DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
The remarks mailed 12/22/2025 have been considered and are persuasive. The restriction of claim 15 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to. Claim 8 depends on claim 4, and introduces a fifth electrical pot without introducing a third or fourth electrical pot connection. Correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1 is not considered invoking a means plus function for “a food receiving element” since the claim recites ‘the pot” which is taught as sufficient structure in page 1 line 16 of the specification.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis. Regarding claim 1, “the pot” in the third line of the claim is not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the claims do not overcome the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “a second operating state” is referring to the second operating state in claim 1, or a separate operating state. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claims do not overcome the claim 11 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Arroubi (U.S. Patent 5,071,077).
Regarding claim 1, Arroubi teaches a container arrangement for a kitchen appliance (figures 6, 7, and 8), comprising: a food receiving element (item 3), and at least one lid configured to close an opening of the pot (item 4), wherein the lid is movable relative to the food receiving element between a first operating position and a second operating position different from the first operating position (see column 1 lines 15-24, the cover having a position in which the kitchen appliance which teaches a correct closure position which is considered reading on a first operating position and therefore inherently a position in which the cover is not operating, which is considered reading on a second operating position), wherein the lid comprises at least a first magnetic field-based counter element (magnet items 16, 17, 18 and 19), wherein the food receiving element comprises at least one magnetic field-based sensor element connectable to a detection device (detectors 13 and 14), wherein the detection device is configured to detect a second operating state of the lid based on a first sensor datum (when the sensors and magnets are not aligned, the integrated circuit is not activated, see column 3 lines 29-32), wherein the magnetic field-based sensor element is configured to output the first sensor datum only upon detection of the first magnetic field-based counter element in the detection range of the magnetic field-based sensor element (see column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 6 which teaches the angular spaced configuration of magnets, figure 5 shows the detection range between item 13 and 16), and wherein the at least one first magnetic field-based counter element is arranged in the lid such that the magnetic field-based counter element is in the detection range of the magnetic field-based sensor element at least if the lid is in the second operating position (column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 6 teaches the angularly spaced apart magnets, the second position is when the detection is not aligned and the integrated circuit in column 3 lines 29-32 is not activated).
Regarding claim 3, Arroubi teaches the lid comprises at least one magnetic field-based additional counter element (magnets 16, 17, 18, and 19), wherein the detection device is configured to detect a first operating state of the lid based on a second sensor datum (items 13 and 14 which can be used to detect if the lid is in either a position that activates the integrated circuit or not as taught in column 3 lines 29-32), the magnetic field-based sensor element is configured to output the second sensor datum only upon detection of the magnetic field-based additional counter element in the detection range of the magnetic field-based sensor element (items 13 and 14 which can be used to detect if the lid is in either a position that activates the integrated circuit or not as taught in column 3 lines 29-32), and the at least one magnetic field-based additional counter element is arranged in the lid such that the magnetic field-based additional counter element is in the detection range of the magnetic field-based sensor element only if the lid is in the second operating position (see figure 5 configuration between item 13 and 16).
Regarding claim 9, Arroubi teaches the at least one magnetic field-based sensor is a field sensor (hall effect sensors taught in column 2 lines 66-68) and the at least one magnetic field-based counter element is a magnet (column 3 lines 1-6 teaches magnets).
Regarding claim 10, Arroubi teaches the container arrangement comprises at least a first lid and a second lid different from the first lid (column 2 lines 34-39, the covers are considered different since they have a corresponding speed associated with each cover), the at least one first magnet of the first lid is arranged in the first lid such that the magnetic field sensor detects a first magnetic field with a first magnetic field direction in the second operating position of the first lid (items 13 and 14 which can be used to detect if the lid is in either a position that activates the integrated circuit or not as taught in column 3 lines 29-32), and the at least one second magnet of the second lid is arranged on the second lid such that the magnetic field sensor in the second operating position of the second lid detects a second magnetic field with a second magnetic field direction different from the first magnetic field direction (items 13 and 14 which can be used to detect if the lid is in either a position that activates the integrated circuit or not as taught in column 3 lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 11, Arroubi teaches a kitchen appliance (shown in figure 1), comprising: a container arrangement according to claim 1, and an appliance base comprising a detection device connectable to the magnetic field-based sensor element of the food receiving element of the container arrangement (item 2 which is in communication with items 13 and 14), wherein the detecting device is configured to detect a second operating state of the lid of the container arrangement based at least on the first output sensor data (when the sensors and magnets are not aligned, the integrated circuit is not activated, see column 3 lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 12, Arroubi teaches a plurality of lid type criteria is predefined and a lid type is associated with each of the lid type criteria (column 2 lines 34-39, the covers are considered having a criteria based on the matching speed associated with each cover), and the detection device is configured to identify the lid type based on at least one sensor signal received from the at least one magnetic field-based sensor element and the lid type criteria (column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 6).
Regarding claim 13, Arroubi teaches the detection device is configured to determine at least one signal pattern from at least one sensor signal received from a magnetic field sensor (see column 2 lines 22-30 which teaches the detection means detects the presence of the cover on the bowl, the correct positioning and speed changer, which are considered reading on a signal pattern).
Regarding claim 14, Arroubi teaches the kitchen appliance comprises a lid drive configured to move a lid at least between the first operating position and the second operating position (see column 1 lines 15-24, the cover having a position in which the kitchen appliance which teaches a correct closure position which is considered reading on a first operating position and therefore inherently a position in which the cover is not operating, which is considered reading on a second operating position), wherein the detection device is configured to detect at least one lid drive parameter value (see column 2 lines 22-30 which teaches the detection means detects the presence of the cover on the bowl, the correct positioning and speed changer), and the detecting device is configured to detect the second operating state of the container arrangement based on the detected lid drive parameter value and the first sensor datum (see column 2 lines 22-30 which teaches the detection means detects the presence of the cover on the bowl which requires the sensors receiving data from the magnets).
Regarding claim 15, Arroubi teaches a method of determining a second operating state in a container arrangement according to claim 1 (the second operating state being a state where the integrated circuit is not activated, taught in column 3 lines 29-32), comprising: receiving by a detection device a first data sensor datum output by the magnetic field-based sensor element (column 2 lines 22-30 teaches electric control device with detection means), and detecting, the detecting device, the second operating state of the container arrangement based on the detected first sensor datum and at least one position criterion (the second operating state being a state where the integrated circuit is not activated, taught in column 3 lines 29-32).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arroubi (U.S. Patent 5,071,077).
Regarding claim 2, the food receiving element comprises at least two magnetic field-based sensor elements arranged at an upper pot edge (items 13 and 14), and the lid comprises at least two first magnetic field-based counter elements arranged at a lid edge (items 15, 17, 18, and 19). Regarding claim 2, Arroubi is silent to the two magnetic field-based sensor elements and magnetic field-based counter elements are located on substantially opposite sides of the pot edge. Regarding claim 2, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the magnets and sensors in order to obtain the desired arrangement of the lid relative to the container since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 4, 5, and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arroubi (U.S. Patent 5,071,077) in further view of Schmidt (DE102010015925A1 cited in the IDS mailed 8/14/2025, a machine translation is provided).
Arroubi is silent to the language of claim 4. Regarding claim 4, Schmidt teaches the at least one magnetic field-based sensor element is a coil (page 2 coil winding 18), and the at least one first magnetic field-based counter element is an inductive element formed of an inductance-influencing material (page 2 of machine translation inductance of electromagnet item 19). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container and lid of Arroubi with the coil-induction configuration of Schmidt to provide a more secure sealing of the lid.
Regarding claim 5, Arroubi teaches wherein the container arrangement comprises two different lids (column 1 lines 33-42), and two different magnetic elements for each lid (each cover would inherently need their own magnets in order to function). Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches the at least one magnetic field-based sensor element is a coil (page 2 coil winding 18), and the at least one first magnetic field-based counter element is an inductive element formed of an inductance-influencing material (page 2 of machine translation inductance of electromagnet item 19). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container and lid of Arroubi with the coil-induction configuration of Schmidt to provide a more secure sealing of the lid.
Arroubi is silent to the language of claim 6. Regarding claim 6, Schmidt teaches Schmidt teaches the at least one magnetic field-based sensor element is a coil (page 2 coil winding 18), and the at least one first magnetic field-based counter element is an inductive element formed of an inductance-influencing material (page 2 of machine translation inductance of electromagnet item 19), a coil cover (item 16). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the container and lid of Arroubi with the coil-induction configuration of Schmidt to provide a more secure sealing of the lid. Additionally, regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the coil in order to obtain the desired specified fit with a specific container since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the container arrangement with the combination of the two orientations, induction coils and the electrical connection configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774