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 .
The status of the 03/10/2024 claims, is as follows: Claims 3, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15 have been amended; and Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. CN 2021215704084 filed on 07/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitation(s) uses 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:
In claim 1:
The limitation “a heating assembly” in lines 3-4
“assembly” is the generic placeholder.
“heating” is the functional language.
The limitation “a fan assembly” in line 5
“assembly” is the generic placeholder.
“fan” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a heating assembly" in lines 3-4 of claim 1 has been described in claim 6 line 5 to comprise a first heating element.
The limitation “a fan assembly” in line 5 of claim 1 has been described in the published specification para. 0065 as the fan assembly 30 that includes a drive motor 32 and a fan 31.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220117433) in view of Gill (US 20190045964)
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a cooking appliance (cooking utensil with air frying and pressure cooker functions) (para. 0002; fig. 1), having a first cooking mode (pressure cooker function) and a second cooking mode (air frying function) (“cooking utensil with air frying and pressure cooker functions.”, para. 0002), the cooking appliance (fig. 1) comprising:
a pot assembly (cooker body 1) defining an accommodation chamber (space within the housing 15) and provided with a heating assembly (heating plate 5) (para. 0023; fig. 1);
a pot lid assembly (lid 4); and
a first food container (inner pot 2) (“the inner pot 2 is arranged in an inner cavity of the middle housing 15 to form a pressure cooker”, para. 0023) and a second food container (air frying subassembly 3) (“air frying subassembly 3 is put into the cavity of the middle housing 15 to form an air fryer appliance”, para. 0023), the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) being placed in the accommodation chamber (“air frying subassembly 3 is put into the cavity of the middle housing 15 to form an air fryer appliance”, para. 0023), wherein:
in response to the cooking appliance being in the first cooking mode (pressure cooker function), the first food container (inner pot 2) is placed in the accommodation chamber (“the inner pot 2 is arranged in an inner cavity of the middle housing 15 to form a pressure cooker”, para. 0023); and
in response to the cooking appliance being in the second cooking mode (air frying function), the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) is placed in the accommodation chamber, and the second food container has a cooking chamber in communication with the accommodation chamber (fig. 2) (“air frying subassembly 3 is put into the cavity of the middle housing 15 to form an air fryer appliance”, para. 0023).
Wang does not disclose the pot lid assembly provided with a fan assembly configured to drive air in the accommodation chamber to flow.
However, Gill discloses a cooking appliance (cooking device 20 operates in a conductive cooking mode and a convective cooking mode) (abstract), wherein the pot lid assembly (lid 32; figs. 4 and 7) provided with a fan assembly (air movement device 86; fig. 7) configured to drive air in the accommodation chamber to flow (para. 0072).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 pot lid assembly of Wang to include the fan assembly as taught by Gill, in order to circulate heated air by the fan disposed in the lid to heat food in the second food container.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses the second food container (air frying subassembly 3 of Wang) has a top opening that is opened and opposite to the fan assembly (air movement device 86 of Gill).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses in response to the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) being placed in the accommodation chamber (space within the housing 15) (fig. 2), an air duct (channel through which heated air flows through; annotated fig. 2) is formed between the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) and the pot assembly (cooker body 1), the heating assembly (heating plate 5) being located in the air duct.
PNG
media_image3.png
578
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) has an air passing hole (hollow vertical column 7; fig. 3) at a bottom wall of the second food container, the cooking chamber being in communication with the air duct (channel through which heated air flows) through the air passing hole (fig. 2) (“a hollow vertical column 7 is arranged at a bottom of the air frying subassembly”, para. 0024 and also para. 0030).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) comprises:
a container body (body of subassembly 3; fig. 3) having the cooking chamber, the air passing hole (hollow vertical column 7; fig. 3) being formed at a bottom wall of the container body (“a hollow vertical column 7 is arranged at a bottom of the air frying subassembly”, para. 0024); and
a shelf (annotated fig. 1) disposed in the cooking chamber and dividing the cooking chamber into an upper chamber (space above the shelf) and a lower chamber (space below the shelf).
PNG
media_image4.png
643
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses wherein:
the air duct comprises a first air duct (annotated fig. 2) located at a lower side of the bottom wall of the second food container and a second air duct (annotated fig. 2) located outside a peripheral wall of the second food container (air frying subassembly 3), the heating assembly (heating plate 5) being located in the first air duct (fig. 2); and
the heating assembly (heating plate 5) comprises a first heating element (heating plate 5) configured to heat the second food container (para. 0031).
PNG
media_image5.png
724
962
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses the first heating element (heating plate 5; figs. 2-3) is an annular heating plate and surrounds the air passing hole (hollow vertical column 7) (“a through hole 8 is formed in the middle of the heating plate 5; the vertical column 7 is inserted into the through hole 8”, para. 0025).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses the annular heating plate (heating plate 5) is provided with an air guide rib (air turbine 12) at a lower surface of the annular heating plate (“the centrifugal air turbine 12 is arranged below the heating plate 5 and is located above the bottom surface of the middle housing 15”, para. 0028), the air guide rib extending in a radial direction of the annular heating plate (fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses further comprising:
an air guide member (air turbine 12) having a through hole (air inlet) (“centrifugal air turbine 12 is arranged below the through hole 8, and an air inlet of the centrifugal air turbine 12 is communicated with the hollow vertical column 7 to form a first air channel 17”, para. 0029), the annular heating plate (heating plate 5) surrounding the air guide member (fig. 2), and the second food container (air frying subassembly 3) being supported by the first heating element (heating plate 5) (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses the first food container (inner pot 2) has a bottom wall attached to the heating assembly (heating plate 5) (fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
712
728
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses the pot lid assembly (lid 4 of Wang) comprises a second pot lid assembly (lid 4 of Wang) that is provided with the fan assembly (air movement device 86; fig. 7 of Gill), wherein:
in response to the cooking appliance being in the second cooking mode (air frying function of Wang), the second pot lid assembly (lid 4 of Wang) covers the pot assembly (cooker body 1 of Wang).
The modification does not disclose the pot lid assembly comprises a first pot lid assembly, wherein:
in response to the cooking appliance being in the first cooking mode, the first pot lid assembly covers the pot assembly.
However, Gill further discloses the pot lid assembly comprises a first pot lid assembly (lid 37; fig. 4) (“the first cooking mode of the cooking system 20 includes pressure cooking. In such embodiments, the secondary lid 37 is affixed to the container 24 or housing 22 to form a pressure-tight, sealed enclosure with the container 24”, para. 0059) and a second pot lid assembly (lid 32; figs. 4 and 7) (“convective cooking mode functions (particularly air frying modes),…the at least one second heating element 84 is disposed within the primary lid 32”, para. 0072), wherein:
in response to the cooking appliance being in the first cooking mode (pressure cooking), the first pot lid assembly (lid 37) covers the pot assembly (housing 22) (para. 0059; fig. 4).
Therefore, 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 pot lid assembly of Wang to comprise the first pot lid assembly and the second pot lid assembly, wherein in response to the cooking appliance being in the first cooking mode, the first pot lid assembly covers the pot assembly as further taught by Gill, in order to utilize respective lid assemblies (i.e. lids 37, 32 of Gill) associated with the corresponding cooking modes (pressure cooking mode and air frying cooking mode respectively of Gill) such that the respective cooking modes are optimized.
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses wherein:
the first cooking mode (pressure cooker function) is a pressure-cooking mode (“cooking utensil with air frying and pressure cooker functions.”, para. 0002); and
the second cooking mode (air frying function) is an air-frying mode (“cooking utensil with air frying and pressure cooker functions.”, para. 0002).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wang (US 20220117433) and Gill (US 20190045964) as applied to claim 6, further in view of McClean (US 20190142204)
Regarding Claim 7, the modification does not disclose the heating assembly further comprises a second heating element configured to heat the first food container and/or the second food container, the second heating element being disposed below the first heating element.
However, McClean discloses the heating assembly (heating element 104 and heating plate 103) further comprises a second heating element (heating element 104) configured to heat the food container (cooking vessel 102), the second heating element (heating element 104) being disposed below the first heating element (heating plate 103) (para. 0056; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
694
588
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 heating assembly of Wang (i.e. heating plate 5) to include the second heating element of McClean (i.e. heating element 104) disposed below the first heating element (i.e. heating plate 5 of Wang or heating plate 103 of McClean), in order to incorporate known technique (i.e. incorporating the heating element 104 to heat the heating plate) in the known device (i.e. cooking appliance) to arrive at the predictable result, which is to heat the heating plate such that the respective container disposed on the heating plate is heated. The resultant structure is shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
1368
1489
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, the modification disclose the first heating element (heating plate 5 of Wang) is connected to a bottom wall of the accommodation chamber (bottom of housing 15) through a plurality of connection feet (heat dissipation sheet 16) (annotated fig. 2), the plurality of connection feet being arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the first heating element (heating plate 5) (fig. 2) and surrounding the second heating element (heating element 103 of McClean) (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image9.png
1368
1711
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wang (US 20220117433) and Gill (US 20190045964) as applied to claim 13, further in view of Chen (US 20200205596)
Regarding Claim 14, the modification does not disclose the second pot lid assembly has a transparent region.
However, Chen discloses the pot lid assembly (cover 201) has a transparent region (transparent window 209) (“the left portion of the upper surface of the upper cover is provided with a transparent window 209”, para. 0025; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image10.png
552
264
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 pot lid assembly of Wang (lid 4 of Wang) to include the transparent region as taught by Chen, in order to allow the user to view and monitor the food being cooked, thereby improve the user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights