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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same phraseology as claim 1. Recommend breaking up the sentence into multiple sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Reference characters in figs. 2 and 4 do not have lead lines. In accordance 37 CFR 1.84, “lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed” (MPEP 608).
Straight lines should be used instead of curvy lines for underlined character 1 in fig. 1 and underlined character 12 in figs. 7-8.
In fig. 9, the lead line for reference character 123 should be extended to the reference character.
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.
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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/617,957 in view of Feng et al. (US-20120048843-A1).
Instant Application
Application No. 18/617,957
1. A slow cooker, comprising:
a body component (1), which comprises a cooker body (11) and a cooker cover (12), wherein the cooker cover (12) is arranged on the cooker body (11),
an assembly cavity (S1) is formed inside the cooker body (11), and the cooker cover (12) comprises a perspective structure (122) arranged opposite to the assembly cavity (S1);
an inner container (2), which is connected with the cooker body (11) and located in the assembly cavity (S1), wherein an accommodating cavity (S2) is formed inside the inner container (2); a heating component (3), which is arranged between the inner container (2) and the cooker body (11), wherein the heating component (3) is used for providing heat energy to the inner container (2);
a stirring component (4), which comprises a
power assembly (41) and
a stirring member (42), wherein the stirring member (42) is arranged in the accommodating cavity (S2),
the power assembly (41) and the stirring member (42) are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container (2) at interval, and the power assembly (41) is used for driving the stirring member (42) to rotate; and
a limiting component (5), wherein the limiting component (5) is connected to the inner container (2), a limiting space (51) is enclosed by the limiting component (5) and the inner container (2), the limiting component (5) is provided with a water outlet hole (52) communicated with the limiting space (51), the stirring member (42) is arranged in the limiting space (51), and the limiting space (51) is used for limiting a movement range of the stirring member (42).
1. A slow cooker (100), wherein the slow cooker (100) comprises:
a shell (110), wherein
a placing cavity (101) is enclosed by the shell (110);
an inner container (120), wherein the inner container (120) is arranged in the placing cavity (101), and an accommodating cavity (102) is enclosed by the inner container (120); a heating assembly (160), wherein the heating assembly (160) is arranged between the inner container (120) and the shell (110);
a magnetic stirring assembly (140), wherein the magnetic stirring assembly (140) comprises
a driving member (141), a first magnet (142) and
a second magnet (143), two ends of the driving member (141) are respectively connected with the shell (110) and the first magnet (142), the second magnet (143) is arranged in the accommodating cavity (102), and
the second magnet (143) and the first magnet (142) are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container (120) at interval; and
a limiting cover (130), wherein the limiting cover (130) is connected with the inner container (120), and the limiting cover (130) is provided with a water outlet hole; wherein, a limiting space is enclosed by the limiting cover (130) and the inner container (120), the second magnet (143) is arranged in the limiting space, and the limiting space is used for limiting a movement range of the second magnet (143).
Claim 1 of Application No. 18/617,957 teaches claim 1 of the Instant Application but does not explicitly disclose a cooker cover, wherein the cooker cover is arranged on the cooker body, and the cooker cover comprises a perspective structure arranged opposite to the assembly cavity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of kitchen electrical appliances, Feng teaches a cooker cover (upper cover 3, fig. 8), wherein the cooker cover is arranged on the cooker body (housing 6, fig. 8), and the cooker cover comprises a perspective structure (“glass upper cover,” para 0029) arranged opposite to the assembly cavity (space inside housing 6, fig. 8).
Feng, fig. 8
PNG
media_image1.png
1085
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Claim 1 of Application No. 18/617,957, in view of the teachings of Feng, by using a glass upper cover 3, as taught by Feng, on the shell 110, as taught in Application No. 18/617,957, in order to use an upper cover made of glass in order to watch the processed food item during cooking (Feng, para 0012).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending line 5 to recite: “reinforcing rib.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are the following:
“perspective structure” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “structure” and the functional limitation is “perspective” (interpreted as a replacement for “means for providing perspective”)
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “inorganic glass or an acrylic structure.”
“heating component” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “component,” and the functional limitations are “heating” and “used for providing heat energy to the inner container.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “heating generation sheet.”
“limiting component” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “component,” and the functional limitation is “limiting.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “cover.”
“stirring member” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “member,” and the functional limitation is “stirring.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “magnet.”
“buffering member” in claim 5
The generic placeholder is “member,” and the functional limitation is “buffering.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes an “I-shaped nut” or an “embedded nut.”
“fixing member” in claim 5
The generic placeholder is “member,” and the functional limitation is “fixing.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “bolt” or “screw.”
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.
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 § 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 2-3 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.
The term “tightly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” 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. As a result, it is not clear how “tight” the heating member needs to be attached to the outer side surface of the inner container in order to be “tightly attached.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted such that so long as the heating member is attached to the outer side surface of the inner container, then it is “tightly attached.”
Claim 3 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 2.
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 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 1-2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi teaches a slow cooker (rice cooker 100, fig. 1), comprising:
a body component (main body container 101 and lid 102, fig. 1), which comprises a cooker body (main body container 101, fig. 1) and a cooker cover (lid 102, fig. 1), wherein the cooker cover is arranged on the cooker body (fig. 1), an assembly cavity (space inside container 101, fig. 1) is formed inside the cooker body, and
an inner container (inner bowl 2, fig. 1), which is connected with the cooker body (bowl connects with container 101 through the cover 9 and motor 4, fig. 1) and located in the assembly cavity (space inside container 101, fig. 1), wherein an accommodating cavity (space inside inner bowl 2, fig. 1) is formed inside the inner container;
a heating component (heaters 3, fig. 1; interpreted under 35 USC 112f as requiring a heat generation sheet, which Takagi does not explicitly disclose), which is arranged between the inner container and the cooker body (the heaters 3 are between the bowl 2 and the container 101, fig. 1), wherein the heating component is used for providing heat energy to the inner container (para 0045);
a stirring component (rotational mixing blade 5, cylindrical cover 9 and motor 4, fig. 1), which comprises a power assembly (motor 4 and cover 9, fig. 1) and a stirring member (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as being a magnet; magnets 7b, fig. 1), wherein the stirring member is arranged in the accommodating cavity (space inside inner bowl 2, fig. 1), the power assembly (motor 4 and cover 9, fig. 1) and the stirring member (rotational mixing blade 5, fig. 1) are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner container at interval (the claimed “interval” is construed as the thickness of the bowl 2, fig. 7), and the power assembly is used for driving the stirring member to rotate (para 0046); and
a limiting component (top surface of blade 5, fig. 7, annotated; the top surface is construed as being a “cover”), wherein the limiting component is connected to the inner container (the top surface of blade 5 connects to bowl 2 through the blade 5 and protrusions 5c, fig. 7), a limiting space is enclosed by the limiting component (space under the top surface of the blade 5, fig. 7, annotated) and the inner container (and space above bowl 2, fig. 7 annotated), the limiting component is provided with a water outlet hole (recess 5b, figs. 13-14; annotated in fig. 14; water flows in and out between the protrusions 5c, para 0065 and fig. 13; the recess 5b is construed as being the claimed “water outlet hole”) communicated with the limiting space (recess 5b is in the construed “limiting space,” annotated in fig. 7), the stirring member is arranged in the limiting space (magnets 7b are in the construed “limiting space,” annotated in fig. 7), and the limiting space is used for limiting a movement range of the stirring member (rotation of the magnets 7b is limited to the space under the top surface of the blade 5, fig. 1; para 0045).
Takagi, fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takagi does not explicitly disclose the cooker cover comprises a perspective structure arranged opposite to the assembly cavity; a heating component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, Shi teaches the cooker cover (lid 7, fig. 3) comprises a perspective structure (“glass body,” para 0026; construed as being equivalent to the “inorganic glass” that is disclosed in the Specification) arranged opposite to the assembly cavity (space inside the inner pot 3, fig. 3); a heating component (heating ring 4, fig. 3; the flat ring body 41 is construed as being equivalent to the “heat generation sheet” that is disclosed in the Specification).
Shi, fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
605
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi, in view of the teachings of Shi, by using a lid 7 with a glass body, as taught by Shi, instead of the lid 102, as taught by Takagi in fig. 1, and by using a heating ring 4, as taught by Shi, instead of the heaters 3, as taught by Takagi, in order to use a lid with a glass body that is transparent, which makes it convenient to observe when stewing, and in order to use a snap-on heating ring, which allows for quick installation (Shi, para 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takagi in view of Shi as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Shi teaches wherein the heating component (heating ring 4, fig. 3) comprises a heating member (ring body 41, fig. 3) and an elastic member (spring 42, fig. 1), the heating member is attached to an outer side surface of the inner container (outer surface of pot 2, fig. 3; para 0023), two ends of the elastic member (outer ends of spring 42, fig. 3) are elastically connected with two ends of the heating member (outer ends of ring body 41, fig. 3) respectively, and the elastic member tightens the two ends of the heating member in a direction close to each other (para 0023), so that the heating member is tightly attached to the outer side surface of the inner container (para 0022).
Regarding claim 7, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooker body comprises an upper shell, a middle shell and a lower shell which are sequentially connected from top to bottom, the assembly cavity is enclosed by the upper shell, the middle shell and the lower shell jointly, an edge of an opening end of the inner container is bent outwardly to form a bending portion, and the bending portion is connected with the upper shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, Shi teaches wherein the cooker body (outer shell 1, fig. 1) comprises an upper shell, a middle shell and a lower shell (annotated in fig. 1) which are sequentially connected from top to bottom, the assembly cavity (space inside the shell 1, fig. 1) is enclosed by the upper shell, the middle shell and the lower shell jointly, an edge of an opening end of the inner container (outer top edge of pot 2, fig. 1) is bent outwardly to form a bending portion (the top edge of pot 2 bends outward, fig. 1), and the bending portion is connected with the upper shell (annotated in fig. 1).
Shi, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
742
942
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi, in view of the teachings of Shi, by using a shell 1, as taught by Shi, instead of the main body container 101, as taught by Takagi, in order to use an outer shell made of flame-retardant plastic material, which can prevent accidental fires and ensures high operational safety (Shi, para 0027).
Regarding claim 10, Takagi teaches wherein the slow cooker further comprises a heat preservation sheet (outer pot 1, fig. 1), and two opposite sides of the heat preservation sheet respectively abut against an inner side surface of the body component (outer side of pot 1 abuts with top surface of members 103, fig. 1; construed as being a surface of an inner side of the container 101) and an outer side surface of the inner container (inner side of pot 1 abuts with surface of outer side of bowl 2, fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Chen et al. (CN-213551170-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Chen ‘170).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating component further comprises a fixing sheet, the fixing sheet is connected with the inner container, and the fixing sheet makes the heating member abut against the inner container.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, Chen ‘170 teaches wherein the heating component (bottom cover 30, fig. 3) further comprises a fixing sheet (snap fit protrusion 50, fig. 3; the protrusion 50 is attached to a surface that is construed as being a “sheet,” fig. 3), the fixing sheet is connected with the inner container (main body 22, figs. 3-4), and the fixing sheet makes the heating member abut against the inner container (the protrusion 50 abuts with the groove 60, fig. 3; page 22).
Chen, fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
427
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi/Shi, in view of the teachings of Chen ‘170, by using a protrusion 50, as taught by Chen ‘170, on the heating ring 4, as taught by Shi, and by using a snap-fit groove 60, as taught by Chen ‘170, on the inner bowl 2, as taught by Takagi, in order to use a mechanism that facilitates attaching and detaching the heating ring, for the advantage of facilitating a user’s cleaning operation (Chen ‘170, page 22).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cheng (US-20210068584-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooker cover further comprises a cover body, a middle region of the cover body is provided with a mounting space, and the perspective structure is arranged in the mounting space; and the perspective structure comprises a perspective portion and a connecting portion which are connected with each other, the connecting portion is arranged at an edge of the perspective portion, the cover body is provided with a connecting groove, and the connecting portion is inserted into the connecting groove, wherein a thickness of the connecting portion is greater than that of the perspective portion, and the perspective portion and the cover body are arranged at interval.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of enabling visibility for food items in a cooking vessel, Cheng teaches wherein the cooker cover (lid 200, fig. 1A) further comprises a cover body (rim 250, fig. 1B), a middle region (region of lid 200 occupied by portions 210 and 221, fig. 1A-B) of the cover body is provided with a mounting space (space inside the rim 250, fig. 1B), and the perspective structure (central portion 210, upper portion 221, and vertical portion 223, fig. 1B ) is arranged in the mounting space; and the perspective structure comprises a perspective portion (central portion 210, fig. 1B) and a connecting portion (upper portion 221 and vertical portion 223, fig. 1B) which are connected with each other, the connecting portion is arranged at an edge of the perspective portion, the cover body is provided with a connecting groove (groove inside the rim 250, fig. 1B), and the connecting portion is inserted into the connecting groove (upper portion 221 is inside the groove in the rim 250, fig. 1B), wherein a thickness of the connecting portion is greater than that of the perspective portion (upper portion 221 and vertical portion 223 are thicker than portion 210, fig. 1B), and the perspective portion (central portion 210, fig. 1B) and the cover body (rim 250, fig. 1B) are arranged at interval (the claimed “interval” is construed as the thickness of upper portion 221, fig. 1B).
Cheng, fig. 1B
PNG
media_image6.png
548
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagai/ Shi, in view of the teachings of Cheng, by using a gasket 220 with a rim 250 and a flexible skirt 224, as taught by Cheng, on the periphery of the lid 7, as taught by Shi, for the advantage of using a lid that can be sealed to the cooking vessel (Cheng, para 0070).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takagi in view of Shi and Cheng as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Shi teaches wherein the cooker cover further comprises a handle (handle 72, fig. 3), a buffering member (pressure plate 71, fig. 3; construed as equivalent to a nut) and a fixing member (“screwed,” para 0026), the perspective structure (lid 7, fig. 3) is provided with at least one fixing hole (“A lid handle 72 is screwed to the middle of the pot lid 7,” para 0026; the lid 7 is construed as having a hole in the middle of the lid; hole is shown in fig. 1), the buffering member penetrates through the fixing hole (“via a lid pressure plate 71,” para 0026) and is connected with the perspective structure (fig. 1), the handle is connected with the buffering member (fig. 1), a through hole is formed inside the buffering member (fig. 3), and the fixing member penetrates through the through hole and is connected with the handle (fig. 1; para 0026).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of York et al. (US-20090095169-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the slow cooker further comprises a placing rack, the placing rack is selectively placed in the accommodating cavity, and the placing rack is provided with a plurality of placing grooves for placing food.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, York teaches wherein the slow cooker further comprises a placing rack (tray 22, fig. 2), the placing rack is selectively placed in the accommodating cavity (cavity of base 10, fig. 2), and the placing rack is provided with a plurality of placing grooves (basins 24, fig. 2) for placing food (“for food items,” para 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi, in view of the teachings of York, by inserting a tray for food items, as taught by York, in the inner bowl 2, as taught by Takagi, in order to cook several different foods at the same time in the rice cooker (York, para 0005).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Feng et al. (US-20120048843-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the slow cooker further comprises a circuit component, the cooker body comprises a lower shell located at a bottom portion of the cooker body and a cover plate detachably connected with the lower shell, at least a part of an outer surface of the lower shell protrudes in a direction close to the inner container to form a convex portion, a mounting groove is formed inside the convex portion, the circuit component is arranged in the mounting groove and the circuit component and the convex portion are arranged at interval, the mounting groove is open towards the outside of the cooker body, and the cover plate is covered at an opening end of the mounting groove.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, Feng teaches wherein the slow cooker further comprises a circuit component (circuit board 13, fig. 8), the cooker body comprises a lower shell (base 11, fig. 8) located at a bottom portion of the cooker body (housing 6, fig. 8) and a cover plate (power pack 12, fig. 8) detachably connected with the lower shell (as shown in fig. 8), at least a part of an outer surface of the lower shell protrudes in a direction close to the inner container to form a convex portion (annotated in fig. 6), a mounting groove is formed inside the convex portion (annotated in fig. 6), the circuit component is arranged in the mounting groove and the circuit component and the convex portion are arranged at interval (the circuit board 13 and construed convex portion are spaced by a distance, which is construed as the claimed “interval”), the mounting groove is open towards the outside of the cooker body, and the cover plate is covered at an opening end of the mounting groove (pack 12 covers the construed opening at the mounting groove, annotated in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi, in view of the teachings of Feng, by using the base 11 with circuit board 13 and power pack 12, as taught by Feng, at the bottom of the main body container 101, as taught by Takagi, in order to position a power pack and the power circuit board under the base of the cooker, which can save space (Feng, para 0016).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US-20120217236-A1) in view of Shi et al. (CN-101161166-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Feng et al. (US-20120048843-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Chen et al. (CN-213248408-U, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure; hereinafter Chen ‘408).
Regarding claim 9, Takagi teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooker body further comprises a reinforcing structure, the reinforcing structure is annularly arranged on an inner side surface of the lower shell, and the reinforcing structure comprises an outer layer, a reinforcing rib and an inner layer in a direction from an edge of the lower shell to a center of the lower shell, and the reinforcing ribs are respectively connected with the outer layer and the inner layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical kitchen appliances, Chen ‘408 teaches wherein the cooker body (shell 12, fig. 2) further comprises a reinforcing structure (base 11, fig. 1), the reinforcing structure is annularly arranged on an inner side surface of the lower shell (part 30, fig. 1), and the reinforcing structure comprises an outer layer, a reinforcing rib and an inner layer (annotated in fig. 1 below) in a direction from an edge of the lower shell (bottom edge of part 30, fig. 1) to a center of the lower shell (center of the base 11, fig. 1), and the reinforcing ribs are respectively connected with the outer layer and the inner layer (as shown in fig. 1).
Chen ‘408, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
614
737
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takagi/Feng, in view of the teachings of Chen ‘408, by using ribs, as taught in fig. 1 of Chen ‘408, in the base 11, as taught by Feng, in order to improve the structural strength of the heat insulation part and to ensure the stability of the heat insulation part, facilitating a better reduction in the temperature of the outer shell (Chen ‘408, para 0015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishimura et al. (US-20190125124-A1) teach a magnetic stirrer.
Ding et al. (US-20250160557-A1) teach a transparent cooker.
Xie et al. (US-20250261801-A1) is the publication for application no. 18/617,957.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights