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 Objections
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “includes first carrier” should be corrected to --includes a first carrier--.
In claim 16, “the articulate position” should be corrected to --the articulated position--.
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.
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 use 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:
Heating component in claims 1, 8, 10, 18, and 19. The heating component is recited to have two functions in claims 1, 10, and 18, each of which require their own interpretation under 112(f). The heating component is said to be configured to:
Selectively receive a vessel, for which the structure of the heating component is interpreted as including the latch and temperature-dependent catch assembly, as described in the specification and drawings. It should be noted that the latch and temperature-dependent catch assembly are recited in claims 1, 10, and 18, but are recited as interacting with the heating component rather than included as part of the heating component. See 112(b) rejections for further detail; and
Generate heat above a temperature threshold. Notably, no structure was disclosed regarding the heating component or any other claimed element which can perform the function of generating heat above a temperature threshold.
Indicator member in claims 8 and 19, which is interpreted as an indicia or physical structure which may be a component of or attached to the latch, part of the catch assembly, or the heating component and may be visible through a window, color coded, or extend through the housing for a user to view while it moves [PG Pub: 0029].
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18, the heating component is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is recited to be configured to generate a heat above a temperature threshold. However, the specification does not provide any structure that is capable of generating heat. Thus, there is no sufficient structure provided that performs the function of generating a heat above a temperature threshold and therefore, there is a lack of adequate written description.
Remaining claims (2-9, 11-17, and 19-20) are rejected under 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on the above claims.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 10, and 18, these claims recite the limitation “the heating component” which invokes claim interpretation under 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear linkage between the function of heating and any disclosed structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Further regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “the heating component,” it is unclear if the latch and/or temperature-dependent catch assembly are intended to be components of the heating component, as they perform the function “selectively receive the vessel” which is attributed to the heating component. The 112(f) interpretation provided above outlines the interpretation of the heating component as including the latch and temperature-dependent catch assembly, as is disclosed in the specification and drawings. Thus, the following correction may be made to claim 1, and may adapted and applied to claims 10 and 18:
“a heating component operably connected to the base and configured to selectively receive a vessel and generate heat above a temperature threshold;
the heating component comprising:
at least one latch including a locked position that secures the heating component to the vessel and an unlocked position that permits removal of the heating component from the vessel; and
a temperature dependent catch assembly configured to retain the at least one latch in the locked position above the temperature threshold and release the at least one latch below the temperature threshold.”
Please note that the above suggested correction, alone, would not overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections regarding the function of heating.
Remaining claims (2-9, 11-17, and 19-20) are rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on one or more of the above 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 3 disclosed by Shanmugam, annotated to show claimed elements of the food processor.
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, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmugam (EP 3386361 B1) in view of Albrecht (DE 19736378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shanmugam discloses a food processing appliance (food processor [Figs. 1 and 3]; see Annotated Figure 1) comprising:
a base (base 102 [Fig. 3, 0076]);
a heating component (heater cassette 106 [Figs. 3-6, 0076]) operably connected to the base (“heater cassette 106 is arranged to be optionally connectable to the base 102 between the base and the bowl 104” [0076]) and configured to selectively receive a vessel (bowl 104 [Fig. 3, 0076]) and generate heat above a temperature threshold (“cassette 106 contains a heater element such as an induction heating coil assembly 112” [Fig. 5, 0077]);
at least one latch (bayonet pins 128 [Fig. 3, 0078]) including a locked position that secures the heating component to the vessel and an unlocked position that permits removal of the heating component from the vessel (the bowl 104 is attached to the heater cassette 106 via bayonet fittings 126 and bayonet pins 128 [Figs. 3 and 4, 0078]).
Shanmugam does not expressly discloses a temperature dependent catch assembly configured to retain the at least one latch in the locked position above the temperature threshold and release the at least one latch below the temperature threshold.
PNG
media_image2.png
725
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Figs. 2-4 disclosed by Albrecht, annotated to show elements of the locking device.
Albrecht discloses a mechanism (locking device 10 [Figs. 1-5, 0034]) to keep the lid (lid 6 [Figs. 1-5, 0033]) of a kettle in a locked position when the temperature in the kettle is at an unsafe level. Specifically, the kettle is meant to be kept closed when the contents are above 85 degrees, as a safety precaution [0003-0006]. The locking device functions by a shape memory alloy spring (memory spring 18 [Figs. 1-5, 0035]), which compresses and decompresses when below or above the threshold temperature, respectively. When the spring decompresses (above the temperature threshold), it pushes a plunger (plunger 24 [Figs. 2 and 4, 0035]) forward, moving a mounting section (mounting section 28 [Figs. 2 and 4, 0035]) at the end of the plunger into place below a projection (projection 30 [Figs. 2 and 4, 0035]), which acts as a catch, blocking the lid from being opened. When the spring compresses (below the temperature threshold), it pulls the plunger and mounting section back, freeing the lid to be opened (see Annotated Figure 2).
Thus, Albrecht teaches a temperature dependent catch assembly (locking device 10 [Figs. 1-5, 0034]; see Annotated Figure 2) configured to retain the lid in the locked position above the temperature threshold (Figs. 1 and 2 show the locked position when the temperature is above the temperature threshold [0035]; temperature threshold is 85 degrees [0006]; see Annotated Figure 2) and release the lid below the temperature threshold (Figs. 3-5 show the unlocked position when the temperature is below the temperature threshold [0036]; see Annotated Figure 2).
Shanmugam discloses a food processor with a heating component that is able to be locked and unlocked from the vessel of the food processor. However, Shanmugam discloses a bayonet-type locking system that is not dependent on temperature. Albrecht teaches a temperature-dependent catch assembly for locking the lid of a vessel above safe temperatures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teaching of a temperature-dependent catch assembly of Albrecht to the food processor disclosed by Shanmugam before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, motivated by the prevention of scalding by accidental removal of the device when it is dangerously hot. Specifically, the mechanism disclosed by Albrecht (locking device 10, as described in [0034]) would be positioned in depression 124 [Shanmugam: Figs. 3 and 4, 0078] such that plunger 24 with its mounting section 28 [Albrecht: Fig. 2, 0035] are aligned with the bayonet fittings 126, aimed behind the bayonet pins 128 [Shanmugam: Figs. 3 and 4, 0078] when the pins and fittings are engaged. Thus, when the bowl 104 is latched onto the heating component 106 via the bayonet fittings 126 and pins 128 [Shanmugam: Fig. 3, 0076-0078], if the temperature surpasses the threshold (temperature threshold disclosed by Albrecht is preferably 85 degrees [0006]), memory spring 18 would push the plunger 24 forward [Albrecht: Fig. 2, 0035], inserting it into the bayonet fitting 126, blocking the bayonet pin 128 from being disengaged. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both Shanmugam and Albrecht disclose locking mechanisms for culinary devices, and thus the threshold temperatures disclosed for function of the locking device in Albrecht are applicable to Shanmugam. Further, Shanmugam discloses alternate embodiments of the food processor that use the same bayonet-type locking mechanism, but have deeper depressions for receiving the bowl for accommodating alternate functions [Figs. 7 and 11, 0081, 0083], suggesting that if more space is necessary to include the locking device disclosed by Albrecht, the food processor would be adaptable.
Regarding claim 2, Albrecht discloses that the temperature dependent catch assembly is at least partially formed of a shape-memory alloy (memory spring 18 is a shape memory alloy [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Shanmugam discloses that the vessel includes a food processing tool configured to be driven by the base (“a drive coupling 130 is provided, connected to the drive shaft assembly 118, for coupling to the underside of the bowl 104 to drive a food processing tool within the bowl” [0078; components in Fig. 5]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, and 10-20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art relevant to this claim is Shanmugam (EP 3386361 B1) in view of Albrecht (DE 19736378 A1), as discussed in regard to claims 1 and 2 (citations directed to Albrecht unless otherwise noted). The memory spring 18 [0035] disclosed by Albrecht is configured within the locking device such that when the temperature is above the temperature threshold, the memory spring 18 extends to push the plunger 24 [0035] outward to catch the container-fixed projection 30 [0035], locking the lid in the closed position. In the combination of Shanmugam in view of Albrecht, memory spring 18 would have to extend into the bayonet fitting 126 [Shanmugam: 0078] in order to block the bayonet pins 128 [Shanmugam: 0078] from disengaging and to keep the vessel locked onto the heating component. In this way, Shanmugam in view of Albrecht discloses that the temperature dependent catch assembly includes a spring configured to decompress above the temperature threshold and compress below the temperature threshold. Thus, the shape memory alloy in this case is acting in the opposite direction of that in the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4-8, these claims contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art relevant to this claim is Shanmugam (EP 3386361 B1) in view of Albrecht (DE 19736378 A1) which, as discussed in regard to claims 1 and 2 (see 103 rejections of claims 1 and 2 for further detail) discloses a food processing appliance comprising:
a base;
a heating component located in a housing and operably connected to the base and configured to selectively receive a vessel and generate heat above a temperature threshold;
a latch including a locked position that secures the heating component to the vessel and an unlocked position that permits removal of the heating component from the vessel; and a temperature dependent catch assembly.
However, Shanmugam in view of Albrecht does not expressly disclose the temperature dependent catch assembly including a wire at least partially formed of a shape-memory alloy and a pivot member, the wire compresses above the temperature threshold moving the pivot member to an articulated position in order to push the latch into the locked position and decompress below the temperature threshold to return the pivot member to a non- articulated position and release the latch below the temperature threshold.
Rather than including a pivot member, Shanmugam in view of Albrecht (with citations directed to Albrecht unless otherwise noted) discloses a plunger mechanism (plunger 24 [Figs. 2 and 4, 0035]) that is pushed forward and retracted by the shape memory alloy spring (memory spring 18 [Figs. 1-5, 0035]). There are no disclosed pivoting components within the locking device disclosed by Albrecht.
Further, the locking device disclosed by Albrecht functions wherein the shape memory alloy, which is spring-shaped, is decompressed when above the temperature threshold and compressed below the temperature threshold (see allowable subject matter of claim 3).
Regarding claims 11-17, these claims contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art relevant to this claim is Shanmugam (EP 3386361 B1) in view of Albrecht (DE 19736378 A1) which, as discussed in regard to claims 1 and 2 (see 103 rejections of claims 1 and 2 for further detail) discloses a food processing appliance comprising:
a base;
a heating component located in a housing and operably connected to the base and configured to selectively receive a vessel and generate heat above a temperature threshold;
a latch including a locked position that secures the heating component to the vessel and an unlocked position that permits removal of the heating component from the vessel;
and a temperature dependent catch assembly.
Shanmugam in view of Albrecht does not expressly disclose the temperature dependent catch assembly comprising:
a wire formed as a closed loop that is at least partially formed of a shape-memory alloy and compresses above the temperature threshold and decompresses below the temperature threshold;
a carrier including an outer surface that is rounded and defines a track with the wire located in the track;
a pivot member including a boot, the pivot member pivotally coupled to the carrier with a first pivot joint and the housing with a second pivot joint, the pivot member including an articulated position when the wire is compressed where the boot pushes the latch in the locked position and an unarticulated position when the wire is decompressed and the latch is released from the locked position.
As discussed with regard to claim 10, the locking device disclosed by Albrecht utilizes a spring-shaped shape memory alloy that is configured to decompress above the temperature threshold and compress below the temperature threshold. Additionally, there are no disclosed pivoting components within the locking device disclosed by Albrecht (see the Allowable Subject Matter of claim 10).
Further, Shanmugam in view of Albrecht does not disclose a carrier with a track for the shape memory alloy component. Rather, the memory spring disclosed by Albrecht is freely mounted between a lid-fixed abutment 20 and a rear gripping element 22 [Albrecht: 0035]. Thus, Shanmugam in view of Albrecht does not disclose a boot that is included in a pivot member and coupled to the carrier.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on claim 18.
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