CTNF 18/226,320 CTNF 87801 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiesu (JP 2017-000231), copy provided with 7.29.2023 IDS . Regarding claim 1 . Kamiesu discloses: An electric kettle, comprising: a power supply base(18); and a kettle main body(2) to be removably mounted on the power supply base(See Fig. 2, 2 removeable from 18), wherein the kettle main body has: a container having a bottomed cylindrical shape that contains a liquid(2 being a container for holding a liquid goes in 2); a nozzle(5/8 ; and a valve mechanism that opens and closes a flow channel for the liquid from the container to the nozzle(6f). Kamiesu does not disclose that the a nozzle is provided in a lower part of a side surface of the container However, It would have been obvious to move the nozzle lower to extend the spout for the benefit of changing to aesthetic of the device. as such, the recited features would have been a mere obvious change in shape of the working device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have merely changed the look of the device, and there is no persuasive evidence on the record that the particular configuration is significant. As such, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2 . Kamiesu discloses: The electric kettle according to claim 1, wherein the valve mechanism(6f) has: a water channel having a cylindrical shape that defines the flow channel for the liquid from the container to the nozzle(flow from ML area of 4 into 5); and an opening/closing mechanism(6g) that opens and closes the water channel(6g opening and closing the flow channel). Kamiesu does not disclose that the channel is a cylindrical shape. However, it would have been obvious to move the nozzle lower to extend the spout for the benefit of changing to aesthetic of the device. as such, the recited features would have been a mere obvious change in shape of the working device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have merely changed the look of the device, and there is no persuasive evidence on the record that the particular configuration is significant. As such, the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3 . Kamiesu discloses: The electric kettle according to claim 2, wherein the opening/closing mechanism has: a valve body(7 and 7c) provided to be able to open and close the water channel(6e movings when 7 opens); a valve stem(6e is moved by 7) that pushes the valve body in a direction from an open position in which the water channel is open to a closed position in which the water channel is closed(7 moves 6e up and down to open and close channel); and a drive mechanism(7b) that drives a pushing operation of the valve stem to push the valve body(7b drives the movement of 6e) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiesu (JP 2017-000231) in view of Kelichi (JP05-074421U (1993)), copy provide with 7/26/2023 IDS . Regarding claim 4 . Kamiesu discloses: The electric kettle according to claim 3, wherein the kettle main(4) body has an armor case(outer shell of 4/2) having a bottomed cylindrical shape(4 having a bottom cylinder shape) that houses the container(4/2 housing container 4), and the opening/closing mechanism(6e) is housed in a space between a bottom plate(bottom of 2) of the armor case and a bottom plate of the container(bottom of 4), Kamiesu does not disclose: and a hole, into and out of which the valve body comes, is formed in the bottom plate of the container. In related art, Kelichi discloses: and a hole(19), into and out of which the valve body comes(18), is formed in the bottom plate of the container(bottom of container 11) Kelichi discloses that valve may be kept in the bottom of the liquid container. It would have been obvious to move the valve of Kamiesu into the bottom of the container of Kamiesu for the obvious benefit of changing the shape of the spout device. However, it would have been obvious to move the nozzle lower to extend the spout for the benefit of changing to aesthetic of the device, and moving the valve to the bottom of the device as taught by Kelichi. as such, the recited features would have been a mere obvious change in shape of the working device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have merely changed the look of the device, and there is no persuasive evidence on the record that the particular configuration is significant. As such, the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 9 . Kamiesu discloses: The electric kettle according to claim 3, wherein the drive mechanism (7b)further has a manual operation(7b) part for manually operating movement of the valve stem(6), and Kamiesu does not disclose: the manual operation part is provided on the bottom plate of the armor case. In related art, Kelichi discloses: The valve in the bottom of the device, see 19 However, it would have been obvious to move the manual operation part lower to extend the spout for the benefit of changing to aesthetic of the device. as such, the recited features would have been a mere obvious change in shape of the working device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have merely changed the look of the device, and there is no persuasive evidence on the record that the particular configuration is significant. As such, the features of claim 9 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim5-8 are objected to as being dependent on rejected base claims but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form. The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance: the prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious: the valve body is provided to close the hole from the side of the space and doubles as a sealing member that prevents the liquid from flowing into the space through the hole, as recited in claim 5. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 3 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 4 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 5 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 6 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 7 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/226,320 Page 8 Art Unit: 2898