DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the second water outlet hole" and “the third water hole.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is previously recited that there are “a plurality of second water outlet holes” and “a plurality of third water holes.” It is unclear if "the second water outlet hole" and “the third water hole” are the same or different than “the plurality of second water outlet holes” and “the plurality of third water holes.” For purposes of examination, the elements are taken to be the same.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 in view of Hiramoto (JP5144778B2) in view of Radow (US20140334249A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 teaches A slow cooker (100), wherein the slow cooker comprises:
a shell (Claim 1, a first accommodating cavity), wherein a placing cavity (Claim 1 a housing, wherein the housing is provided with a first inner wall) is enclosed by the shell (Claim 1, the first accommodating cavity is formed around the first inner wall);
an inner container (Claim 1, an inner container), wherein the inner container is arranged in the placing cavity (Claim 1, wherein the inner container is arranged into the first accommodating cavity),
a magnetic stirring assembly (Claim 1, an actuating device), wherein the magnetic stirring assembly comprises a driving member (Claim 1, the actuating device comprises an actuating motor), a first magnet (Claim 1, a first magnetic element) and a second magnet (Claim 1, a second magnetic element)
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 does not teach and an accommodating cavity is enclosed by the inner container; a heating assembly, wherein the heating assembly is arranged between the inner container and the shell; two ends of the driving member are respectively connected with the shell and the first magnet, the second magnet is arranged in the accommodating cavity, and the second magnet and the first magnet are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container at interval; a limiting cover, wherein the limiting cover is connected with the inner container, and the limiting cover is provided with a water outlet hole; wherein, a limiting space is enclosed by the limiting cover and the inner container, the second magnet is arranged in the limiting space, and the limiting space is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet.
Hiramoto teaches an accommodating cavity ([0040] interior of inner pot 31) is enclosed by the inner container (31);
a heating assembly (12), wherein the heating assembly (12) is arranged between the inner container (31) and the shell (1, Fig. 1);
two ends of the driving member (131) are respectively connected with the shell (1) and the first magnet (133), the second magnet (135) is arranged in the accommodating cavity (31, [0066] Fig. 5-6), and the second magnet (135) and the first magnet (133) are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container (31) at interval.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 and Hiramato are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking and brewing devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 to incorporate the teachings of Hiramoto to have an accommodating cavity enclosed by the inner container, a heating assembly between the inner container and the shell and two ends of the driving member be connected with the shell and the first, and the second magnet be arranged in the accommodating cavity opposite the first magnet so that a cooked product may be produced through a heating and stirring action to achieve an optimal cooked product (Hiramoto [0022]).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 and Hiramato are silent on a limiting cover, wherein the limiting cover is connected with the inner container, and the limiting cover is provided with a water outlet hole; wherein, a limiting space is enclosed by the limiting cover and the inner container, the second magnet is arranged in the limiting space, and the limiting space is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet.
Radow teaches a limiting cover (194), wherein the limiting cover (194) is connected with the inner container (110), and the limiting cover (194) is provided with a water outlet hole (200);
wherein, a limiting space (170) is enclosed by the limiting cover (194) and the inner container (110), the second magnet ([0045] magnetic stir bar 190) is arranged in the limiting space (170, Fig. 1), and the limiting space (170) is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet (190, [0045]).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1, Hiramoto, and Radow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking and brewing devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11974690B1 and Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a water outlet delimiting a limiting space to allow the liquid/fluid in the container to freely communicate with the stirring components for mixing action and to keep the magnet and stirring device in the recessed area (Radow [0045]).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramoto (JP5144778B2) in view of Radow (US20140334249A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Hiramoto
PNG
media_image2.png
544
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 5-6 of Hiramoto
Regarding claim 1, Hiramoto teaches a slow cooker, wherein the slow cooker comprises:
a shell (1), wherein a placing cavity ([0040] main body 1 having an opening) is enclosed by the shell (1);
an inner container (31), wherein the inner container (31) is arranged in the placing cavity ([0040] a main body 1 having an opening, an inner pot 31 housed in the main body 1), and an accommodating cavity ([0040] interior of inner pot 31) is enclosed by the inner container (31);
a heating assembly (12), wherein the heating assembly (12) is arranged between the inner container (31) and the shell (1, Fig. 1);
a magnetic stirring assembly (13), wherein the magnetic stirring assembly (13) comprises a driving member (131), a first magnet (133) and a second magnet (135), two ends of the driving member (131) are respectively connected with the shell (1) and the first magnet (133), the second magnet (135) is arranged in the accommodating cavity (31, [0066] Fig. 5-6), and the second magnet (135) and the first magnet (133) are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container (31) at interval; and
wherein, a limiting space (190) in the inner container (31), the second magnet (133) is arranged in the limiting space (190), and the limiting space (190) is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet (133).
Hiramoto is silent on a limiting cover, wherein the limiting cover is connected with the inner container, and the limiting cover is provided with a water outlet hole; wherein, a limiting space is enclosed by the limiting cover and the inner container, the second magnet is arranged in the limiting space, and the limiting space is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet.
Radow teaches a limiting cover (194), wherein the limiting cover (194) is connected with the inner container (110), and the limiting cover (194) is provided with a water outlet hole (200);
wherein, a limiting space (170) is enclosed by the limiting cover (194) and the inner container (110), the second magnet ([0045] magnetic stir bar 190) is arranged in the limiting space (170, Fig. 1), and the limiting space (170) is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet (190, [0045]).
Hiramoto and Radow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking and brewing devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a water outlet delimiting a limiting space to allow the liquid/fluid in the container to freely communicate with the stirring components for mixing action and to keep the magnet and stirring device in the recessed area (Radow [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 1, and Hiramoto teaches wherein the inner container (31) comprises a body portion (body of inner pot 31) and a limiting portion (190), the body portion (body of inner pot 31) surrounds the limiting portion (190) and the accommodating cavity (interior of 31) is enclosed by the body portion (body of inner pot 31) and the limiting portion (190) jointly, the limiting portion (190) and the first magnet (133) are arranged at interval (Fig. 6), and the first magnet (133) and the second magnet (135) are arranged on two opposite sides of the limiting portion (190).
Regarding claim 3, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 2, and Hiramoto teaches wherein the limiting portion (190) protrudes towards the first magnet (133) to form a first limiting groove ([0063] recessed portion 190), but is silent on the limiting cover is inserted into the first limiting groove.
Radow teaches the limiting cover (194) is inserted into the first limiting groove (170, [0072] the surrounding area can include a perimeter recess for receiving and positioning the retainer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover in a limiting grooves in order to keep the magnet and stirring device in the recessed area (Radow [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 3, but Hiramoto is silent on wherein one of the limiting portion and the limiting cover is provided with a clamping groove, the other of the limiting portion and the limiting cover is provided with a buckle, and the buckle is inserted into the clamping groove.
Radow teaches wherein one of the limiting portion (170) and the limiting cover (194) is provided with a clamping groove (170, [0072] the surrounding area can include a perimeter recess for receiving and positioning the retainer), the other of the limiting portion (170) and the limiting cover (190) is provided with a buckle ([0072] peg-and-groove), and the buckle is inserted into the clamping groove ([0072] a peg-and-groove arrangement where one of the retainer and the base has a peg and the other has an arcuate groove and the user twists the retainer such that the peg fixes in the groove, understood to be the equivalent of a buckle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a clamping groove and a buckle to keep the magnet and stirring device in the recessed area (Radow [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 2, but Hiramoto is silent on wherein the limiting cover comprises a top shell and a side shell, the side shell surrounds the top shell, the side shell is connected with the inner container, the limiting space is enclosed by the top shell, the side shell and the limiting portion jointly, and at least one of the top shell and the side shell is provided with the water outlet hole.
PNG
media_image3.png
316
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. A of Radow
Radow teaches wherein the limiting cover (194) comprises a top shell (570) and a side shell (Annotated Fig. A, edges of 194), the side shell (Annotated Fig. A, edges of 194) surrounds the top shell (570), the side shell (Annotated Fig. A, edges of 194) is connected with the inner container (120), the limiting space (170) is enclosed by the top shell (570), the side shell (Annotated Fig. A, edges of 194) and the limiting portion ([0045] recessed portion of base 120) jointly, and at least one of the top shell (570) and the side shell is provided with the water outlet hole (200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a top and side shell, connected with the inner container and have a hole of the top shell to allow the liquid/fluid in the container to freely communicate with the stirring components for mixing action and to keep the magnet and stirring device in the recessed area (Radow [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 5, but Hiramoto is silent on wherein the water outlet hole comprises a first water outlet hole, a plurality of second water outlet holes and a plurality of third water outlet holes, the first water outlet hole is arranged in a center position of the top shell, the plurality of second water outlet holes and the plurality of third water outlet holes respectively surround the first water outlet hole, and the second water outlet holes are arranged between the first water outlet hole and the third water outlet holes at interval.
PNG
media_image4.png
386
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. L of Radow
Radow teaches wherein the water outlet hole (200 Fig. L) comprises a first water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L), a plurality of second water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L) and a plurality of third water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L), the first water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L) is arranged in a center position of the top shell (570), the plurality of second water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L)and the plurality of third water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L) respectively surround the first water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L), and the second water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L) are arranged between the first water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L) and the third water outlet holes (Annotated Fig. L) at interval.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a water outlet with a first outlet and a second and third plurality of outlets to allow the liquid/fluid in the container to freely communicate with the stirring components for mixing action (Radow [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Hiramoto and Radow teach the slow cooker according to claim 6, but Hiramoto is silent on wherein the second water outlet hole is arc- shaped, the third water outlet hole is arc- shaped, and an arc length of the third water outlet hole is larger than that of the second water outlet hole.
Radow teaches wherein the second water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L) is circle shaped, the third water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L) is circle shaped, and an arc length of the third water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L) is larger than that of the second water outlet hole (Annotated Fig. L, where the arc of the circular holes of the plurality of third outlet holes is larger than that of the plurality of second outlet holes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto to incorporate the teachings of Radow to have a limiting cover with a water outlet with a second and third plurality of outlets, the third water outlets being longer than the second water outlets to allow the liquid/fluid in the container to freely communicate with the stirring components for mixing action (Radow [0045]).
Hiramoto and Radow are silent on wherein the second water outlet hole is arc-shaped, the third water outlet hole is arc-shaped. However, applicant has not stated the shape of the second and third water outlets provide any unexpected or synergetic results. As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the second and third water outlets to be arc-shaped as taught by the combination of Hiramoto and Radow to have the shape claimed as when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is shape which does not provide a new or unexpected result, a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramoto (JP5144778B2) in view of Radow (US20140334249A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eades (US9220362B2).
Regarding claim 8, Hiramoto and Radow the slow cooker according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the slow cooker comprises a placing rack arranged in the accommodating cavity; and the placing rack comprises a first rack body and a plurality of second rack bodies, the first rack body forms an annular frame structure, and the plurality of second rack bodies are arranged at interval along a width direction of the annular frame structure.
PNG
media_image5.png
556
825
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Eades
Eades teaches wherein the slow cooker (160) comprises a placing rack (115) arranged in the accommodating cavity (111); and
the placing rack (115) comprises a first rack body (Annotated Fig. 3) and a plurality of second rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3), the first rack body (Annotated Fig. 3) forms an annular frame structure, and the plurality of second rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3) are arranged at interval along a width direction of the annular frame structure.
Hiramoto, Radow, and Eades are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking and brewing devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto and Radow to incorporate the teachings of Eades to have a placing rack with a plurality of first and second rack bodies in order to be able to hold food items during the cooking process (Eades Col. 1 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 9, Hiramoto, Radow, and Eades teach the slow cooker according to claim 8, and Hiramoto teaches a projection of the limiting cover (190) on the bottom surface of the inner container (31), but is silent on wherein the placing rack further comprises third rack bodies connected with the plurality of second rack bodies respectively, the third rack body is connected to a part of the second rack body close to the inner container, and a projection of a region in which the plurality of second rack bodies are connected with the third rack bodies on a bottom surface of the inner container.
Eades teaches wherein the placing rack (54, 56) further comprises third rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3) connected with the plurality of second rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3) respectively, the third rack body (Annotated Fig. 3) is connected to a part of the second rack body (Annotated Fig. 3) close to the inner container (111), and a projection of a region in which the plurality of second rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3) are connected with the third rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 3) on a bottom surface of the inner container (111).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the projection as taught Hiramoto and Radow to incorporate the teachings of Eades to be covered by a placing rack that has a plurality of first, second, and third rack bodies in order to be able to hold food items during the cooking process (Eades Col. 1 lines 40-50).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramoto (JP5144778B2) in view of Radow (US20140334249A1)and Eades (US9220362B2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of York (US20090095169).
Regrading claim 10, Hiramoto, Radow, and Eades teach the slow cooker according to claim 9, but Hiramoto and Radow are silent on wherein the first rack body comprises a plurality of first portions and a plurality of second portions, the plurality of first portions and the plurality of second portions are alternately arranged to form the annular frame structure, the first portions are away from the inner container relative to the second portions, the first portions are parallel to the second rack bodies, the second portions are connected with the plurality of second rack bodies respectively, and the third rack bodies are further connected with the first portions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto and Radow to incorporate the teachings of Eades to have a placing rack with a plurality of first and second portions of the first rack bodies connected to the second rack bodies in order to be able to hold food items during the cooking process (Eades Col. 1 lines 40-50).
Hiramoto, Radow, and Eades are silent on the third rack bodies are further connected with the first portion.
PNG
media_image6.png
353
389
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of York
York teaches the third rack bodies (Annotated Fig. 9) are further connected with the first portions (Annotated Fig. 9).
Hiramoto, Radow, Eades, and York are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking and brewing devices. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hiramoto, Radow, and Eades to incorporate the teachings of York to have a third rack body connect with a first portion of a first rack body in order to be able to have a horizontal support system, which is reinforced by the third rack body, such that the rack is able to support further inserts (York [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights