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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract is objected to because the language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as,” “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Applicant uses “embodiments of the present application relate to”. See MPEP 608.01(b)C.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 8, oblique hatching impedes clear readings of what arrows corresponding to 124 and 21 points to.
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:
Claims 1, 14,15,20,22 call for, “externalization assembly.” The generic placeholder is “assembly” and the functional limitation is “configured to display airflow.” The specification reads “may include a display component with an electronic display function, and may be electrically connected to the airflow generation device; or, the externalization assembly may be a mechanical movable component.”
Claims 1,14 and 27 call for an “air blowing device.” The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional imitation is “configured to blow air.” The specification reads “may be a component with a function of blowing air into the cooking cavity” and “the air blowing device may be a component with a function of withdrawing air from the cooking cavity 10a, continuously withdraws and discharges air in the cooking cavity”
Claims 2 and 15 call for an “airflow generation device.” The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitation is “configured to generate an airflow.” The specification reads “the airflow generation device 21 includes, but is not limited to, a fan and an air pump.”
Claim 14 call for an “air guide component.” The generic placeholder is “component” and the functional limitation is “configured to guide the airflow out of the pot lid.” The specification reads “air guide component 124 is communicated with the cooking cavity 10a, steam from the cooking cavity 10a may form condensed water in the air guide component 124.”
Claim 15 call for an “movement component.” The generic placeholder is “component” and the functional limitation is “configured to move under driving of the airflow generated by the airflow generation device.” The specification reads “may be a fan blade or turbine rotatably connected to the pot lid.”
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 Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 8. "Wherein thickness" should read "wherein the thickness", "width" should read "the width" and "hardness" should read "the hardness.". Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Xing (CN 209300760).
Regarding claim 1 Xing teaches (fig.1-4) A lid body assembly (100), comprising: a pot lid(10), configured to cover a pot body (210) provided with a cooking cavity (“cooking chamber with the cavity” page 5 para. 8) to open or close the cooking cavity; an air blowing device (3), arranged in the pot lid and configured to blow air into the cooking cavity; and a check valve (“steam valve” page 6 para. 1), configured to unidirectionally guide an airflow to flow from the air blowing device to the cooking cavity.
Regarding claim 27 Xing teaches a cooking apparatus (200), comprising: a pot body (210), provided with a cooking cavity (cavity); and a lid body assembly(100), comprising: a pot lid(10), configured to cover a pot body(4) provided with a cooking cavity to open or close the cooking cavity(Fig. 1); an air blowing device (3), arranged in the pot lid and configured to blow air into the cooking cavity; and a check valve(“steam valve” page 6 para. 1), configured to unidirectionally guide an airflow to flow from the air blowing device to the cooking cavity covering the pot body (4) to open or close the cooking cavity (“cooking chamber with the cavity” page 5 para. 8), and the air blowing device (3) of the lid body assembly communicated with the cooking cavity to blow air into the cooking cavity and guide air out of the cooking cavity.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi in view of Luo (CN 212996005).
Regarding claim 2 Xing teaches (fig.1-4) The lid body assembly (100) wherein the air blowing device (3) comprises: an airflow generation device (fan of 3), configured to generate an airflow; and an air inlet device (41), connected to the airflow generation device to introduce the airflow, but does not teach the air inlet device connected to the check valve to enable the airflow in the air inlet device to flow to the cooking cavity unidirectionally.
Luo teaches (Fig. 3 Fig. 6) an air inlet device (232), connected to an airflow generation device to introduce a airflow, and connected to a check valve (1) to enable the airflow in the air inlet device to flow to the cooking cavity unidirectionally to reduce the content of peculiar smell substance in the cooking cavity (Luo page 10 para. 4).
Based on the teaching for Luo it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date to connect the check valve to the air inlet device as set forth in Xing change the air inlet device of Xing with the air inlet device of Luo to reduce the smell of the cooking cavity and in turn improve the fragrance of the food (Luo page 10 para. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Xing teaches (fig.1-4) the lid body assembly (10) and a check valve (“valve” Page 6 Para. 1) but does not teach wherein the check valve is arranged at an outlet end of the air inlet device.
Luo teaches (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) it is known in the art of cooking devices to put the check valve (1) at an outlet end of the air inlet device (232).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo and arrange the check valve in Xing on the outlet end of the air inlet device in order to allow gas, steam and air in the pot to escape and operate effectively (Luo Page 18 Para. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly (100) wherein the pot lid (10) comprises: a surface lid (1) but does not teach a surface lid on which the air inlet device is mounted; and an inner lid, connected to the surface lid, the check valve being fixed on the inner lid,
Luo teaches (Fig. 5) it is well known in the art of cooking devices to place a surface lid (25), on which air inlet device (232) is mounted; and an inner lid (21), connected to the surface lid (25), the check valve being fixed on the inner lid (21).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo and mount the air inlet device of Xing on the surface lid in order to ensure that if the air generation device needs to be fixed that the user will have easy access to it (Luo Page 12. Para. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly(100) the pot lid (10) and a surface lid (1) but does not teach a surface lid, on which the air inlet device is mounted; an inner lid, adjacent to and connected to the surface lid , and provided with a first channel penetrating through opposite ends of the inner lid; a movable cover plate, arranged on a side of the inner lid away from the surface lid, connected to the inner lid, and provided with a first through hole communicated with the first channel; and a first sealing member, arranged between the inner lid and the movable cover plate around the first through hole, wherein the check valve is at least partially arranged in the first channel, or the check valve is at least partially arranged in the first through hole.
Luo teaches (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6) it is well known in the art to include a surface lid(25), on which the air inlet device (232) is mounted; an inner lid (21), adjacent to and connected to the surface lid (25), and provided with a first channel penetrating (221) through opposite ends of the inner lid; a movable cover plate (22), arranged on a side of the inner lid (21)away from the surface lid, connected to the inner lid (21), and provided with a first through hole communicated (212) with the first channel; and a first sealing member (120), arranged between the inner lid (21) and the movable cover plate (22) around the first through hole, wherein the check valve (1) is at least partially arranged in the first channel, or the check valve is at least partially arranged in the first through hole.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo with the surface lid of Xing to add an inner lid a moveable cover and sealing member to improve the aesthetic design of the pot cover (Luo Para. 8 Page. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly (100) and a check valve (“valve” page 5) but does not teach the check valve comprises: a valve seat, provided with a second through hole communicated with the air inlet device; and a valve body, connected to the valve seat and configured to open or close the second through hole unidirectionally.
Regarding claim 6, Luo teaches (Fig. 6) the check valve (1) comprises: a valve seat (102), provided with a second through hole communicated with the air inlet device (232); and a valve body (10), connected to the valve seat (102) and configured to open or close the second through hole unidirectionally.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the check valve of Xing with the check valve of Luo in order to protect the valve from the steam from the cooking appliance body and act as a partition between different parts of the device (Luo page 11 para 4).
Regarding claim 7, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly (100) but does not teach the valve body comprises: a connection part, configured to penetrate through the valve seat and connected to the valve seat; and a movable part, arranged around the connection part, shielding the second through hole, and capable of being in contact with or not in contact with the valve seat to open or close the second through hole.
Luo teaches (Fig. 6) it is well known in the art of cooking device to have the valve body (10) comprises: a connection part (101), configured to penetrate through the valve seat and connected to the valve seat; and a movable part (11), arranged around the connection part, shielding the second through hole (221), and capable of being in contact with or not in contact with the valve seat to open or close the second through hole.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Luo with the valve of Xing to improve the functionality of the valve and protect it from the steam of the device (Luo Page 10 Para. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly (10) but does not teach wherein the moveable part comprises a valve plate, fixed at an end of the connection part, surrounding the connection part, and configured to shield the second through hole; and a skirt, arranged at an edge of the valve plate and configured to be in contact with or not in contact with the valve seat, wherein a sectional area of the skirt decreases from an end in contact with the valve plate to another end in contact with the valve seat, wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the skirt and an extension direction of the valve plate is greater than a preset value, wherein the valve seat comprises: a seat body, provided with the second through hole, the connection part of the valve body penetrating through the seat body, the valve plate of the valve body located on a side of the seat body away from the surface lid, and the skirt being close to the seat body compared to the valve plate; and a fixed part, arranged at an edge of the seat body, wherein the fixed part is provided with a second sealing member forming a seal with the surface lid.
Luo teaches (Fig. 6) it is well known in the art of cooking appliances to add a moveable part (11) comprises a valve plate (103), fixed at an end of the connection part (101), surrounding the connection part (101), and configured to shield the second through hole (Fig. 6); and a skirt (108), arranged at an edge of the valve plate and configured to be in contact with or not in contact with the valve seat (10), wherein a sectional area of the skirt decreases from an end in contact with the valve plate to another end in contact with the valve seat (Fig. 6), wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the skirt and an extension direction of the valve plate is greater than a preset value (Para. 5 Page 8), wherein the valve seat (10) comprises: a seat body (104), provided with the second through hole, the connection part of the valve body penetrating through the seat body (104), the valve plate of the valve body located on a side of the seat body away from the surface lid (Fig. 6), and the skirt being close to the seat body compared to the valve plate (Fig. 6); and a fixed part (103), arranged at an edge of the seat body, wherein the fixed part is provided with a second sealing member forming a seal with the surface lid (12).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid body assembly of Xing to add a moveable part from Luo to prevent the steam or boiling liquid from flowing into the ventilating device through the control valve (Luo Page 3 Para. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Xing teaches (Fig. 5) a lid body assembly (10) but does not teach wherein a sectional area of the second through hole decreases in a direction from the surface lid to the inner lid
Luo teaches (Fig. 7) it is well known in the art of cooking appliance to have a sectional area of the second through hole decreases in a direction from the surface lid to the inner lid (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid body assembly of Xing with the sectional area of Luo to ensure that the lid correctly closes over the working parts of the lid and allows for the working efficiency of the cooking appliance (Luo Page 5 Para. 6)
This reference Luo was published within the one-year grace period of the effective filing date of the Instant Application and includes two inventors that are also inventors in the Instant Application. However, it is not apparent that this prior-art reference is attributable to these common inventors because the prior-art reference includes two additional inventors who are not inventors for the Instant Application. Therefore, this prior-art reference is not excepted based on the presumption that this reference should be treated as a valid prior-art reference (referencing MPEP 2153.01.a)."
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing in view of Luo and in further view of Cheng (20210068584).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a movable part (11) but does not specify if the width of the movable part is 8 to 35 mm.
Cheng teaches a moveable part (301) that may be made of any material and may have any size and/or shape that allows movement (Para. 123-Para. 124).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use a moveable part that may to try of any shape size and material to allow for movement in the pot lid (Cheng Para. 123-124) matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant.) In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP 2144.05
Claims 14,15,17, 20-22, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing in view of Luo and in further view of Huang (CN-212912888).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a lid body assembly and a steam hole and an air blowing device but does not teach a first mounting region in which a steam hole discharging steam is arranged: an externalization assembly, configured to display the airflow and arranged in the first mounting region; and an air guide component, configured to guide the airflow out of the pot lid.
Huang teaches (Fig. 2-3) a lid (10) having a first mounting region (Fig. 2) in which a steam hole (Fig. 2) discharging steam is arranged; an externalization assembly (11), configured to display the airflow and arranged in the first mounting region; and an air guide component (22), configured to guide the airflow out of the pot lid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid pot of Luo in view of the teachings of Huang to modify the steam hole with a window that is able to provide a transparent lid above the working assembly of the pot lid so the user can see what is happening inside of the machine (Page 9 “ a transparent panel so that when the air extraction device is working, the turbine can be rotated, so that the user can understand the working condition of the air extraction device.”).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a lid body assembly but does not teach an externalization assembly comprises: a movement component, configured to move under driving of the airflow generated by the airflow generation device; and a transparent lid body, arranged above the movement component to observe movement of the movement component, wherein the externalization assembly and the steam hole are arranged in parallel in a first direction, wherein an edge of the externalization assembly and an edge of the steam hole are in contact with each other in the first direction or spaced by a distance less than a first preset value
Huang teaches (Fig. 3) it is well known in the art of steam cooker lids to add an externalization assembly (Para. 13) comprises: a movement component (21), configured to move under driving of the airflow generated by the airflow generation device (23); and a transparent lid body (23), arranged above the movement component (21) to observe movement of the movement component (20), wherein the externalization assembly and the steam hole are arranged in parallel in a first direction, wherein an edge of the externalization assembly and an edge of the steam hole are in contact with each other in the first direction or spaced by a distance less than a first preset value (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid pot of Luo in view of the teachings of Huang to modify the steam hole of Luo to add an externalization assembly to allow the user to observe the movement of the movement component and make sure the device is working properly (page 1 “At the same time, by setting a visible window on the cover, the position of the visible window corresponds to the position of the moving part, so that the movement of the moving part can be observed through the visible window, so that the user can intuitively observe and understand the ventilation device”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a lid body assembly and a sealing and isolation member (12) and wherein the sealing and isolation member is provided with a first opening (212) and a second opening (212)spaced apart from each other, a first rib is formed by protruding from a wall surface (120) of the sealing and isolation member adjacent to the first opening, and a second rib (122) is formed by protruding from a wall surface of the sealing and isolation but does not teach a first accommodation cavity accommodating the movement component is formed in the pot lid, and the transparent lid body is fixedly connected to the pot lid to close an end opening of the first accommodation cavity member adjacent to the second opening, wherein an outer edge of the steam hole abuts against the first rib, and an outer edge of the first accommodation cavity abuts against the second rib (Fig. 5).
Huang teaches (Fig. 2-3) a first accommodation cavity (space inside 23) accommodating the movement component is formed in the pot lid (10), and the transparent lid body is fixedly connected to the pot lid to close an end opening of the first accommodation cavity (space inside 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid pot of Luo in view of the teachings of Huang to modify the lid body of Luo to add an transparent lid to allow the user after observing the working status of externalization assembly to choose an appropriate time to open the lid and will allow for better cooking results (Page 1 ”Working state, so that the user can choose the right time to open the lid and other operations, and it is also convenient for the user to discover the failure of the ventilation device in time”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a lid body assembly but does not teach an externalization assembly further comprises: a shell in which a second accommodation cavity accommodating the movement component is formed, the transparent lid body connected to the shell to close an end opening of the second accommodation cavity, wherein the externalization assembly is fixedly connected to the pot lid.
Huang teaches (Fig 5-6) an externalization assembly further comprises: a shell (221) in which a second accommodation cavity accommodating the movement component is formed (21), the transparent lid body connected to the shell to close an end opening of the second accommodation cavity (Page 7 “the air flow generating device includes a casing”), wherein the externalization assembly is fixedly connected to the pot lid (Page 7 “ is disposed corresponding to the first visual window of the cover to visualize the moving part”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lid pot of Luo in view of the teachings of Huang to modify the lid pot of Luo to add different visible window to observes the working condition of the fan blade (222).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches wherein the first direction is a width direction of the pot lid (Luo Fig 4).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches wherein a ratio of a size of the first mounting region in a depth direction of the pot lid to a depth of the pot lid (Fig. 4). Luo also teaches the first mounting region in a width direction of the pot lid to a width of the pot lid 8 (Fig. 4).
However, the combination of Xing and Luo does not expressly disclose the ratio of the pot lid wherein a ratio of a size of the first mounting region in a depth direction of the pot lid to a depth of the pot lid is less than 0.5, and a ratio of a size of the first mounting region in a width direction of the pot lid to a width of the pot lid is less than 0.8 as required by the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Luo to have a ratio within the claim range as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require to modify the mounting region of Smith by making the ratio of the muting region less than .5 and ration of the size of the mounting region less than .8 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Xing and Luo teaches a venting member (20), at least partially arranged in the steam hole (Fig. 2), and internally provided with a steam channel (28) discharging steam, wherein the venting member and the externalization assembly are integrated into a unitary member (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Xing and Luo teaches the unitary member (Fig. 5) further comprises a sealing and isolation member (12) arranged between the venting member (20) and the externalization assembly (Para. 13) to isolate the externalization assembly from the steam channel (28) wherein an outer edge of the steam channel abuts against the first rib, and an outer edge of the externalization assembly abuts against the second rib (Fig. 5). Other limitations of this claim have been discussed above.
This reference Huang was published within the one-year grace period of the effective filing date of the Instant Application and includes two inventors that are also inventors in the Instant Application. However, it is not apparent that this prior-art reference is attributable to these common inventors because the prior-art reference includes two additional inventors who are not inventors for the Instant Application. Therefore, this prior-art reference is not excepted based on the presumption that this reference should be treated as a valid prior-art reference (referencing MPEP 2153.01.a)."
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing and Luo in view of Huang in further view of Chen (US 20200205596).
The combination of Xing, Luo and Huang teach a lid body with a venting member (Huang 20) but does not teach that the venting member is detachable connected to the pot lid.
Chen teaches (Fig 1-5) it is well known in the art of pressure cookers to add a venting member (Para. 35) that is detachable connected to the pot lid.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pot lid of Luo with the teachings of Huang in further view of Chen to make the venting member removeable from the pot lid to allow for the steam to complete escape the cooking chamber (Chen Para. 35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure CN 110870678 A TW M595462 U WO 2020134318 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARGI MANSINGH whose telephone number is (571)357-5448. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00pm M-Th.
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.
/GARGI MANSINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights