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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/30/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the examiner cannot find the references cited and there was no copy found in the file wrapper. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawing are not complete, they are missing claimed features and starts at figure 9. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claim 20 applicant refers to a “hot knife”, the specification is silent on such feature, appropriate correction is needed.
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. These limitations are: “means for heating and detecting temperature in claim 29,” the examiner will use the “hot knife and a temperature sensor” from claim 20 to interpret this claim limitation.
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.
Claim 20 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.
In claim 20, the limitation of “hot knife” seems unclear. While the specification is silent on this term, the examiner will interpret this as a heating element, to be consistent with the rest of the application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20140299137 A1 – Zur.
Regarding claim 1, Zur is directed towards an electronic cigarette. Zur does teach an enclosure ([0033] a base housing 133, where the base 110 is securable to the housing 104); a heating element ([0033] As the heating element 130); and a temperature sensor ([0033] the power and control assembly 149 includes without limitation, the reverse battery protector 157 (polarity protection), the voltage regulator 165, the timer 170, the power converter 175, a sensing component 176, which can include for example, a current sensing, voltage sensing, or temperature sensing component(s),) wherein the heating element and the temperature sensor are integrated within the enclosure (Figure 1a shows the heating element and the temperature sensors within the encloser).
Regarding claim 2, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does teach the heating element is disposed at a first end of the enclosure, wherein the temperature sensor is disposed at a second end of the enclosure, and wherein the first end is opposite the second end (See Figure 1a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does teach a switch ([0037] a switch 140,); and a battery ([0037] a power source 132 is installed improperly (i.e., reversing the polarity, connecting + to -). In some embodiments, the reverse battery protector 157 is provided by a diode, such as a Schottky diode.), wherein when the switch is enabled, the battery is discharged thereby heating the heating element ([0040] 140 that is user-operated to initiate a demand to the power and control assembly 149, to energize the heating element 130 )
Regarding claim 8, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 7. Zur does teach the switch is a single button (140) that selectively engages a temperature sensing mode and a heating mode ([0037] Referring to FIG. 4A, an exemplary block diagram 158 is provided of various electrical components of the electronic cigarette apparatus 100. In particular, FIG. 4A illustrates the power and control assembly 149 interconnected with the power source 132 and the heating element 130. Power is provided to the power and control assembly 149, via the power source 132, and a switch 140, and the power and control assembly 149 in turn powers the heating element 130 based on various criteria,),
wherein the apparatus further comprises: a charging port, wherein the charging port is used to charge the battery ([0038] Also, charge discharge controls can be included for use with rechargeable batteries. In addition, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) Input/Output (I/O) can be provided to permit connection of the microcontroller to another device (e.g., computer, smartphone, etc.) to get enable additional configuration controls and view additional information.).
Regarding claim 9, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does teach a temperature indicator, wherein the temperature indicator outputs a temperature detected by the temperature sensor ([0038] For example, the display could indicate how many activations (i.e., user puffs) remain based on the charge remaining on the battery or the level of solution 112 in the reservoir 120, or both. In addition, the display can include a battery charge status indicator, configuration controls that can be used to adjust temperature of the heating element, the applied voltage and/or current.).
Regarding claim 10, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does teach a timer (170), wherein the timer indicates a length of time the heating element is activated ([0045] Further, as shown, an AND gate 215 is provided to receive both the predetermined constant voltage from the voltage regulator 165 and the operating signal from the timer output 200 of the timer 170.).
Regarding claim 11, Zur does teach packaging a heating element (130) and a temperature sensor (176) within an enclosure thereby forming a packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor (Figure 1a shows the heating element and the temperature sensors within the encloser).
Regarding claim 12, Zur does teach the limitation of claim 11. Zur does teach the heating element is packaged along a first end of the enclosure, wherein the temperature sensor is packaged along on a second end of the enclosure, and wherein the first end is opposite the second end. (See figure 1a below)
PNG
media_image1.png
282
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Zur does teach the limitation of claim 11. Zur does teach attaching a switch to the enclosure; and packaging a battery within the enclosure, wherein when the switch is enabled, the battery is discharged thereby heating the heating element. ([0040] 140 that is user-operated to initiate a demand to the power and control assembly 149, to energize the heating element 130).
Regarding claim 19, Zur does teach an enclosure; ([0033] a base housing 133, where the base 110 is securable to the housing 104); and means for heating ([0033] As the heating element 130); and detecting temperature, ([0033] the power and control assembly 149 includes without limitation, the reverse battery protector 157 (polarity protection), the voltage regulator 165, the timer 170, the power converter 175, a sensing component 176, which can include for example, a current sensing, voltage sensing, or temperature sensing component(s),) wherein the means is integrated within the enclosure. (Figure 1a shows the heating element and the temperature sensors within the encloser).
Regarding claim 20, Zur does teach the limitation of claim 19. Zur does teach the means comprises a hot knife ([0033] As the heating element 130); and a temperature sensor. ([0033] the power and control assembly 149 includes without limitation, the reverse battery protector 157 (polarity protection), the voltage regulator 165, the timer 170, the power converter 175, a sensing component 176, which can include for example, a current sensing, voltage sensing, or temperature sensing component(s),).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140299137 A1 – Zur.
Regarding claim 3, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does not expressly teach the enclosure has an enclosure length (EL), wherein the heating element has a heating element length (HEL), and wherein the heating element length (HEL) is less than a third of the enclosure length (EL).
While Zur may not expressly teach the proportions of the heating element Lenth vs the enclosure of the instant claim, Zur teaches a heating element length and encloser length as seen in figures 1a-1b. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the proportions of Zur is capable of the enclosure has an enclosure length (EL), wherein the heating element has a heating element length (HEL), and wherein the heating element length (HEL) is less than a third of the enclosure length (EL).
Regarding claim 4, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 3. Zur does not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL).
While Zur may not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL) of the instant claim, Zur teaches a width of the heating element and the encloser. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, a width of the heating element and the encloser of Zur is capable of the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL).
Regarding claim 5, Zur does teach the limitations in claim 4. Zur does not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW).
While Zur may not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW). of the instant claim, Zur teaches a thickness of the heater element and encloser. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, a thickness of the heater element and encloser of Zur is capable of the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW).
Regarding claim 13, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 11. Zur does not expressly teach the enclosure has an enclosure length (EL), wherein the heating element has a heating element length (HEL), and wherein the heating element length (HEL) is less than a third of the enclosure length (EL).
While Zur may not expressly teach the proportions of the heating element Lenth vs the enclosure of the instant claim, Zur teaches a heating element length and encloser length as seen in figures 1a-1b. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the proportions of Zur is capable of the enclosure has an enclosure length (EL), wherein the heating element has a heating element length (HEL), and wherein the heating element length (HEL) is less than a third of the enclosure length (EL).
Regarding claim 14, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 13. Zur does not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL).
While Zur may not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL) of the instant claim, Zur teaches a width of the heating element and the encloser. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, a width of the heating element and the encloser of Zur is capable of the heating element has a heating element width (HEW), and wherein the heating element width (HEW) is less than half of the heating element length (HEL).
Regarding claim 15, Zur does teach the limitations in claim 14. Zur does not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW).
While Zur may not expressly teach the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW). of the instant claim, Zur teaches a thickness of the heater element and encloser. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, a thickness of the heater element and encloser of Zur is capable of the heating element has a heating element thickness (HET), and wherein the heating element thickness (HET) is less than a fifth of the heating element width (HEW).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140299137 A1 – Zur as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectfully above, and further in view of US 20180296777 A1 - Terry.
Regarding claim 6, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 1. Zur does not expressly teach a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element.
Terry is directed towards an vaporizer. Terry does teach a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element ([0280] Cartridge 150 may be configured to confine the substance to be vaporized by a cap or seal (not shown) on the proximal end.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zur to include a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element because the cap of Terry will allow the heating element of Zur to be protected for damage.
Regarding claim 16, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 11. Zur does not expressly teach a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element.
Terry is directed towards an vaporizer. Terry does teach a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element ([0280] Cartridge 150 may be configured to confine the substance to be vaporized by a cap or seal (not shown) on the proximal end.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zur to include a cap, wherein the cap removably attaches to the enclosure thereby covering the heating element because the cap of Terry will allow the heating element of Zur to be protected for damage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140299137 A1 – Zur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3992604 A - Leddy.
Regarding claim 17, Zur does teach the limitations of claim 11. Zur does not expressly teach providing the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to a user, wherein the user uses the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to detect a temperature of a heating container and to transfer concentrate from a storage container to the heating container.
Leddy is directed towards an heated ice cream scope. Leddy does teach the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to a user, wherein the user uses the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to detect a temperature of a heating container and to transfer concentrate from a storage container to the heating container. ([Col. 4 Ln. 57-70] While the spoon 41 could be made in various sizes for packaging ice cream or the like, the preferred embodiment would be a single size suitable for home use. The surfaces of the scoop are smooth, and the spoon would be constructed of a heat conducting metal or alloy such as used in the scoop of FIGS. 3, 4. In addition to serving dishes of ice cream, the ladle of FIG. 5 could be used for ice cream cones by placing the body of ice cream in the cone and rotating the spoon to give a smooth conical appearance.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zur to include the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to a user, wherein the user uses the packaged heating device with integrated temperature sensor to detect a temperature of a heating container and to transfer concentrate from a storage container to the heating container because the use case of scoping ice cream of Leddy with the heating element of Zur will allow the easier transfer of ice cream from one area to another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140334804 A1 – Choi does teach a enclosure with a heating element and a temperature sensor on it.
US 20220132927 A1 – Lee does teach a display with a timer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights