Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP2007312932 citing to machine translation) in view of Liu (PGPUB US 2010/0018982) and Ho (PGPub# US2009/0166350).
Regarding claim 2, Kanai teaches an actively heated mug (par. 8 - 10), comprising: a cylindrical mug body (figure 7 and 6-1) comprising: an outer circumferential wall 17, an inner circumferential wall 16 that extends from a proximal portion to a base (area above heat exchange element 14), the inner circumferential wall defining a chamber configured to receive and hold a liquid (figure 7), an annular gap between the inner circumferential wall and the outer circumferential wall (figure 11, par 81: Inner and outer walls enclose insulation structure 50), and a bottom portion attached to a distal end of the outer circumferential wall (figure 7 bottom of cup), the bottom portion spaced from the base to define a cavity therebetween (Figure 7 and par. 86: Cavity encloses control unit 11, battery 12, wireless charging circuit 24, heater 14, and charging circuit 23) ; and a heating system 14/15 at least partially disposed in the annular gap or cavity, comprising: one or more heating elements 14 configured to heat the chamber (par. 20), a wireless power receiver 24 disposed in the cavity between the bottom portion and the base and configured to wirelessly receive power from a power source (par. 62-65), the wireless power receiver being in communication with one or more energy storage devices 23/12 in the cavity and configured to charge the one or more energy storage devices (par. 62),circuitry configured to control an operation of the one or more heating elements to heat the liquid in the chamber to a predetermined temperature setting or user selected temperature setting (control 11, par 47-55).
Kanai does not explicitly teach that the inner circumferential wall having a proximal portion with a first diameter and a distal portion with a second diameter smaller than the first diameter, and one or more sensors configured to detect a presence of a liquid in the chamber, the circuitry configured to automatically turn off power to the one or more heating elements upon receiving a signal indicating that the liquid in the chamber has dropped below a predetermined liquid level or been depleted completely.
However, Liu teaches a similar heating/cooling mug. (abstract and figure 2) Liu additionally teaches an inner and outer wall surrounding insulation 13. (par. 16 and figure 3) Liu teaches that the distal portion of the inner wall has a diameter smaller than the proximal portion. (figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the shape of Liu’s mug, for the shape of Kanai’s Mug, as it would be simple substitution of known mug shapes. Changes in size or shape are not patentably distinct from prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
The combination of Kanai and Liu does not explicitly teach one or more sensors configured to detect a presence of a liquid in the chamber, the circuitry configured to automatically turn off power to the one or more heating elements upon receiving a signal indicating that the liquid in the chamber has dropped below a predetermined liquid level or been depleted completely.
However, Ho teaches a container for heating water. (abstract and figure 1) Ho teaches one or more sensors (e.g., level sensor 313) configured to detect a presence of a liquid in the chamber, the circuitry configured to automatically turn off power to the one or more heating elements upon receiving a signal indicating that the liquid in the chamber has dropped below a predetermined liquid level or been depleted completely (e.g., Fig. 3 and para 35) Ho teaches that this is done in order to avoid damage to the container. (par. 35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the sensor and control circuitry of Ho, to the apparatus of Kanai in view of Liu, in order to avoid damage to the container as taught by Ho.
Regarding claim 3, Kanai teaches one or more temperature sensors. (par. 53, 18)
Regarding claim 4, Kanai teaches wherein the one or more heating elements 14/15 are wrapped around the distal portion of the inner circumferential wall so as to conduct heat through the distal portion of the inner circumferential wall and into the liquid in the chamber. (figures 5, 11, and par. 46)
Regarding claim 5, Kanai teaches wherein the one or more heating elements includes a resistive heater. (par. 55)
Regarding claim 6, Kanai teaches wherein the annular gap is configured to be filled with an insulative material. (figure 11, par 81: Inner and outer walls enclose insulation structure 50)
Regarding claim 8, Kanai teaches a user interface electrically connected to the control circuitry, the user interface actuatable by a user to control the operation of the one or more heating elements, wherein the user interface is operated by the user to select a temperature level of the liquid in the chamber first cavity, the control circuitry configured to control the operation of the one or more heating elements to maintain the liquid at the selected temperature level. (control 11, par 47-55).
Regarding claim 9, Kanai teaches a charging base 27 having a wireless power transmitter 25, where the wireless power transmitter is configured to transmit power to the wireless power receiver of the heating system when the mug is placed on the charging base. (par. 62-65)
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP2007312932 citing to machine translation) in view of Liu (PGPUB US 2010/0018982), Ho (PGPub# US2009/0166350), and Tu (CN2700169Y using machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kanai/Liu/Ho does not explicitly teach an orientation sensor configured to sense an orientation of the body and communicates with the circuitry, the circuitry configured to inhibit delivery of power to the one or more heating elements when the orientation sensor indicates that the body has been turned upside down.
However, Tu teaches a similar heated mug. (figure 1 par. 2) Tu teaches using a tilt/orientation sensor to sense an orientation of the mug body. Tu teaches detecting an orientation of the cup and once the orientation is past a threshold for a predetermined period of time, the power is cut off to the device. (par. 49) Tu teaches the advantage of the setup is to provide for a safer and more reliable mug. (par. 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the orientation sensor of Tu, to the apparatus of Kanai in view of Liu and Ho, in order to provide for a safer and more reliable mug as taught by Tu.
Claims 10-14 and 16-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP2007312932 citing to machine translation) in view of Ho (PGPub# US2009/0166350).
Regarding claim 10, Kanai teaches an actively heated mug (par. 8 - 10), comprising: a cylindrical mug body (figure 7 and 6-1) comprising: an outer circumferential wall 17, an inner circumferential wall 16 that extends from a proximal portion to a base (area above heat exchange element 14), the inner circumferential wall defining a chamber configured to receive and hold a liquid (figure 7), an annular gap between the inner circumferential wall and the outer circumferential wall (figure 11, par 81: Inner and outer walls enclose insulation structure 50), and a bottom portion attached to a distal end of the outer circumferential wall (figure 7 bottom of cup), the bottom portion spaced from the base to define a cavity therebetween (Figure 7 and par. 86: Cavity encloses control unit 11, battery 12, wireless charging circuit 24, heater 14, and charging circuit 23) ; and a heating system 14/15 at least partially disposed in the cavity, comprising: one or more heating elements 14 configured to heat the chamber (par. 20), a wireless power receiver 24 disposed in the cavity between the bottom portion and the base and configured to wirelessly receive power from a power source (par. 62-65), the wireless power receiver being in communication with one or more energy storage devices 23/12 in the cavity and configured to charge the one or more energy storage devices (par. 62),circuitry configured to control an operation of the one or more heating elements to heat the liquid in the chamber to a predetermined temperature setting or user selected temperature setting (control 11, par 47-55).
Kanai does not explicitly teach one or more sensors configured to detect a presence of a liquid in the chamber, the circuitry configured to automatically turn off power to the one or more heating elements upon receiving a signal indicating that the liquid in the chamber has dropped below a predetermined liquid level or been depleted completely.
However, Ho teaches a container for heating water. (abstract and figure 1) Ho teaches one or more sensors (e.g., level sensor 313) configured to detect a presence of a liquid in the chamber, the circuitry configured to automatically turn off power to the one or more heating elements upon receiving a signal indicating that the liquid in the chamber has dropped below a predetermined liquid level or been depleted completely (e.g., Fig. 3 and para 35) Ho teaches that this is done in order to avoid damage to the container. (par. 35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the sensor and control circuitry of Ho, to the apparatus of Kanai, in order to avoid damage to the container as taught by Ho.
Regarding claim 11, Kanai teaches one or more temperature sensors. (par. 53, 18)
Regarding claim 12, Kanai teaches wherein the one or more heating elements 14/15 are wrapped around the distal portion of the inner circumferential wall so as to conduct heat through the distal portion of the inner circumferential wall and into the liquid in the chamber. (figures 5, 11, and par. 46)
Regarding claim 13, Kanai teaches wherein the one or more heating elements includes a resistive heater. (par. 55)
Regarding claim 14, Kanai teaches wherein the annular gap is configured to be filled with an insulative material. (figure 11, par 81: Inner and outer walls enclose insulation structure 50)
Regarding claim 16, Kanai teaches a user interface electrically connected to the control circuitry, the user interface actuatable by a user to control the operation of the one or more heating elements, wherein the user interface is operated by the user to select a temperature level of the liquid in the chamber first cavity, the control circuitry configured to control the operation of the one or more heating elements to maintain the liquid at the selected temperature level. (control 11, par 47-55).
Regarding claim 17, Kanai teaches a charging base 27 having a wireless power transmitter 25, where the wireless power transmitter is configured to transmit power to the wireless power receiver of the heating system when the mug is placed on the charging base. (par. 62-65)
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanai et al. (JP2007312932 citing to machine translation), Ho (PGPub# US2009/0166350), and Tu (CN2700169Y using machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kanai/Ho does not explicitly teach an orientation sensor configured to sense an orientation of the body and communicates with the circuitry, the circuitry configured to inhibit delivery of power to the one or more heating elements when the orientation sensor indicates that the body has been turned upside down.
However, Tu teaches a similar heated mug. (figure 1 par. 2) Tu teaches using a tilt/orientation sensor to sense an orientation of the mug body. Tu teaches detecting an orientation of the cup and once the orientation is past a threshold for a predetermined period of time, the power is cut off to the device. (par. 49) Tu teaches the advantage of the setup is to provide for a safer and more reliable mug. (par. 16)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the orientation sensor of Tu, to the apparatus of Kanai in view of Ho, in order to provide for a safer and more reliable mug as taught by Tu.
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.
Claims 2-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,711,260. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated in previous office action.
Claims 2-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,974,401. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated in previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights