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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Teflon”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 011 – 015 are incorrectly formatted, as the paragraph breaks occur mid-sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 1, the term “convenient for people to use by hand” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “convenient” 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. Claim 1 additionally recites the limitation “after the action of condensation, filtration, adsorption, etc.” in line 13. The phrase “etc.” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “etc.”), thereby rendering the scop of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “The portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body according to claim 3.” A dependent claim cannot depend upon itself. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this has been treated as an informality and the claim has been interpreted as depending upon claim 1. Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation “wherein the filter net assembly is provided with a turnbuckle on the outside thereof.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “turnbuckle” in claim 3 is used by the claim to define a mated connection, while the accepted meaning is “a device that usually consists of a link with screw threads at both ends, that is turned to bring the ends closer together, and that is used for tightening a rod or stay.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this claim limitation has been interpreted to mean a mated connection between the two threaded components.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “Teflon.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a filter and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this claim has been interpreted to read “a three-layer filter net comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene filter.”
Regarding claim 5, the term “conveniently inserted” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conveniently” 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.
Regarding claim 6, the term “easy to disassemble” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” 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.
Claims 2 and 7 are dependent upon claim 1 and are likewise 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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Patent Publication No. WO 2024262993 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body (Pg. 1, “The present invention relates to an air purifying device that absorbs and purifies smoke generated from a cooking vessel”), comprising a housing (Fig. 1, body 10), an oil-blocking guard (Fig. 1, front cover 30), a filter net assembly (Fig. 4, front filter 40) and a fan assembly (Fig. 3, suction fan 32), wherein the oil-blocking guard is provided at a lower part of the housing and covers a range to filter oil smoke (Pg. 2, “The above portable cooking fume hood is structured such that smoke sucked in through the front is moved inward by a fan provided at the inner front end of the front cover (30), and then oil components and fine dust contained in the smoke are filtered out”); the filter net assembly is located in the middle of the oil-blocking guard (Fig. 3, front filter 40 connects to a middle of front cover 30 ; Pg. 3, “A front filter (40) and a filter cover (41) are combined on the front inner side of the front cover (30)”), and is connected to the fan assembly (Fig. 3 is a depiction of the ventilator blown apart, when assembled the filter 40 is inserted into the front cover 30 along with the fan 32); the oil smoke is absorbed via the fan assembly (Pg. 3, “The smoke generated during cooking is sucked in by the suction fan (32) to adsorb oil particles”), and filtered via the filter net assembly (Pg. 3, “Figure 5 sequentially shows a plurality of filters installed on the inside of a front filter (40). Two oil barrier grease filters (50) are installed on the front”), and the filtered gas is discharged from an air outlet (Pg. 3, “a rear filter (70) and a filter cover (71) are coupled to the front inner side (of the rear cover), and an activated carbon filter (52) is detachably installed on the inner side of the rear filter (70) to purify the sucked air and discharge it back to the outside.”); the housing is divided into a filter net assembly outer cover (Fig. 4, filter cover 41), a fan assembly outer cover (Fig. 3, suction cover 31) and a handle from bottom to top (Fig. 2, connection part 12 ; Fig. 3 shows that the housing is divided into the filter net assembly cover, fan assembly outer cover, and handle from the bottom to top), wherein the filter net assembly is provided in the filter net assembly outer cover (Pg. 3, “A front filter (40) and a filter cover (41) are combined on the front inner side of the front cover (30)”), the fan assembly is provided in the fan assembly outer cover (Fig. 2, “a suction cover (31) is coupled to the rear inner side of the above-mentioned front cover (30), and a suction fan (32) is coupled to the inner side of the above-mentioned suction cover (31)”), and a control circuit and a power supply are provided in the handle (Pg. 2, “On the lower rear side of the body(10), as shown in Fig. 2, a connection part (12) is formed for supplying power by connecting a power cord, and a function lever (13) is provided on the upper rear side to perform various functions such as turning the power on/off, controlling suction power”); an air outlet is provided on the fan assembly outer cover to facilitate the discharge of the gas after the action of condensation, filtration, adsorption, from the air outlet (Fig. 3, air is discharged through rear filter 70 ; when fully constructed an airflow path is created that connects the fan assembly outer cover to the air outlet); and the oil-blocking guard is embedded in the filter net assembly outer cover and extends outward to cover the pot body (Pg. 3, “A front filter (40) and a filter cover (41) are combined on the front inner side of the front cover (30)” ; Pg. 3, “and a nozzle (40b) that is inserted into the inlet (30b) of the front cover (30)” ; Pg. 3, “The present invention is configured so that the cover (20), (30), and (60) can rotate downward by the guide (30a) inserted into the guide portion (11) as shown in Fig. 7, thereby tilting the front cover (30) toward cooking vessels of various sizes and shapes to maximize smoke intake”).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the filter net assembly is movably connected to the filter net assembly outer cover to facilitate disassembly (Pg. 3, “As shown in Fig. 4, a fixing part (40a) is formed on the back surface of the front filter (40) to which a pair of elastic parts (41a) formed on both sides of the filter cover (41) are fixed, so that is can be easily attached and detached … The above oil barrier grease filter (50) and carbon filter (51) can be used semi-permanently by separating them from the front filter (40), washing them”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2024/0019139 A1 to Wesley et al. (hereinafter referred to as Wesley).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1 above. Park further teaches wherein the filter net assembly and the filter net assembly outer cover are removably attached (Pg. 3, “As shown in Fig. 4, a fixing part (40a) is formed on the back surface of the front filter (40) to which a pair of elastic parts (41a) formed on both sides of the filter cover (41) are fixed, so that is can be easily attached and detached … The above oil barrier grease filter (50) and carbon filter (51) can be used semi-permanently by separating them from the front filter (40), washing them”). Park does not teach wherein the filter net assembly and the filter net assembly outer cover are threaded and mated to connect the two components.
However, Wesley teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1) that has a water tank cover with a threaded portion (Fig. 9, water tan cover 128 and threaded portion 127) that forms a connection with a threaded portion on a water tank (Fig. 9, water tank 120 and threaded portion 123). This allows for a secure connection and removal as needed (¶0067 “The water tank cover 128 may include a threaded portion 127 configured to removably couple to a threaded portion 123 on the water tank 120. The water tank cover 128 may be twisted onto the water tank 120 to secure the water tank cover 128 to the water tank 120. The water tank cover 128 can be twisted off of the water tank 120 to removed the water tank cover 128 from the water tank 120.”).
Park and Wesley are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the connection mechanism between the filter net assembly and the filter net assembly outer cover as taught by Park may be substituted with the threaded connection as taught by Wesley. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 105674367 A to Mi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Mi), and further in view of Hebei Metal Mesh Corp., ‘Why Choose the Stainless Steel Filter Mesh?’. [online], September 26, 2021; [retrieved on November 13, 2025]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.metalmeshcorp.com/news/why-choose-the-stainless-steel-filter-mesh.html> (hereinafter referred to as Hebei).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the filter net assembly comprises a three-layer filter net (Fig. 5, the filter net assembly comprises three layers of filter as depicted by elements 50, 51, and 52) comprising an activated carbon sponge (Fig. 5, activated carbon filter 52). Park also teaches wherein one layer of the filter net comprises an oil barrier grease filter (Pg. 3, “Two oil barrier grease filters (50) are installed on the front”) but does not disclose the material used, and Park teaches that the oil grease filter and a carbon filter are used to liquefy the oil captured (Pg. 3, “That is, the oil component adsorbed on the oil barrier grease filter (50) and carbon filter (51) is cooled by the cooling element (53) and liquefied”). Park does not teach wherein the additional two layers of the three-layer filter are polytetrafluoroethylene or a stainless-steel net.
However, Mi teaches a filter for purifying cooking fumes (Pg. 1, “The invention relates to the field of fume purification”), wherein the filter comprises a Teflon filter to repel oil and allow said oil to condense (Pg. 2, “After the waste fume gas passes through the Teflon filter mesh, since the filter mesh is made of polytetrafluoroethylene, it has good oil-repellant properties, and the condensed oil droplets and black smoke carbon will be placed along the inclined filter screen”).
Park and Mi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oil filtration devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable kitchen ventilator as taught by Park to further include a Teflon filter layer as taught by Mi, to more adequately repel and condense oil within the cooking smoke for collection. Park and Mi do not explicitly disclose the use of a stainless-steel net filter layer.
However, Hebei teaches that the use of stainless steel filter mesh is advantageous, as it provides an increase in mechanical strength, is easy to clean, and has high temperature resistance (“The Main Features of Stainless Steel Filter Mesh”, Examples 1-4).
Park, Mi, and Hebei are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtration. As a kitchen ventilator may be exposed to high temperature cooking smoke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a stainless-steel net filter would be an appropriate substitution for the oil barrier grease filter as taught by Park. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2006/0284507 A1 to Murakami (hereinafter referred to as Murakami).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the fan assembly comprises a suction type fan blade (Pg. 1-2, “According to the portable cooking fume hood according to the present invention, the front cover and the rear cover are provided with a suction fan and an exhaust fan”), so that a negative pressure is generated at one side of the filter net assembly to facilitate suction of the oil smoke (Pg. 1-2, “so that the smoke generated during cooking is quickly sucked in, purified, and then discharged”). Park does not disclose wherein the suction fan is a magnetic suction type fan blade, and a built-in electric motor, wherein the fan blade and a rotor of the electric motor are provided with 2-5 groups of magnets in a one-to-one correspondence, wherein the magnetics generate a magnetic force, and the rotation of the rotor of the electric motor is transmitted to the fan blade via the magnetic force to drive the fan blade to rotate at a high speed.
However, Murakami teaches an electric motor (Fig. 3) with four groups of magnets (Fig. 3), wherein the magnetic polarities of the magnetic groups are oriented in the circumferential direction of the rotor (¶0019 “the permanent magnet groups are arranged in such a manner that their magnetic polarities are oriented in the circumferential direction of the rotor.”). Murakami further teaches that the magnetic forces of the magnet groups are oriented in such a way that they do not directly oppose the magnetic poles of the stator, reducing demagnetization and increasing the efficiency of the electric motor (¶0019).
Park is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of kitchen ventilation devices. Murakami is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (using a magnetic force to drive the fan blade to rotate at a high speed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction fan as taught by Park to further include the magnetized electric motor as taught by Murakami to increase the efficiency of the electric motor and drive the fan at high speeds. Furthermore, such a substitution of motors would result in predictable results (higher efficiency); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hebei.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the oil-blocking guard is easy to disassemble, replace or clean (Pg. 3, “and the front filter (40) and the filter cover (41) are configured to be detachable from the front cover (30), thereby facilitating cleaning and replacement of the filter.”). Park does not disclose the material which the oil-blocking guard is comprised of.
However, Hebei teaches that the use of stainless steel filter mesh is advantageous, as it provides an increase in mechanical strength, is easy to clean, and has high temperature resistance (“The Main Features of Stainless Steel Filter Mesh”, Examples 1-4).
Park and Hebei are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtration. As a kitchen ventilator may be exposed to high temperature cooking smoke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a steel ring and stainless-steel net would be an appropriate substitution for the oil-blocking guard as taught by Park. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 201641662 U to He (hereinafter referred to as He).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the portable kitchen ventilator for a pot body as applied to claim 1. Park does not teach wherein the oil-blocking guard is made of a steel ring and an air-impermeable guard supported by the steel ring.
However, He teaches a cooking pot cover that is capable of removing oil smoke (Pg. 1, “The utility model aims to provide a multifunctional cooking pot cover … The function of automatically removing oil smoke is realized by a suction fan installed in the upper cover.”), wherein a lower cover of said cooking pot cover comprises a steel ring surrounding tempered glass (Pg. 1, “the lower cover comprises a lower cover body and a steel ring, the lower cover body is made of tempered glass, a steel ring is arranged on the outer side of the lower cover”). He further teaches wherein the lower cover has a fixed handle bayonet that prevents the covered pot from moving (Pg. 1, “a fixed handle bayonet is arranged on the steel ring, the position of the inner port can be limited to prevent the inner pot from shaking.”).
Park and He are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kitchen ventilation systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil-blocking guard as taught by Park to comprise a steel ring and a tempered glass guard with a fixed handle bayonet as taught by He. Such a modification would allow for the oil guard of Park to better cover the cooking pan without movement while still preventing the oil smoke from escaping the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, JENNIFER DIETERLE can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776