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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per MPEP 608.01(f), par. 27 is required to be in the detailed description section of the specification.
Paragraph 21 and 41 uses the acronyms “PP” and “PC” but these are not defined in the specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what they are meant to be.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 1 a cooking machine body 8 is pointing to empty space
(r) Arrows. Arrows may be used at the ends of the lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows:
(1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points;
(2) On a lead line, an arrow touching a line to indicate the surface shown by the line looking along the direction of the arrow; or
(3) To show the direction of movement.
Fig. 1 the zoom on probe 24 is inappropriate
(h) Views. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. Detail views of portions of elements, on a larger scale if necessary, may also be used. All views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another, and must not be included in the sheets containing the specifications, claims, or abstract. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Waveforms of electrical signals may be connected by dashed lines to show the relative timing of the waveforms.
(1) Exploded views. Exploded views, with the separated parts embraced by a bracket, to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts are permissible. When an exploded view is shown in a figure which is on the same sheet as another figure, the exploded view should be placed in brackets.
Fig. 3 heat dissipation areas 22 are not clearly shown and appears to be pointing towards a display.
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sealing ring is disposed on…the base of claim 3 and the temperature measuring probe of claim 1 is disposed on the base of claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show in fig. 3 where heating assembly 5 and electromagnetic heating coil 51 are located below the heat conducting container and located outside the chamber as described in claim 8 and par. 40 of the specification of the instant application. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 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:
“a heating assembly” in claims 1 and 8 is being interpreted as item 51 which are per par. 39 is an electromagnetic heating coil.
“a temperature measuring assembly” in claims 1, 4, and 6 is being interpreted as item 6 which are per par. 35 is any probe and corresponding movement mechanism capable of being directly inserted into the food materials as part of the structure of this assembly.
“a control system” in claims 1 and 4 is being interpreted as item 7 which are per par. 37 is a controller.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of a temperature measuring probe…capable of being directly inserted into the food materials is not disclosed as to what structure is required to make the temperature measuring probe capable of being inserted directly into the food materials. Paragraph 35 of the specification of the instant application discloses “The temperature measuring probe 61 is movably connected to the top cover 1 and can move in the vacuum cavity 9 according to an instruction of the control system 7” but does not include what structure does this nor how it verifies the probe is in the food because food comes in all shapes and sizes.
Claims 5 and 6 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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 4, 5, and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of a temperature measuring probe…capable of being directly inserted into the food materials is unclear as to what structure is required to make the temperature measuring probe capable of being inserted directly into the food materials.
Claims 5 and 6 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “the temperature measuring probe is disposed on the base” is unclear because claim 4 of which claim 5 depends already establishes the temperature measuring probe to be on the top cover and no probe on the base would be capable of entering the food. If said temperature measuring probe were provided in the base it would prohibit contact with food.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11019953B2 Lee in view of WO 2018216042 A1 Gluseppe.
Regarding claim 1,
Lee teaches, except where struck through,
An integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine (vacuum cooking appliance), comprising:
a cooking machine body (first container 114) provided with a heat conducting container (second container 120) configured to accommodate food materials (column 1 lines 34 to 59 teach sous vide being am method of cooking in low temperature water and column 3 lines 37 to 42 teach filling container 120 with water for cooking), wherein the cooking machine body and the heat conducting container define a vacuum cavity configured to process the food materials (column 3 lines 25 to 36);
a vacuum pump set provided on the cooking machine body and communicated with the vacuum cavity (vacuum packing module 150 column 3 lines 25 to 36);
a heating assembly (heating part 130) provided on the cooking machine body and configured to heat the food materials in the vacuum cavity through the heat conducting container (fig. 4 and 9, column 4 lines 29 to 63);
a temperature measuring assembly provided on the cooking machine body and configured to measure a temperature
and a control system (temperature control part 135)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee teaches a temperature sensor temperature measurement part or sensor 133 to measure the temperature of the water inside container 120 per column 4 lines 50 to 63 but not the temperature of the food inside 120. Lee also teaches a control system (temperature control part 135) that only controls temperature but not vacuum, therefore, Lee does not teach in its entirety: a temperature measuring assembly provided on the cooking machine body and configured to measure a temperature of the food materials and a control system provided on the cooking machine body and electrically connected to the vacuum pump set, the heating assembly, and the temperature measuring assembly.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Gluseppe teaches a vacuum cooking apparatus 10a (abstract) with a cooking machine body (11), a heat conducting container (body 16) and further teaches a temperature measuring assembly (distal end 36 of thermal probe 21A, pages 17 lines 31-33 and page 18 lines 1-2) provided on the cooking machine body and configured to measure a temperature of the food materials and a control system provided on the cooking machine body and electrically connected to the vacuum pump set, the heating assembly, and the temperature measuring assembly (page 5 lines 21 to 24).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lee with the controller and thermal probe of Gluseppe in place of Lee’s temperature control part 135, and temperature sensor temperature measurement part or sensor 133 respectively to provide enhanced quality of the food being cooked (Gluseppe page 1 lines 10 to 16).
Regarding claim 2,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 1,
Lee teaches, wherein the cooking machine body comprises a base (outer case 160) and a top cover (cover 145), a chamber (housing 110) recessed downward is formed in a top surface of the base (figs. 2, 3, 4, and 9), the heat conducting container is disposed in the chamber (figs. 2, 3, 4, and 9), the top cover is configured to open and close the chamber (figs. 1, 2, 4, and 9, and the top cover and the heat conducting container define the vacuum cavity when the top cover closes the chamber (column 7 lines 27 to 47).
Regarding claim 3,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 2,
Lee teaches,
further comprising a sealing ring (gasket G fig. 3) configured to seal the vacuum cavity, wherein the sealing ring is disposed on the top cover or the base (column 3 lines 51 to 65 and column 5 lines 53 to 59).
Regarding claim 4,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 2,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: wherein the temperature measuring assembly comprises a temperature measuring probe provided in the vacuum cavity, and is electrically connected to the control system and capable of being directly inserted into the food materials.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Gluseppe teaches wherein the temperature measuring assembly (distal end 36 of thermal probe 21A, pages 17 lines 31-33 and page 18 lines 1-2) comprises a temperature measuring probe (probe 21A) provided in the vacuum cavity (fig. 7), and is electrically connected to the control system (page 5 lines 21 to 24) and capable of being directly inserted into the food materials (fig. 7).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lee with the controller and thermal probe of Gluseppe in place of Lee’s temperature control part 135, and temperature sensor temperature measurement part or sensor 133 respectively to provide enhanced quality of the food being cooked (Gluseppe page 1 lines 10 to 16).
Regarding claim 5,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 4,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: wherein the temperature measuring probe is disposed on the base or the top cover.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Gluseppe teaches wherein the temperature measuring probe is disposed on the base or the top cover (fig. 7 lid 17).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lee with the thermal probe disposed through a lid of Gluseppe in place of Lee’s temperature sensor temperature measurement part or sensor 133 respectively to provide enhanced quality of the food being cooked (Gluseppe page 1 lines 10 to 16).
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 4,
Lee teaches wherein the temperature measuring assembly further comprises a temperature measuring probe provided below the heat conducting container (figs. 4 and 9 teach temperature controller 135 below main body 121).
Regarding claim 7,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 2 (as discussed above).
Lee teaches a vacuum cooking apparatus 100 with a body (outer case 160) comprises a base (housing 110) and a top cover (cover 145), a chamber recessed downward is formed in a top surface of the base (first container 114), the heat conducting container (second container 120) is disposed in the chamber (fig. 4)…and the top cover and the heat conducting container define the vacuum cavity when the top cover closes the chamber (column 5 lines 4 to 15) per the recitation of claim 2 and Lee further teaches wherein a handle (handle 125) is provided on an edge of the heat conducting container (figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 8,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 2 (as discussed above).
wherein the heating assembly comprises an electromagnetic heating coil located below the heat conducting container and located outside the chamber (column 4 lines 36 to 49 teach heating part 130 being either an electric heater 131 or an induction heater).
Regarding claim 10,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 2 (as discussed above).
Lee teaches a vacuum cooking apparatus 100 wherein an observation window is formed in a surface of the top cover, and a transparent sealing plate covering the observation window is provided at a top of the top cover (viewing window w per column 5 lines 10 to 24) .
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11019953B2 Lee in view of WO 2018216042 A1 Gluseppe in view of US 20150114953 A1 Suzuki
Regarding claim 9,
The primary combination teaches, The integrated multifunctional vacuum cooking machine according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Lee does not teach: wherein a plurality of heat dissipation areas are provided at a bottom of the base.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Suzuki teaches and induction heating cooking device and further teaches the use of a plurality of heat dissipation areas (fan 27 and 96) are provided at a bottom of the base (par. 90 fan 27 is placed on the bottom surface 21 and fig. 19).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Lee with the fan 27 and/or 96 of Suzuki for the purpose of cooling electromagnetic circuits (Suzuki par. 160).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761