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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 7-9-2026 Amendment was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 7-14 were cancelled. Claims 1-6 are pending and examined in this action.
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: heating element in Claim 1; power supply element in Claim 1; a heat-resistant portion in Claim 1; and a heat-conducting portion in Claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204541619 in view of in view of US 5,345,059 to Wen, US 4,005,310 to Baisch, and US 10,258,193 to Reed.
In re Claim 1, CN 204541619 teaches a heating spoon (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a handle (see Fig. 1, #102);
a bowl connected to the handle (see Fig. 1, #101);
a heating element arranged in the bowl (see Fig. 1, #104); and
a power supply element arranged in the handle (see Fig. 1, rechargeable battery #11), the power supply element being electrically connected to the heating element and supplying power to the heating element (see Fig. 1; see also CN 204541619, translation, CN 204541619, translation Pg. 2, last line - Pg. 3 first paragraph and translation, Pg. 4, ll. Last full paragraph – First paragraph).
CN 204541619 does not teach:
wherein the bowl comprises a heat-resistant portion and a heat-conducting portion, the heat-resistant portion is connected to the handle, the heat-conducting portion is connected to the heat-resistant portion and is away from the handle, and the heating element is located in the heat-conducting portion;
the heat-conducting portion is a metal part, the heat-resistant portion and the handle are plastic parts;
the heating element is a heating ring, and the heating ring is embedded in the heat- conducting portion;
the heat-resistant portion is provided with a stop recess, the heat-conducting portion is provided with a stop protrusion, and the stop protrusion is inserted into the stop recess, so that the heat-resistant portion and the heat-conducting portion are connected together; and
the heat-resistant portion extends in a circumferential direction of the handle to form a protective portion.
However Wen teaches that it is known in the heated spoon art to provide a bowl that comprises a heat-resistant portion (see Wen, Fig. 2, #14/20) and a heat-conducting portion (see Wen, Figs. 1-3, #36/38), the heat-resistant portion is connected to the handle (see Wen, Fig. 2, showing the area surrounding #12 is connected to the handle #20 – see also Col. 2, ll. 35-50), the heat-conducting portion is connected to the heat-resistant portion and is away from the handle (see annotated Fig. 2, below), and the heating element is located in the heat-conducting portion (see Wen, Fig. 3, #30);
PNG
media_image1.png
546
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Wen teaches wherein the heat-conducting portion is a metal part (see Wen, Col. 2, ll. 50-57, #36/38 are made of metal), wherein the heat-resistant portion is a plastic part (see Wen, Col. 2, ll. 43-49, teaching “Preferably, the enclosure 14 is made of a temperature resistive and electrical insulating material, such as temperature resistive plastics. Further, the conductive wiring 22 is preferably rigid to assist in the formation, such as by injection molding, of the enclosure 14 and the handle 20),
wherein the handle is a plastic part (see Wen, Col. 2, ll. 43-49, teaching “Preferably, the enclosure 14 is made of a temperature resistive and electrical insulating material, such as temperature resistive plastics. Further, the conductive wiring 22 is preferably rigid to assist in the formation, such as by injection molding, of the enclosure 14 and the handle 20),
wherein the heat-resistant portion is provided with a stop recess (see annotated Fig. 2, below), the heat-conducting portion is provided with a stop protrusion (see annotated Fig. 2, below), and the stop protrusion is inserted into the stop recess (see annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
548
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the spoon/heating element of CN 204541619 with that of Wen. Doing so is the substation of one known spoon/heating arrangement for another known spoon/heating arrangement to achieve the result of providing a heated spoon (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Such a spoon head controls the temperature of the heater within a pre-determined range so as to avoid overheating and thus a potential fire catastrophe (see Wen, Col. 1, ll. 43-50).
CN 204541619 in view of Wen does not teach:
the heating element is a heating ring, and
the heat-resistant portion extends in a circumferential direction of the handle to form a protective portion.
However, Baisch teaches the heating element is a heating ring, and the heating ring is embedded in the heat-conducting portion (see Fig. 5, #42).
In the same field of invention, heating spoons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the shape of the resistance coil of Fig. 5, of Baisch. Doing so is the substation of one known heating shape for another known teaching shape to heat a spoon (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Additionally, Reed teaches that it is known to provide a protective portion between the handle and the utensil portion (see e.g., Fig. 1 of Reed). In the same field of invention, utensils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a protective portion to the device of CN 204541619. Doing so protects the user during use.
In re Claim 2 modified CN 204541619, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a circuit board (see Fig. 1, #106) and a control button (see Fig. 1, #107), wherein the circuit board is arranged in the handle (see Fig. 1, #106 is arranged in the handle), the control button is arranged on the handle (see Fig. 1, #107 is arranged on the handle), the heating element is electrically connected to the power supply element by the circuit board, and the control button is electrically connected to the circuit board and is capable of controlling the heating element to work (see CN 204541619, translation, Pg. 5, last paragraph – Pg. 6, first full paragraph).
In re Claim 4, modified CN 204541619, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the power supply element is a rechargeable battery (see CN 204541619, translation Pg. 2, last line - Pg. 3 first paragraph and translation, Pg. 4, ll. Last full paragraph – First paragraph).
In re Claim 5, modified CN 204541619, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the handle is provided with a USB interface, the USB interface is electrically connected to the circuit board, and the USB interface is capable of charging the power supply element by means of the circuit board (see CN 204541619, translation Pg. 2, last line - Pg. 3 first paragraph).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204541619 in view of in view of US 5,345,059 to Wen, US 4,005,310 to Baisch, and US 10,258,193 to Reed, and further in view of CN 115251686 A.
In re Claim 3, modified CN 204541619, in re Claim 1, does not teach an LED screen and therefore does not teach further comprising indicator lights, wherein the indicator lights are arranged in the handle, the handle is provided with light-transmitting holes, the indicator lights are electrically connected to the circuit board, the power supply element is capable of supplying power to the indicator lights by means of the circuit board, and the indicator lights are aligned with the light-transmitting holes.
However, CN 115251686 A teaches that it is known in the art of electrically powered spoons to provide and Led indicator light (see Fig. 5, #901) which are arranged in the handle (see Fig. 5, #901 arranged on PCB board which is in the handle), the handle is provided with light-transmitting holes (see Fig. 1, showing a hole in the handle), the indicator light are electrically connected to the circuit board (#901 is electrically connected to the system by the circuit board #9), the power supply element is capable of supplying power to the indicator lights by means of the circuit board, and the indicator lights are aligned with the light-transmitting holes (see Fig. 1, in view of Fig. 5, #901, and translation, Pg. 4, first paragraph which states “, LED lamp are two respectively blue and red, red normally bright in the process of charging, after the blue lamp is bright.”). In the same field of invention, spoons with heaters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the LED screen with lights. Doing so is the substitution of one known visual indicator with another known visual indicator to communicate information to the user (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 204541619 in view of in view of US 5,345,059 to Wen, US 4,005,310 to Baisch, and US 10,258,193 to Reed, and further in view of US 20100298029 A1 to Jang.
In re Claim 6, CN 204541619 does not teach further comprising a dustproof block, wherein the dustproof block is detachably connected to the handle, and the dustproof block seals the USB interface when connected to the handle.
However, Jang teaches that it is known in the art of USB connections to provide a cover made of rubber material (see Jang, Para. 0032). In the same field of invention, handheld devices using USB connectors to charge batteries, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a rubber cover to the USB connection of CN 204541619
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-9-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wen does not teach that the heat-resistant portion is provided with a stop recess, the heat-conducting portion is provided with a stop protrusion, and the stop protrusion is inserted into the stop recess, so that the heat-resistant portion and the heat-conducting portion are connected together. This is because, according to Applicant, “the heat-resistant portion and the heat-conducting portion belong to a structure that is separately manufactured and subsequently assembled.” Applicant states that “Prior to assembly, the "stop recess" and the "stop protrusion" already completely exist on their respective components.”
Applicant states that:
the injection molding process is to pre-place 36/38 as an insert in the mold and subsequently inject the molten material of 14/20 into the mold cavity. The molten material flows and completely wraps the end of 36/38, and after cooling and solidifying, forms the structure as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Wen. Therefore, prior to injection molding, there is no pre-machined "stop recess" inside component 14/20 of Wen; the interface that looks like a recess in the illustration is essentially an "encapsulation interface" formed after the molten material adheres to the outer contour of the insert and cools.
In other words, Applicant acknowledges that physically, after the device is assembled the structure of wen is the same structure of Applicant’s disclosure and the claims. Applicant argues that the process to achieve this same orientation/structure is the same. The Examiner notes that the claims are Apparatus Claims and not method claims. It is unclear if Applicant is arguing that the claims include a product by process limitation.
As noted in MPEP 2113: “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Further, MPEP 2113, II states “Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a non-obvious difference. The manner in which a product is made is not a non-obvious difference in an apparatus claim.
Applicant argues that the structure of Reed does not read on “a heat-resistant portion extends in a circumferential direction of the handle to form a protective portion. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Reed is an independent component and not integrally formed with the tool. The examiner disagrees that the heat-resistant portion extending must be integral to the handle. This language is not found in the claims. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., integrally formed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the structure of Reed is not a structure continuously extending along the circumferential direction of the handle. The Examiner notes that “continuously extending” is not found in the claims. Additionally, the structure of Reed surrounds the handle around the outer circumference. As such, it extends in a circumferential direction of the handle to form a protective portion.
Applicant argues that Reed may become separated from the handle during extreme use. The Examiner notes that the claims do not require an integral structure. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “integral.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If Applicant intends to claim an integral structure, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to include such a limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights