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 .
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 "control module", "the water supply module" and "the heating module" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 2-3. 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.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because "of the spatula interference" lacks positive antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "spatula interference". In line 6, "a bottom surface" should be amended to "the bottom surface". Claims 2, 4-6, and are indefinite because it is unclear whether "the spatula" refers to the mixing spatula, the auxiliary spatula or both. Claim 4 is indefinite because "the auxiliary spatula interference" and "of the shovel" lack positive antecedent basis. It is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "the auxiliary spatula interference. Claim 4 should be amended to recite " the axis direction of the spatula". Claim 5 should recite "the spatula interference" and it is also unclear whether this refers to the mixing spatula, the auxiliary spatula or both. Claims 5 and 14 should also be amended to recite "stopping the cleaning after the cleaning time reaches the second value range. Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as an "enhanced" cleaning program. Claim 7 is indefinite because "the interference contact", "the rotation speed" and "the highest level" lack positive antecedent basis. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "the highest level". Claim 11 is indefinite because "the rotation speed" lacks positive antecedent basis. It also appears that the limitations of "moving the spatula to the second cleaning position and reducing the rotational speed is duplicative. Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by stopping stirring. Does it mean that the both spatulas have stopped rotating? Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "fully covered". What is fully covered? What does "rotating once to and stopping cleaning" refer to? Applicant has recited claim 13 with the proviso of "if yes" or "if no", but since this is based on "fully covered" and it has been determined that the phrase is indefinite, the limitations are further indefinite because it is unclear what applicant is trying to claim. Claim 14 is indefinite because "the cleaning time of a second value range" lacks positive antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (CN 113812836A, machine translation).
Re claims 1 and 11, Gong et al. teach a self-cleaning method comprising moving a spatula 422 in a pot body to a first predetermined position, so that the spatula contacts the bottom surface of the pot body (paragraph 141) at a first position, a driving apparatus 30 to drive the mixing spatula 422 and the auxiliary spatula (423) to rotate and clean an inner wall and bottom surface of the pot body (paragraph 155), and starting a transmission apparatus 430 (paragraph 193) to drive the mixing spatula to rotate and clean the bottom surface of the pot body. Re clam 2, in reference to a control module and cooking program, applicant is directed to paragraph 200. Re claim 3, in reference to the water supply module and a heating module to generate steam, applicant is directed to paragraph 218. Re claim 4, in reference to a lifting apparatus to move the spatula to a second position, applicant is directed to paragraph 219. In reference to starting the driving apparatus to drive both spatulas and starting the transmission apparatus to drive the spatula to rotate, applicant is directed to paragraphs 155 and 193. In reference claim 5 and determining a degree of contamination and selecting a regular cleaning program, applicant is directed to paragraph 221. Re claim 6, in reference to increasing the rotational speed, applicant is directed to paragraph 222. Re claim 7, refer to paragraph 225. Re claim 8, refer to paragraph 218. Re claims 9-10, refer to paragraph 241. Re claim 10, refer to claim 10. Re claim 11, refer to claim 11 of the translation. Re claim 12, refer to claim 12. Re claim 13, refer to claim 13. Re claim 14, refer to claim 14.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (CN113331674A; machine translation).
Re claim 1, Gong et al. teach a self-cleaning method for a cooking device comprising moving a spatula comprising a mixing spatula and an auxiliary spatula (figs 2-3, elements 8 and 3) which contacts the bottom surface of the pot body 101; starting a driving apparatus to drive the spatula (claim 1) to clean the surface of the pot body along a circumference direction of the pot body and starting a transmission apparatus (claim 10) to drive the spatula to rotate (paragraph 70). Re claim 2, paragraph 96 teaches once the cooking is done, a control device (paragraph 80) performs a self-cleaning mode which includes injecting cleaning fluid , heating the cleaning fluid (paragraph 95) and driving the spatula to stir the cleaning fluid, wherein the first predetermined position is broadly interpreted to include any position within the cooking device. Re claim 3, refer to paragraph 72 which teaches a heating device to heat the cleaning liquid in the cooking cavity to generate steam, wherein the limitations of supplying water are inherently met since the prior art teaches the generation of steam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 5-8, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN113331674A, machine translation).
Re claims 5 and 14, Gong et al. teach moving the spatula from a first to a second cleaning position as a result of rotating the spatula, wherein the spatula stirs the cleaning fluid and therefor cleans the cooking device. However, Gong et al. do not teach determining a degree of contamination, selecting the cleaning program and cleaning until various cleaning times are reached. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gong et al. to include determining the degree of contamination, and adjusting the cleaning time, in order to effectively remove contaminants from the interior cavity of the cooking appliance. Re claims 6-7 and in view of the indefiniteness with respect to "the highest level", it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to adjust the rotational speed of the spatula depending upon the amount of contaminants and cleaning liquid present in the interior of the cleaning device. Re claims 8 and 10, refer to claim 12 for example. Re claims 11-12, the limitations are broadly interpreted as adjusting the rotational speed of the spatula during various cleaning positions. The examiner maintains the position that in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to adjust the rotational speed of the spatula depending upon the amount of contaminants and cleaning liquid present in the interior of the cleaning device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al. teach a cleaning method for a cooking device comprising a heating device and the generation of steam. LiDeJian teaches self cleaning of a frying pan. Mei et al. teach a cleaning device comprising a rotating blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights