity (121). The heating device (Modified Figure 2) is embedded in the concave cavity (121) to limit a position of the heating device (Modified Figure 2). The heating box (3) is embedded in the concave cavity (121) to be positioned and contacts the heating device (Modified Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 4 above), wherein the heating box (3) comprises a box body (31), a steaming rack (32), and a box cover (33). The box body (31) defines an accommodating cavity (Modified Figure 4). The accommodating cavity (Modified Figure 4) defines an opening facing upwards. The steaming rack (32) is detachably arranged in the accommodating cavity (Modified Figure 4). The box cover (33) is detachably arranged on the box body (31) and covers the opening of the accommodating cavity (Modified Figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, (See Modified Figures 1 and 2 above), wherein, a lifting handle (Modified Figure 2) is arranged on a middle of a top portion of the box cover (33).
Regarding claim 9, (See Modified Figure 1 above), wherein the first control panel (Modified Figure 1) and the second control panel (Modified Figure 1) are arranged from rear to front and are arranged on a same side of the plurality of toasting grooves.
Xiong does not teach:
Regarding claim 1, each of toasting grooves extends from left to right. A rectangular heating box. The first control panel and second control panel are arranged on the top surface of the toaster body.
Regarding claim 4, a rectangular box body and a rectangular box cover.
Brown teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Modified Figure 5 above) each of the toasting grooves (2) extends from left to right. The first control panel (8) and the second control panel (4) are arranged on a top surface (Modified Figure 5) of the toaster body (1).
Regarding claim 1, 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 have modified Xiong to incorporate the teachings of Brown to have each of the of toasting grooves extend from left to right, and have the first control panel and second control panel on a top surface of the toaster body. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the direction the grooves extend in Xiong for the direction that the grooves extend in Brown, left to right, because the results of this substitution would have been predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the location, of the first control panel and the second control panel, in Xiong for the location, of the first control panel and the second control panel, on the top surface in Brown, because the results of this substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding the claim limitations of the heating box (3), box body (31), and box cover (33), at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a rectangular heating box, a rectangular box body, and a rectangular box cover instead of a circular heating box, a circular box body, and a circular box cover, because applicant has not disclosed that the rectangular heating box, the rectangular box body, and the rectangular box cover provide an advantage, are used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with circular shapes or rectangular shapes, because both perform the function of steaming, frying, or cooking foods equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
PNG
media_image6.png
683
785
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 6 (Wang)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Brown as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Patent Document No. 108236388), hereinafter Wang.
Xiong in view of Brown teaches:
Regarding claim 3, wherein (See Modified Figures 1, 2, and 4 above), the heating device (Modified Figure 2) comprises a heating plate (13) and a heating pipe (Modified Figure 4). An upper surface of the heating plate (13) is attached to a bottom surface of the heating box (3). The heating pipe (Modified Figure 4) is electrically connected to the second control panel (Modified Figure 1).
The heating pipe (Modified Figure 4) being electrically connected to the second control panel (Modified Figure 1) is necessarily present (MPEP 2163.07). In order for a heating pipe to be controlled by a control panel it would have to be electrically connected to the control panel.
Xiong in view of Brown does not teach:
Regarding claim 3, the heating pipe is welded on a lower surface of the heating plate.
Wang teaches:
Regarding claim 3, (See Modified Figure 6 above), the heating pipe (11 and 12) is welded on a lower surface of the heating plate (22). “Preferably, the two heating elements are riveted, welded, or detachably connected to the lower baking pan”(Pg. 3, Paragraph 23).
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 have modified Xiong in view of Brown to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have the lower surface of the heating plate welded to the heating pipe. Doing so allows for the heating pipe and heating plate to be integrally formed, resulting in a highly durable and strong heating device that cannot be easily broken apart. Furthermore, a durable heating device allows for convenient transport of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image7.png
264
662
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 7 (Lu)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Brown as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Lu (C.N. Patent Document No. 214906208).
Xiong in view of Brown teaches:
Regarding claim 5, wherein a handle (See Modified Figure 1 above) is arranged on a middle of a front side of the box body (31). The handle (Modified Figure 1) extends forwards.
Xiong in view of Brown does not teach:
Regarding claim 5, a handle is detachable.
Lu teaches:
Regarding claim 5, (See Modified Figure 7 above), wherein a handle (5) is detachable. The handle is attached to the pot via the rivets, and therefore it is also detachable via the same rivets (See Modified Figure 7 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 have modified Xiong in view of Brown to incorporate the teachings of Lu to provide a handle that is detachable. Doing so allows for convenient replacement of the handle, reduction in operation cost, and a simplified cleaning process, as recognized by Lu (Pg. 3, Paragraphs 12 and 13).
PNG
media_image8.png
455
714
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8 (Lu)
PNG
media_image9.png
414
453
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 9 (Reichart)
PNG
media_image10.png
228
423
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 10 (Reichart)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Brown further in view of Lu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Reichart (U.S. Patent Document No. 2362720).
Xiong in view of Brown, and further in view of Lu teaches:
Regarding claim 6, wherein (See Modified Figures 7 and 8 above), a connecting piece (2) is riveted to the front side of the box body (1).
Xiong in view of Brown, and further in view of Lu does not teach:
Regarding claim 6, a clamping groove defining a downward opening is formed between the connecting piece and the front side of the box body. A clamping sheet is arranged on a connecting end of the handle. The clamping sheet is matched with the clamping groove. The clamping sheet is inserted into the clamping groove from bottom to top and is limited in the clamping groove.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the connecting piece defines two limiting holes. The two limiting holes are symmetrically arranged relative to an axial direction of the handle. The clamping sheet comprises two elastic limiting bars. The two elastic limiting bars are respectively clamped in the limiting holes for positioning.
Reichart teaches:
Regarding claim 6, (See Modified Figures 9 and 10 above), a clamping groove (Modified Figures 9 and 10) defining a downward opening is formed between the connecting piece (120) and the front side of the box body (13). A clamping sheet (142 and 130) is arranged on a connecting end of the handle (140). The clamping sheet (142 and 130) is matched with the clamping groove (Modified Figures 9 and 10). The clamping sheet (142 and 130) is inserted into the clamping groove (Modified Figures 9 and 10) from bottom to top and is limited in the clamping groove (Modified Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 7, the toaster according to claim 6 (See Modified Figures 9 and 10 above), wherein the connecting piece (120) defines two limiting holes (126). The two limiting holes (126) are symmetrically arranged relative to an axial direction of the handle (140). The clamping sheet (142 and 130) comprises two elastic limiting bars (127). The two elastic limiting bars (127) are respectively clamped in the limiting holes (126) for positioning.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Xiong in view of Brown, further in view of Lu handle connection (See Lu’s clamping groove (3) and clamping sheet (4)) with the Reichart handle connection (a clamping groove matched with a clamping sheet arranged on a connecting end of the handle), because the substitution of one known handle connection for another would have yielded predictable results of connecting the handle to the pan.
Regarding claim 7, 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 have modified Xiong in view of Brown, further in view of Lu to incorporate the teachings of Reichart to provide a connecting piece defining two limiting holes in which a clamping sheet comprising two elastic limiting bars are clamped into. Doing so prevents possible detachment between the detachable parts, as recognized by Reichart (Pg. 2, Col. 55 of the Description). Furthermore, the prevention of unintentional detachment ensures safety while cooking and using the heating box, such as avoiding possible burns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMA E ULATOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 01/07/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761