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 .
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 limitations 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 limitations are:
The elastic element in claims 1 and 11, which will be interpreted as a coil spring or equivalents, according to the specification [PG Pub: 0055].
The command unit in claims 1 and 10, which will be interpreted as hand lever or equivalents, according to the specification [PG Pub: 0059]. Note that the command unit will not be interpreted under 112(f) in claim 13, as it is specified as a hand lever in this claim.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 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 4-12 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 term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the limitation “substantially closed” is indefinite, as it is unclear to what degree a cooking compartment must be closed in order for it to be considered substantial and within the scope of the claim. Further, the degree of substantial closure is not clarified in the specification.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the limitation “substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis” in both claims 6 and 9 is indefinite, as it is unclear how far movement of the invention’s elements (the support in claim 6 and the crossbar in claim 9) may stray from a direction perfectly parallel to the longitudinal axis while remaining within the scope of these claims. Further, the degree to which a direction may be considered substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis is not clarified in the specification. Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “two lateral guides” is unclear, as it is not known if these are a subset of, or separate from the “at least one guide” that is introduced in claim 9, upon which claim 12 is dependent. The limitation “the mechanism comprises two lateral guides” will be interpreted as, and may be corrected to --the at least one guide comprises two lateral guides--. Claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 12(b) by virtue of its dependence on claims 6 and 9.
Regarding claims 5, 7-8, and 10-11, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on the above listed claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (US 4635812 A) in view of Rana (WO 2019207509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller discloses a machine for cooking food in a container (Apparatus for heating pasta and sauce [title, Fig. 1]), the machine comprising:
a frame comprising a plate (steam circulation housing 80 [col. 2, line 54, Figs. 1 and 4]) having an upper face and a lower face (see Annotated Figure 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
436
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 4 disclosed by Mueller, modified to show claimed elements.
a dispenser (steam inlet 82 [col. 3, lines 22-23, Figs. 1, 4, and 5]) supported by the plate along the lower face (steam inlet 82 is encased within steam circulation housing 80 and its opening is present on the lower face of steam circulation housing 80 [Figs. 4 and 5]; see Annotated Figure 1) and comprising at least one first opening for dispensing steam into the container (“steam inlet feeds into the top 64 of cup 20.” [col. 3, lines 22-23]);
a support (holder rods 56 [col. 2, line 5, Figs. 1 and 4]) configured to be arranged below the container and to support the container (“Spring shock 100 raises holder rods 56 to hold cup 20” [col. 4, lines 24-25]; Figs. 1 and 4 show holder rods 56 below the container (cup 20)); and
a mechanism coupled to the plate and to the support and comprising at least one elastic element (spring shock 100 with spring 102 and spring receiver 104 [col. 3, lines 47-48, Fig. 4]) for pushing the support towards the dispenser (“Spring shock 100 raises holder rods 56 to hold cup 20 adjacent steam inlet 82” [col. 4, lines 24-26]); and a command unit (outermost edge of holder rods 56; see Annotated Figure 1) for counteracting the force of the elastic element and lowering the support with respect to the plate (“Holder rods 56 are pushed downwardly by cup 20” [col. 4, lines 19-20]; this counteracts the force described above wherein the spring shock 100 raises the holder rods 56).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Fig. 3 disclosed by Rana, modified to show claimed elements.
Mueller does not expressly disclose at least one second opening for dispensing hot water into the container.
Rana discloses a system for cooking pasta ([abstract, Fig. 3]; see Annotated Figure 2). The system includes a container in which the pasta is cooked (container 4 [page 9, line 19, Fig. 3]), a first opening for dispensing steam into the pasta container (nozzle 16 [page 11, line 18, Fig. 3]), and a second opening for dispensing hot water into the pasta container (nozzle 7 [page 10, line 21, Fig. 3]).
Thus, Rana teaches at least one second opening (nozzle 7 [page 10 line 21, Fig. 3]) for dispensing hot water into the container (“nozzle 7 arranged at an end of the duct 6 so as to release water into the container 4” [page 10, lines 21-22]; further, this is an embodiment of the base device, which is configured to feed specifically hot water into the container [page 9, lines 21-23]).
According to MPEP 2143(G), it is obvious to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention when some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. MPEP 2143(G) states that the rationale for this rejection must show that: (1) there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation of success in the modification.
In this case, Mueller discloses a single opening in the dispenser for dispensing steam into the pasta container. Rana teaches that in addition to a first opening for dispensing steam into the pasta container, there can be a second opening for dispensing hot water into the pasta container. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the pasta cooking container disclosed by Mueller to include a second opening in the dispenser for hot water, as taught by Rana before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a second opening for hot water in addition to the first opening for steam because allowing for both steam and hot water dispensing would be “making the machine 1 flexible and allowing a plurality of different cooking processes to be implemented” [Rana: page 12, lines 9-11]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both systems deal with dispensing water (in vapor and/or liquid form) into a container intended to cook pasta. Further, because Rana has taught having two dispensers on a system of this kind, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to add a second dispenser to the system disclosed by Mueller.
Regarding claim 3, Mueller discloses comprising a steam supply duct (steam inlet 82 [col. 3, lines 22-23, Figs. 1, 4, and 5]), which is in fluidic communication with the at least one first opening (as described above, the first opening is the opening of steam inlet 82 that feeds into cup 20; see Annotated Figure 1);
Mueller does not expressly disclose a hot water supply duct, which is in fluidic communication with the at least one second opening.
Rana teaches a hot water supply duct (duct 6 [page 10, line 21, Fig. 3]), which is in fluidic communication with the at least one second opening (“to convey the water along the duct 6 to the nozzle 7” [page 10, lines 23-24]).
In the combination described above with regard to claim 1, Mueller in view of Rana discloses a pasta cooking container utilizing a first dispenser opening for dispensing steam into the container as disclosed by Mueller, modified by the addition of a second dispenser opening for dispensing hot water into the container as taught by Rana. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified this cooking system to further include the hot water duct taught by Rana in order to feed the hot water to the second dispenser opening. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because, as the opening for hot water has been added to the system as described above with regard to claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to add the duct necessary to convey hot water to said opening. This is especially so, as the steam circulation housing disclosed by Mueller is already configured to have a second duct (steam receiver 84 [col. 3, line 25, Fig. 4]), and would thus be able to support the hot water duct.
Regarding claim 4, Mueller discloses that the mechanism is configured to push the container against the dispenser so as to close an upper opening (top 64 of cup 20 with edge 42 [col. 3, lines 23-24, Figs. 3 and 4]) of the container and to form a substantially closed cooking compartment for cooking the food (“Spring shock 100 raises holder rods 56 to hold cup 20 adjacent steam inlet 82” [col. 4, lines 24-26]; Fig. 4 shows this configuration having edge 42 pushed against steam circulation housing 80 to make a closed cooking compartment).
Regarding claim 5, Mueller does not expressly disclose that the dispenser comprises a lid configured to close the container. Rather, Mueller teaches that the dispenser opening directly out of the bottom of the plate (steam circulation housing 80), against which the container is pushed during dispensing.
Rana teaches that the dispenser comprises a lid (lid 21 [page 12, line 20, Fig. 3]) configured to close the container (“In some cases (like the one shown herein), the lid 21 completely covers the opening 20” [page 12, lines 20-21]; see Annotated Figure 2).
Mueller in view of Rana, as described in claim 4 discloses a pasta cooking system wherein a dispenser has openings for steam and hot water that open directly out of the bottom of a plate on the frame (Mueller: steam circulation housing 80). Rana teaches the openings coming out of a dispenser comprising a lid (Rana: lid 21). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the pasta cooking system disclosed by Mueller in view of Rana by adding the lid taught by Rana between the plate and support disclosed by Mueller before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the lid to the dispensing system because “the lid allows the container to be pressurized during the cooking process and, at the same time, prevents external agents from getting into the container” [page 6, lines 6-8]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both systems include a dispenser configured to close the container in which the pasta will be cooked.
Regarding claim 6, Mueller discloses that the support is movable in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis (in operation, “Holder rods 56 are pushed downwardly” to load in the container, then, “Spring shock 100 raises holder rods 56” to bring the container up to the dispenser [col. 4, lines 19-24]; the longitudinal axis defined in the instant application runs in a direction which passes though the support, the container, and the dispenser, and in Mueller, “downwardly” and “raises” describe directions along an analogous axis in the system disclosed by Mueller).
Regarding claim 7, Mueller does not expressly disclose that the dispenser extends along the longitudinal axis from the plate towards the support in the space between the plate and the support.
However, in the modification of Mueller in view of Rana regarding claim 5, it was discussed that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the lid (Rana: lid 21) between the plate (Mueller: steam circulation housing 80) and the support (Mueller: holder rods 56). Thus, in this modification, Mueller in view of Rana would disclose that the dispenser extends along the longitudinal axis from the plate towards the support in the space between the plate and the support. Specifically, with the lid positioned below the plate, the steam and hot water ducts and openings would extend downwardly from the plate, through the lid, such that, while the ducts are supported by the plate, the openings can dispense steam and/or water into the container below the lid, as taught by Rana (Rana: Fig. 3 shows the openings placed below the lid 21; see Annotated Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mueller discloses that the command unit comprises a hand lever (the end of holder rods 56 are pushed down by the cup 20, functioning as a lever acting against the spring shock 100 [col. 4, lines 19-20]; while the cup 20 is stated to be acting on holder rods 56, it can be appreciated that the user is holding the cup during operation and thus, the lever would be hand-operated).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (US 4635812 A) in view of Rana (WO 2019207509 A1), and in further view of Miller (US 20160255992 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mueller in view of Rana does not expressly disclose that the support has a plurality of openings.
Miller discloses an apparatus for dispensing a beverage into a container [abstract, Figs. 1-3]. The apparatus includes a support (platform 28 [0025, Figs. 1, 3, and 4]) for holding a container while the beverage is being dispensed (“for supporting a beverage container” [0025]).
Further, Miller teaches that the support (platform 28 with support surface 32 [0025-0026, Figs. 1, 3, and 4]) has a plurality of openings (“The surface 32 has a plurality of openings 34” [0026, Figs. 1, 3, and 4]).
According to MPEP 2143(G), it is obvious to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention when some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. MPEP 2143(G) states that the rationale for this rejection must show that: (1) there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation of success in the modification.
In this case, Mueller in view of Rana discloses a system for cooking pasta in a container by dispensing steam and/or water into the container while the container is placed on a support. Miller discloses a system with similar functionality (i.e., dispensing a hot consumable liquid into a container placed onto a support) and further teaches that the support has a plurality of openings. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the support disclosed by Mueller in view of Rana to include a surface containing a plurality of openings as taught by Miller before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, rather than using the holder rods as a support, as disclosed by Mueller, upon which the cup is balanced, a surface such as that taught by Miller (namely surface 32) could be added to the holder rods, providing a solid surface with a plurality of openings to support the container. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because while the holder rods work with the cup disclosed by Mueller, the cup must have notches 36 [col. 2, line 52, Fig. 3] in order to be placed onto the rods and remain balanced. In contrast, a support such as that taught by Miller includes a solid surface upon which any container can be placed (“The beverage container can be any suitable beverage container, e.g., without limitation, a cup, coffee mug, thermos, carafe, pitcher, bottle, or any other suitable receptacle for holding liquids” [0025]). Moreover, it is advantageous to include the plurality of openings in the surface taught by Miller because it allows for any splashed liquid to drip into a collection tray (“dispensed beverage that splashes or overflows from the beverage container may strike the surface 32, flow through the openings 34, and collect in the respective first or second compartment 36, 38” [0026]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both systems deal with a support intended to hold a container into which a hot liquid is dispensed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art references include Mueller (US 4635812 A), Cai (US 2002/0178932 A1), and Sus (US 2011/0256287 A1).
Mueller discloses the system for cooking pasta as discussed above, with regard to previous claims. The mechanism for moving the support includes the spring shock system (spring shock 100 [col. 3, line 47, Fig. 4]), which moves the supports up to hold the container in place while steam and/or hot water are dispensed. While this disclosed mechanism comprises a kinematic assembly (rod assembly 86 and rod assembly holder 94 [col. 3, lines 36-41, Fig. 4]), this is not functionally a connecting rod-crank type. Specifically, Mueller does not include a crank body or connecting rod or equivalent structure to teach a connecting rod-crank mechanism.
Cai discloses a device for cooking food in a container using steam [abstract, Figs. 1 and 2]. The device (device 10 [0025, Figs. 1 and 2]) includes a container for holding the food during cooking (dish 64 [0025, Figs. And 2]), a dispenser which covers the container to dispense steam (applicator 11 [0025, Figs. 1 and 2]), and a mechanism to move the dispenser toward and away from the container (extendable member or arm 12 [0025, Figs. 1 and 2]). However, the mechanism in this case does not include a kinematic assembly of the connecting rod-crank type. Rather, Cai discloses a mechanism including a steam driven piston (piston 85 [0041, Figs. 1 and 2]), a sliding extendable arm (extendable arm 12 which slides in sliding chamber 89 [0041, Figs. 1 and 2]), and a retracting spring (spring 87 [0041, Figs. 1 and 2]).
Sus discloses a device for cooking food in a container via steam injection [abstract, Figs. 1-4]. The device (apparatus 10 [0036, Figs. 1-6]) includes a support (platform 138 [0046, Figs. 1-6]) for holding the container (container 24 [0037, Figs. 1-5]) that can be moved to hold the container up to the steam dispenser (wand 28 [0037, Figs. 1 and 3-5]) during the cooking process. The support is moved up and down to position the container under the steam injector via an extendable shaft 142 [0046, Figs. 1-5]. However, this mechanism includes a motor 140 [0046, Figs. 3-5] that controls the movement of the shaft rather than a kinematic assembly of the connecting rod-crank type.
Regarding claims 9-12, these claims contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights