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 .
Drawings
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 driver in line 7 of Claim 7 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0015] provides for the "Overhead directional schematic diagram of the embodiment of the invention", the view provided in the Drawing is bottom-up view and not an overhead view.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the use of phrases that speak to the implied use of the . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, line 5, "The" should read "the"
In Claim 5, line 3, "The" should read "the"
In Claim 7, lines 3 and 7, "The" should read "the"
In Claim 8, line 3, "side" should read "sides"
Appropriate correction 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.
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.
The heating component recited in line 4 of Claim 1 is deemed to invoke analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under Prong A, the language of the claim does not explicitly use the term “means” or “step” as an explicit invocation of 112(f) analysis, but the claim provides the nonce term “component” that triggers analysis under 112(f).
Moving to Prong B, the component is linked by the phrase “equipped with” and is modified by the functional language “heating”.
Concluding under Prong C, the specification provides in Paragraph [0023], lines 14-15, that the heating component includes a heating plate, heating tube, and a temperature controller. The additional structure provided to the heating component in the Specification and Claim 4, provide sufficient modification to the structure such that 112(f) is no longer invoked.
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 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 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.
Claims 5 recites the limitation "the extraction kettle includes a kettle body, an upper kettle cover, and a lower kettle cover; The ultrasonic component is set at the lower end of the kettle cover" in lines 3 through 5 of Claim 5. The ultrasonic component being set at the lower end of the kettle cover is indefinite because it is unclear whether the ultrasonic component is attached to the upper or lower kettle cover.
Claims 7 also recites the limitation "the extraction kettle includes a kettle body, an upper kettle cover, and a lower kettle cover; The ultrasonic component is set at the lower end of the kettle cover" in lines 3 through 4 of Claim 7. The ultrasonic component being set at the lower end of the kettle cover is indefinite because an upper and lower cover are introduced in Claim 5, and it is unclear as to whether the ultrasonic component is attached to the upper or lower kettle cover.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the heating plate" in line 2. Claim 4 introduces a heating plate as part of the heating component, and Claim 6 is not a dependent claim of Claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for failing to indicate the required structure for the “driver” limitation in line 7 of Claim 7.
As the claim fails to provide any indication on the structural relationship between the driver and the drive circuit board, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to mean that the driver is anything that is powered or controlled by the drive circuit board as part of the ultrasonic component.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on rejected claims 5 and 7.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tai Li (CN-208740646-U), hereinafter Li.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Li teaches (Figure 3) an ultrasonic cooking machine. The cooking machine includes a kettle (2), a base with an inwardly recessed extraction area (6) (Figure 3), a control panel (5), a platform in the base for placing the extraction kettle (12), where the top and bottom of the extraction kettle include a heating source (1) located within an installation cavity of the base (Figure 6) ([0033]), and an ultrasonic component (3), both of which are connected to the control panel ([0031]).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lai (CN-111870126-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches all of the elements of the invention as stated above except the use of a sensing trigger device in the side wall of the extraction area that is connected to the control panel.
Lai teaches (Figure 3) an extraction device (1a) with a positioning detector (D) set on one side on the main housing portion (101a) ([0098]). Lai’s method is advantageous as the positioning sensor can be depressed or triggered by the storage body (10a) informing the extraction device that storage body has been located and is ready to receive liquid from the extraction process ([0098 and [0088]).
Li and Lai are analogous because both inventions teach extraction devices used in mixing liquids for consumption. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the extraction device of Li to incorporate the sensing trigger device taught by Lai to provide an extraction device that informs the control panel that the kettle is in the receptacle and ready to receive liquid from the extraction component.
Furthermore, an artisan having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Li’s ultrasonic extraction machine to further incorporate the positioning sensors to provide an ultrasonic extraction machine with a sensor that informs the control panel whether the kettle is correctly placed and thus ready to receive the extracted liquid.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lin (CN-110960093-A).
With regards to claim 4, Li teaches (Figure 6) all of the elements of the invention as stated above, including the use of a heating source (1), that comprises an electromagnetic heating device and a microcrystalline glass heating plate (12) set within the base (6) and is connected to a temperature operation panel (11) (Figure 3) ([0013 and 0031]), however, Li does not teach the use of a heating tube to heat the heating plate.
Lin teaches (Figure 1-3) a beverage brewing machine, where a heating mechanism is configured to heat a beverage cup ([0026]). Lin teaches an embodiment where a heating tube (118) is installed on the bottom of a heating disk (116) and is controlled by a temperature control device (11) ([0025, 0027-0028]). Lin further teaches that a micro switch (14) turns on and off the power supply when the cup is removed to ensure safety and prevent unwanted operation of the machine ([0070 and 0076]).
Li and Lin are analogous because both inventions provide a heating source for a beverage brewer that heats up the liquid inside of a container. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the known electromagnetic heating device of Li to incorporate the known heating tube taught by Lin to obtain a predictable result where in an ultrasonic cooker is heated from a heating tube.
Moreover, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to substitute the electromagnetic heating component and microcrystalline glass plate taught by Li to obtain a predictable result wherein the heating source for a container sits on a plate and is heated by a heating tube connected to the plate as taught by Lin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zuo-bin Li (CN-114468713-A), hereinafter Zuo-bin.
As to Claim 5, Li teaches all of the elements of the ultrasonic soup cooker and pot as stated above, except the use of a kettle with upper and lower cover, where the ultrasonic component is mounted to the lower end of the kettle cover.
Zuo-bin teaches an ultrasonic probe cup (Figure 1-5), where the cup includes a cup body (1), a cup cover (3) comprising an upper cover (301) and a lower cover (302), and an ultrasonic probe (7) mounted to bottom of the cup cover ([0033]). Zuo-bin further teaches the advantages of the probe being mounted to the cup lid reduces the difficulty of a powder clumping during the brewing process ([0017]).
Li and Zuo-bin are analogous because both inventions utilize ultrasonic probes to extract and brew flavors into food and beverages. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ultrasonic cooker of Li to incorporate the ultrasonic probe cup of Zuo-bin to create an ultrasonic extracting machine where the ultrasonic component is located in the cup portion of the machine to help prevent clumping of the food or beverage that is being made.
Furthermore, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to improve the ultrasonic cooker taught by Li by moving the ultrasonic horn component from a mechanism that is lowered down into a hole in the top of a pot when the pot is placed on the base, to a kettle that has the ultrasonic probe component mounted to the kettle cover, as an ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably expect the ultrasonic component would retain its function when mounted to the kettle cover as opposed to being lowered into the kettle, and even include the improvement of a kettle mounted ultrasonic component that aides in breaking up clumped material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Dos Santos (CN-215016174-U).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches all of the elements as previously stated, but fails to teach a triangularly shaped guiding protrusion that on the plate, with a corresponding groove in the kettle body.
Dos Santos teaches (Figure 1) a beverage preparation machine where the kettle (20) and base are arranged with a set of corresponding V-shaped protrusions (16a-16h) and grooves (10a-10h) to lock the kettle to the base and prevent rotation ([Claim1] and [0019 and 0051]). Dos Santos further teaches that the protrusions can guide the and hold the kettle in the base in a plurality of stable positions along a central axis ([0067]).
Li and Dos Santos are analogous because both machines provide a base and a container used in the preparation of a food or beverage. It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the base and kettle of the ultrasonic cooker of Li to incorporate the guide and locking protrusions of Dos Santos to have an ultrasonic machine that securely locks the kettle into the base while the machine is operating.
Furthermore, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to modify the container of the ultrasonic cooker taught by Li to incorporate triangularly shaped guide protrusions that guide and lock the container or kettle into the base while the machine is operating, ensuring that the kettle is safely secured during the brewing process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cooper (CN-107112687-B), and Glucksman (US-8534186-B2).
With respect to Claim 7, Li teaches all of the elements of the invention as previously stated, including the use of an ultrasonic transformer (32) that is inserted into the top of a stockpot for ultrasonic extraction of flavor in a soup. Li also teaches that using ultrasonic waves for extraction can accelerate the substance into water, which can help shorten the heating time, improve the extraction rate, and keep the nutrition in food ([0038]). Li does not teach that the ultrasonic component comprises a magnetic plug and coupler, and a drive circuit board equipped with a driver. Li also does not teach the probe is located at the bottom of the kettle cover.
Cooper teaches (Figure 1-3) a magnetic power coupler and plug (102) for kitchen appliances. Cooper further teaches that the magnetic coupler can be used in kitchen appliances such as mixers or kettles, and can establish an electrical connection between the power supply coupler and the appliance ([0014, 0115]). Cooper further teaches that the appliance can include complementary power terminal configured to engage with the power terminals of the coupler to provide AC power during use of the appliance ([0026-0028]).
Glucksman teaches (Figure 9) a magnetic connection between an infuser basket (224) lowered from a turning point (254) located at the cover of the kettle ([0043]). Glucksman also teaches that once an optimal temperature is reached, the control circuit operates the drive motor (243) to lower the infuser basket from the cover into the submerged position to infuse the water with tea ([0046]).
Li, Cooper, and Glucksman are all analogous as all the inventions taught are for brewing or heating a liquid or beverage. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ultrasonic cooker in Li to incorporate a kettle where the ultrasonic probe component is mounted to the kettle cover and connects to the base and drive motor via a magnetic coupling unit, and is controlled by a base mounted control panel.
Furthermore, it would be well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the ultrasonic cooker of Li to move the ultrasonic probe component from a mechanism mounted on the base to one attached to the bottom of the kettle cover. The ordinarily skilled artisan would also be able to modify the connection between the kettle and the base to make it a magnetic coupling system that allows the kettle to plug into the base, where the ultrasonic component is driven by the base, where the base mounted control panel controls the heating component and ultrasonic component.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cooper.
Concerning Claim 8, Li teaches all of the elements as stated above except that the kettle cover includes a square installation bracket with a magnetic coupler and a magnetic plug with a corresponding square shell.
Cooper further teaches (Figure 1-3) a magnetic power coupler for a cordless appliance such as a kettle. Specifically, Cooper teaches a magnetic coupler (102), which has a ring-shaped coupling region, and comprises a plurality of magnets (112) which engages the complementary coupler (114) of the bonding area (118) to the magnetic coupling region (111) ([0079 & 0080]). Cooper further teaches that the coupler can be horizontally and vertically oriented and can be incorporated into various cooking appliances such as kettles, stirrers, kitchen heating devices, and other kitchen cooking devices ([0098 & 0115]).
Li and Cooper are analogous because Li teaches both the base and the kettle appliance that mounts to the base, and Cooper teaches the wireless coupling mechanism for a kettle or other cooking appliance to connect with the base. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the base structure in Li to incorporate the coupling mechanism of Cooper to provide a kettle appliance that utilizes a magnet coupling and plug system to connect the kettle to the base.
Furthermore, it would be well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the pot and base provided in Li to incorporate the wireless coupling mechanism of Cooper to provide a kettle that wirelessly connects to the base via a magnetic coupling mechanism. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that a different shaped coupling mechanism, a square vs a circle, would retain the same coupling functionality regardless of the shape of the coupler.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Glucksman.
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches all of the elements of the invention as stated above except that the base has a power plug that is connected to the internal electronics and motor.
Glucksman further teaches (Figure 3, 5, 9 & 10) an apparatus for brewing hot beverages where the base unit (201) has a central connector (210) in the base (214), which connects with the heating system (260) and the drive motor (243), which also has a power plug extending out of the base (Figure 9) to provide power to the contacts, sensors, and motor ([0032, 0043, & 0045]).
Li and Glucksman are analogous because both inventions relate to a kettle or pot device that heats up a liquid for consumption. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the soup cooker of Li to include a power plug to power the heating component, ultrasonic component, and the control panel in the base.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the soup cooker of Li to incorporate the power plug provided in Cooper, as an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Li requires power for the base, the ultrasonic component, and the heating component, but fails to provide any specific way of powering the device, and a power plug extending from the base is a known and common way of providing power to kitchen appliances.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu (CN-110946463-A).
With regards to Claim 10, Li teaches all of the elements of the invention as stated above, except the use of a heat dissipation fan and heat dissipation holes in the base to dissipate heat.
Wu teaches (Figure 3) a water cooking machine that utilizes an electromagnetic heating module (2), which includes a heat dissipation fan, and a bottom shell (1) having air inlet holes on the bottom and air outlet holes in the side for heat dissipation ([0033]).
Li and Wu are analogous because both inventions teach a way to heat liquids for consumption by a user. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the soup cooker of Li to incorporate the heat dissipation fan and holes taught by Wu to provide a way to prevent overheating of a kitchen appliance.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the ultrasonic soup cooker taught by Li to incorporate heat dissipation fans and holes in the base of a kitchen appliance to cool the internal circuits and motors as well as prevent damage caused by excessive temperature caused by use of the kitchen appliance at boiling temperatures. The ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the ultrasonic soup cooker with the known improvement from the heat dissipation function of the electromagnetic heating module from the water cooking machine, and would expect the functions to perform the same functions when combined together into one cooking heating appliance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights