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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Flavor-adding kitchenware” which should be amened to “A flavor-adding kitchenware.”
Claim 1 recites “till a temperature ranging” which should be amended to “until a temperature ranging…”
Claim 2 recites “connected to the diffuser” which should be amended to “connected to the medium diffuser” for consistency.
Claim 4 recites “The The flavor” which should be amended to “The flavor”
Claim 5 recites “The flavor-adding kitchenware of Claim 4” which should be amended to “The flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 4.”
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.
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:
“a gas flow driver operable to drive a gas” in claim 1. In particular, the claim limitation “a gas flow driver” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “to drive a gas” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “a gas flow driver” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In this case, in para 0022, the specification states: the gas flow driver 3 may also be a blower fan or another equivalent structure in some other implementations, therefore the gas flow driver encompasses a blower or any other structures in the disclosure which positively perform the function, and functional 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baker (US20200170448).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Baker
PNG
media_image2.png
480
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Baker
Regarding claim 1, Baker teaches Flavor-adding kitchenware for a user to heat a surface of a food ingredient having proteins and/or carbohydrates, the flavor-adding kitchenware comprising:
a base (22);
a gas flow driver (50) operable to drive a gas to flow toward the surface of the food ingredient ([0026] fuel 34, smoke for the heating chamber 1; where auger 50 moves fuel that is understood to subsequently move the smoke created by the fuel)
a medium diffuser (60) disposed at the base (22), operable to diffuse a medium (62) whose specific heat capacity is higher than the gas (34) and mix the medium (62) with the gas (34) which is flowing to form a mixed fluid ([0026, 0030] where it is understood that smoke and the sprayed liquid would mix);
and a heater (32) disposed at the base (22), operable to heat the gas which is flowing, the medium, or the mixed fluid, till a temperature ranging from 100° C. to 200° C. ([0027] The heat source 30 may sustain a temperature inside the cooking device 10 of around 100 to 800 degrees Fahrenheit for cooking the food items) to contribute a flavor to the surface of the food ingredient ([0030] flavor of the food item, increase moisture within the food item, increase cooking efficiency of the food item).
Regarding claim 2, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 1
further comprising at least one medium storage (64) that is detachably fitted to the base (22) and an opener (28) disposed at the base (22), wherein a predetermined amount of the medium (62) is sealed in the medium storage (64) so that when the medium storage (64) is mounted corresponding to the opener (28),
a discharge port (70 Fig. 4, tube 70 connected to reservoir 64) connected to the diffuser (60) is formed at the medium storage (64).
Regarding claim 4, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 1,
wherein the heater is an electric heater ([0026] One or more heating elements 32 (e.g., electrical heating elements)) disposed downstream of the gas flow driver (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 4,
wherein the medium diffuser (60) has a medium spout (72, 74) disposed downstream of the electric heater (32),
and at least one medium canister (64; where it is understood that the medium canister is the same element as a medium storage as recited in claim 2) communicating with the medium spout (70, 72).
Regarding claim 7, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 1,
further comprising an outlet temperature sensor ([0029] a cabinet temperature sensor for determining the temperature inside the chamber 14) disposed downstream of the heater (32), the outlet temperature sensor [0029](a cabinet temperature sensor for determining the temperature inside the chamber 14) being operable to measure an outlet temperature of the mixed fluid which has been mixed by the medium diffuser and heated by the heater (32; where the temperature inside the chamber 14 is understood to be the temperature of the gas and fluid solution in the chamber).
Regarding claim 8, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 7,
further comprising a controller (56), the controller being operable to receive the outlet temperature measured by the outlet temperature sensor ([0029]), and control, based on the outlet temperature, the gas flow driver and the heater ([0049] Accordingly, the activation of the pump 66 by the controller 76 may be varied by a user through usage of the application 128 in addition to or in lieu of usage of the input device 84 and/or a predetermined activation sequence. The spritzing patterns may be based on any variable, including but not limited to, the temperature within the heating chamber 14, the type of food item, the type of fluid utilized within the spritzer assembly 60, user preferences, user instructions, food temperature (which may be measured by the probe 58)) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US20200170448) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen (US11116359B2).
Regarding claim 3, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 5, but is silent on
wherein the medium storage further comprises a heated portion in thermally conductive connection to the heater, the heated portion being configured to heat the medium stored in the medium storage.
Chen teaches wherein the medium storage (12) further comprises a heated portion (122) in thermally conductive connection to the heater (121), the heated portion being configured to heat the medium stored (123) in the medium storage (12; Col. 8 lines 10-30).
Baker and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kitchenware. 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 Baker to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the medium storage include a heated portion in order to be able to provide steam to the cooked food to provide a satisfying taste, aroma, texture, and/or appearance for foods where dry heating is not satisfactory (Chen Col. 1 lines 40-55).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US20200170448) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vassallo (EP1625817A1).
Regarding claim 6, Baker teaches the flavor-adding kitchenware of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the medium diffuser further has a spicery canister, and a spicery releasing port communicating with the spicery canister and corresponding to the medium spout.
PNG
media_image3.png
548
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Vassallo
Vassallo teaches wherein the medium diffuser (20, 21, 10) further has a spicery canister (20; [0014] an external reservoir 20 containing a flavoring substance, a sauce or any similar ingredient adapted), and a spicery releasing port (21) communicating with the spicery canister (20) and corresponding to the medium spout (10, Fig. 4 [0014] reservoir is connected via a respective conduit 21 to said inner conduits 10, possibly via a manifold-like distribution chamber provided inside said apparatus 1, wherein said distribution chamber may be the same afore described steam-box 12).
Baker and Vassallo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of kitchenware. 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 Baker to incorporate the teachings of Vassallo to have the medium diffuser having a spicery canister in order to aid in giving the food a particular taste, flavor or a more appealing appearance (Vassallo [0014]).
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 10/6/2026
