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 amendments to the claims filed on 10/22/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 17 and 21-22 has /have been previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-16, 18-20 and 23-26 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-16, 18-20 and 23-26 are as follow.
The previous 112(a) and 112(b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn based on the Pre-Appeal Brief conference dated 02/13/2026.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “heating element” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “heating” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 9 and 23 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0014], Fig. 1, a heating element 104.
B. Claim limitation “controller configured to execute” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “execute” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 23 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0020], Fig. 2, a controller 22.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-10, 13-16, 18-19 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, McWilliams et al. disclose a cooking appliance comprising:
a cooktop having a cooking zone (a glass-ceramic cooking plate 4 of well-known form, having an upper surface 6 for receiving a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1);
at least one heating element disposed beneath the cooktop in the cooking zone (heated by the heating element or elements 20, [0036]);
a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the cooking zone (its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]; a further temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12, [0037]); and
a controller (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]; control system 26, [0035], Fig 1) configured to execute a temperature-protect mode, and a presence of a temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], Fig 1) on top of a surface of the cooktop (The control system 26 is arranged to receive the temperature-dependent electrical output from the temperature- responsive device 30 and to cooperate in closed-loop manner with the heating element or elements 20 and the power supply 22, whereby predetermined temperatures of the cooking plate 4, and hence of the cooking utensil 8 , can be provided and maintained, [0039]), said controller in said temperature-protect mode being configured to:
receive from said temperature sensor a temperature signal corresponding to the
detected temperature of the cooking zone (temperature-responsive device 42… which is connected by leads 44 to the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energize the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]); and
adjust power supplied to said at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting or exceeding a threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030-0031], Figs 2-3. Clearly, “the control” is capable of “adjust power supplied to said at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting or exceeding a threshold temperature” as claimed), said threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature to prevent thermal damage, [0037], Figs 2-3, Clearly, “said threshold temperature” capable of “having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop” as claimed).
McWilliams et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: a controller (“a controller” taught by McWilliams et al. already) configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component on top of a surface of the cooktop (Note: a presence of a temperature-sensitive component on top of a surface of the cooktop: a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], taught by McWilliams et al. already, Fig 1).
Park et al. teach a cooking appliance comprising a controller (a cooking apparatus 100, [0051]; a controller 110, [0079], Fig 1) configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component on top of a surface of the cooktop (a cookware detector 130, [0079], cookware detector 130 may detect the position of the cookware 1 put on the cooking plate 102, [0087], Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. with Park et al.’s further teaching of a controller configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component on top of a surface of the cooktop; because Park et al. teach, in Para. [0087] of providing an excellent cooking appliance with efficient operation during the cooking process.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 6-10 and 26, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and further disclose:
Claim 2, wherein said controller is adapted to receive said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component (“said controller is adapted to receive said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component” taught by Park et al. already) based on a first manual user input (a user interface 120, [0053], Park et al.) to activate said temperature-protect mode (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008], McWilliams et al.; “said temperature-protect mode” taught by McWilliams et al. already).
Claim 6, wherein the threshold temperature is 500 degrees Fahrenheit (under FRYING MODE, Position 7: 260 Temp °C, [0043-0044], Figs 2-3).
Claim 7, wherein the temperature-sensitive component comprises a cooking utensil (cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1) having a non-stick coating applied at an inner surface of the cooking utensil (Clearly, utensil 8 can “having a non-stick coating applied at an inner surface of the cooking utensil” as claimed, because cooking utensil 8 is not a structural part of the cooking appliance).
Claim 8, said controller being configured to reduce the power supplied to said at least one heating element in said temperature-protect mode in response to said detected temperature reaching said threshold temperature (temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12, which is connected by leads 44 to the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]).
Claim 26, wherein said controller in said temperature-protect mode is configured to adjust power supplied to said at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting, or exceeding the threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030-0031], Figs 2-3) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree and/or for a predetermined period of time (provide user-selection of heating power of the electric heater within a predetermined range of heating powers, [0025]).
Regarding Independent Claim 9, McWilliams et al. disclose a method for operating a temperature-protect mode (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]) on a cooking appliance (an electrical heating assembly, [0012], Fig 1), the method comprising:
receiving an indication (Display means 40 is suitably provided to display … the correspondingly-selected cooking plate temperatures, [0045]) of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1) on top of a cooktop surface in a cooking zone thereof (The control system 26 is arranged to receive the temperature-dependent electrical output from the temperature- responsive device 30 and to cooperate in closed-loop manner with the heating element or elements 20 and the power supply 22, whereby predetermined temperatures of the cooking plate 4 , and hence of the cooking utensil 8 , can be provided and maintained., [0037]), and
executing the temperature-protect mode (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]), and the presence of the temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], Fig 1) on top of the cooktop surface (The control system 26 is arranged to receive the temperature-dependent electrical output from the temperature- responsive device 30 and to cooperate in closed-loop manner with the heating element or elements 20 and the power supply 22, whereby predetermined temperatures of the cooking plate 4, and hence of the cooking utensil 8 , can be provided and maintained, [0039]), wherein executing the temperature-protect mode includes:
receiving from a temperature sensor a temperature signal corresponding to a detected temperature of the cooking zone (cooking utensil 8 is heated by the heating element or elements 20 and its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]), and
adjusting power supplied to a heating element that supplies cooking energy to said cooking zone (provide user-selection of heating power of the electric heater within a predetermined range of heating powers, [0025]. Clearly, “the control” is capable of “adjusting power supplied to a heating element that supplies cooking energy to said cooking zone” as claimed) in response to said detected temperature approaching, reaching or exceeding a threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030], Fig 2), said threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature to prevent thermal damage, [0037], Figs 2-3, Clearly, “said threshold temperature” capable of “having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop” as claimed).
McWilliams et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: executing the temperature-protect mode (“executing the temperature-protect mode” taught by McWilliams et al. already) in response to receiving the indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface (Note: presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface: a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], taught by McWilliams et al. already, Fig 1)
Park et al. teach a cooking appliance comprising a controller (a cooking apparatus 100, [0051]; and a controller 110, [0079], Fig 1); executing the temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface (a cookware detector 130, [0079], cookware detector 130 may detect the position of the cookware 1 put on the cooking plate 102, [0087], details see Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. with Park et al.’s further teaching of executing the temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface; because Park et al. teach, in Para. [0087] of providing an excellent cooking appliance with efficient operation during the cooking process.
Regarding Dependent Claims 10 and 13-16, 18-19 and 25, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and further disclose: Claim 10, wherein said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component (“said indication of the presence of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component” taught by Park et al. already) is received in response to a first manual user input (a user interface 120, [0053], Park et al. Note: a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008], taught by McWilliams et al. already).
Claim 13, wherein the threshold temperature is 500 degrees Fahrenheit (under FRYING MODE, Position 7: 260 Temp °C, [0043-0044], Figs 2-3).
Claim 14, said threshold temperature being selected from a plurality of available threshold temperatures stored in a memory (control system 26 is provided with a cooking mode selection means 34 having a plurality of settings, whereby a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0040]) of the cooking appliance, each available threshold temperature being specific to a particular temperature-sensitive component as indicated via a component-specific user input (The cooking utensil 8 is heated by the heating element or elements 20 and its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]; A further temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12… is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]).
Claim 15, wherein the power supplied to the heating element is reduced in response to said detected temperature reaching said threshold temperature (temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12, which is connected by leads 44 to the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]).
Claim 16, wherein the power supplied to the heating element is increased or restored to an operative algorithm for a prevailing cooking operation in the cooking zone upon the detected temperature falling to a predetermined low temperature lower than the threshold temperature (user-selection of heating power suitably comprises selection of predetermined duty cycles of operation of the electric heater 12 within a predetermined range of duty cycles… duty cycles of operation may be provided by electro-mechanical or electronic control means 38, which may comprise an energy regulator or means to provide burst-fire control or pulsing or phase-control of the power supply 22, [0044], Fig 3).
Claim 18, wherein the temperature-protect mode persists, even following an off-on cycle for the cooking appliance, until receiving a manual user input to deactivate the temperature-protect mode (cooking value selection means adapted for user selection of cooking temperature within a predetermined temperature range, [0009]).
Claim 19, wherein the power supplied to the heating element is adjusted (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030], Fig 2) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree (of cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means according to cooking modes selected by cooking mode selection means in the heating assembly and control system, [0030]).
Claim 25, wherein executing the temperature-protect mode includes adjusting power supplied to the heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting, or exceeding the threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030-0031], Figs 2-3) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree and/or for a predetermined period of time (provide user-selection of heating power of the electric heater within a predetermined range of heating powers, [0025]).
Regarding Independent Claim 23, McWilliams et al. disclose a cooking appliance comprising:
a cooktop having a cooking zone, the cooktop having a surface for supporting a plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the surface of the cooktop; (a glass-ceramic cooking plate 4 of well-known form, having an upper surface 6 for receiving a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1. Clearly, “the surface” capable of “supporting a plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of said surface” as claimed);
at least one heating element disposed beneath the cooktop in the cooking zone (heated by the heating element or elements 20, [0036]);
a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the cooking zone (its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]; a further temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12, [0037]); and
a controller having a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]; a control system 26, which suitably includes a microprocessor- based control arrangement 28, [0035], Fig 1), each threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components (the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature to prevent thermal damage, [0037], Figs 2-3, Clearly, “each threshold temperature” capable of “having been predetermined to be one that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components” as claimed),
wherein the controller is configured to execute a temperature-protect mode, and a presence of a temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components (a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], Fig 1) on top of the surface of the cooktop (The control system 26 is arranged to receive the temperature-dependent electrical output from the temperature- responsive device 30 and to cooperate in closed-loop manner with the heating element or elements 20 and the power supply 22, whereby predetermined temperatures of the cooking plate 4, and hence of the cooking utensil 8, can be provided and maintained, [0039]), said controller in said temperature-protect mode being configured to:
select a threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures (control system 26 is provided with a cooking mode selection means 34 having a plurality of settings, whereby a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0040]) that is specific to the temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (The cooking utensil 8 is heated by the heating element or elements 20 and its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]; A further temperature-responsive device 42 is provided in the electric heater 12… is adapted to de-energise the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]);
receive from said temperature sensor a temperature signal corresponding to the detected temperature of the cooking zone (temperature-responsive device 42… which is connected by leads 44 to the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energize the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]); and
adjust power supplied to said at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting, or exceeding the threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030-0031], Figs 2-3. Clearly, “the control” is capable of “adjust power supplied to said at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, meeting, or exceeding the threshold temperature” as claimed).
McWilliams et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the controller (“a controller” taught by McWilliams et al. already) is configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the surface of the cooktop (Note: a presence of a temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the surface of the cooktop: a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], taught by McWilliams et al. already, Fig 1)
Park et al. teach a cooking appliance comprising a controller (a cooking apparatus 100, [0051]; a controller 110, [0079], Fig 1) configured to initiate a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the surface of the cooktop (a cookware detector 130, [0079], cookware detector 130 may detect the position of the cookware 1 put on the cooking plate 102, [0087], Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. with Park et al.’s further teaching of the controller is configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the surface of the cooktop; because Park et al. teach, in Para. [0087] of providing an excellent cooking appliance with efficient operation during the cooking process.
Regarding Dependent Claim 24, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and further disclose:
Claim 24, a method for operating the cooking appliance of claim 23, the method comprising:
placing the temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (a cooking utensil 8, [0032], see Fig 1);
receiving the indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (a cookware detector 130, [0079], cookware detector 130 may detect the position of the cookware 1 put on the cooking plate 102, [0087], Fig 4, Park et al.); and
executing the temperature-protect mode in response to receiving the indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop (a cookware detector 130, [0079], cookware detector 130 may detect the position of the cookware 1 put on the cooking plate 102, [0087], details see Fig 4), wherein executing the temperature-protect mode includes:
selecting the threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures (control system 26 is provided with a cooking mode selection means 34 having a plurality of settings, whereby a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0040]),
receiving the temperature signal corresponding to the detected temperature of the cooking zone (temperature-responsive device 42… which is connected by leads 44 to the control system 26 and is adapted to de-energize the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature, [0037]), and
adjusting power supplied to the at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, reaching, or exceeding the threshold temperature (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030-0031], Figs 2-3. Clearly, “the control” is capable of “adjusting power supplied to the at least one heating element in response to said detected temperature approaching, reaching, or exceeding the threshold temperature” as claimed).
Claims 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (2018/0317284 A1) applied above, further in view of Heravi et al. (US 2016/0046468 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 3 and 11.
Heravi et al. further teach Claim 3, wherein the temperature-protect mode is persistent, even following an off-on cycle for the cooking appliance (“wherein the temperature-protect mode persists, even following an off-on cycle for the cooking appliance” taught by McWilliams et al. already), until the controller receives a second manual user input to deactivate the temperature-protect mode (The thermal protection display panel 1200 allows the user to activate or deactivate a thermal protection setting, [0055], Fig 12). Claim 11, wherein the temperature-protect mode persists, even following an off-on cycle for the cooking appliance (“wherein the temperature-protect mode persists, even following an off-on cycle for the cooking appliance” taught by McWilliams et al. already), until receiving a second manual user input to deactivate the temperature-protect mode (The thermal protection display panel 1200 allows the user to activate or deactivate a thermal protection setting, [0055], Fig 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. with Heravi et al.’s further teaching of Claims 3 and 11; because Heravi et al. teach, in Para. [0055] of providing an excellent user interface for convenience remoting control the thermal protection setting during operation.
Claims 4-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (2018/0317284 A1) applied above, further in view of Ishida et al. (US 2012/0269229 A1).
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 4-5 and 12.
Ishida et al. further teach Claim 4, wherein said temperature-sensitive component (temperature sensors 3, [0039], Fig 9; “said temperature-sensitive component” taught by McWilliams et al. already) comprises a removable protective mat (a heat-resistant paste 17 that seals and adheres the temperature sensor 3 and is formed of silicon, [0078], Fig 9) configured to protect against abrasion of the surface of the cooktop (clearly, the protective layer 17 of Ishida et al. is capable of “protect against abrasion of the cooktop surface or a non-stick coated cooking utensil” as claimed). Claim 5, wherein the removable protective mat is a silicone mat (a heat-resistant paste 17 that seals and adheres the temperature sensor 3 and is formed of silicon, [0078], Fig 9, [0025]). Claim 12, wherein said temperature-sensitive component (“said temperature-sensitive component” taught by McWilliams et al. already) comprises at least one of a removable protective mat (a heat-resistant paste 17 that seals and adheres the temperature sensor 3 and is formed of silicon, [0078], Fig 9) configured to protect against abrasion of the cooktop surface or a non-stick coated cooking utensil (clearly, the protective layer 17 of Ishida et al. is capable of “protect against abrasion of the cooktop surface or a non-stick coated cooking utensil” as claimed). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. with Ishida et al.’s further teaching of Claims 4-5 and 12; because Ishida et al. teach, in Para. [0078] of providing an excellent protective layer on the temperature sensor so that avoiding any sensor damage during normal operation process.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (2018/0317284 A1) applied above, further in view of Wilkins et al. (US 7,105,781 B2).
Regarding Claim 20, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 20.
Wilkins et al. further teach a cooking appliance (see Title, Fig 1) with control circuit (control circuit 28, Fig 1) and temperature-responsive device (24 and 26, Fig 1), and Claim 20, wherein the power supplied to the heating element (to control energizing of the at least one heating element 18 from a power supply 36, Col 5 line 1-3, Fig 1 “the power supplied to the heating element” taught by McWilliams et al. already) is adjusted (The processing circuit 28, in association with the first temperature-responsive device 24, operates to adjust the power of the at least one heating element 18 to maintain a set-point temperature with time as indicated by reference numeral 38 in FIG. 2, Col 5 line 5-9) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature (operate to de-energise the heater 6 if a maximum predetermined temperature of the cooking surface 4 is exceeded, Col 5 line 12-14. Note: “the detected temperature” and “the threshold temperature” taught by McWilliams et al. already) beyond a predetermined period of time (monitoring of the temperature of the cooking utensil 10 is effected at predetermined time intervals, Col 5 line 23-24, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. with Wilkins et al.’s further teaching of Claim 20 because Wilkins et al. teach, in Col 2 line 32-49 of providing an excellent method of detecting an abnormal rise in temperature associated with a combination of a cooking utensil and a cooking surface overlying an electric heater, for operational safety while using the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Mc Williams as construed still fails to disclose or suggest that its temperature-protect mode is configured to adjust power based on a threshold temperature that has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature sensitive component 8 on top of the surface of the cooktop 4, as recited in independent claim 1. The Office action contends that "the control system 26 ... is adapted to de-energize the electric heater 12 at a predetermined temperature to prevent thermal damage, [0037]." However, the predetermined temperature disclosed in paragraph [0037] merely prevents damage to "the cooking plate 4 and/or the electric heater 12" (i.e., not the temperature-sensitive component 8). Indeed, McWilliams is silent regarding any threshold temperature that has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature-sensitive component 8. The Office action further contends that "[c]learly, 'said threshold temperature' [in paragraph [0037] of Mc Williams is] capable of 'having been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature-sensitive component 8 on top of the surface of the cooktop' as claimed." However, a mere statement that the claimed invention is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient by itself to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2143.0l(IV). The Office cannot reject the claimed threshold temperature simply because the predetermined temperature disclosed in paragraph [0037] of Mc Williams is "capable" of having been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature sensitive component 8. Rather, to properly reject the claimed threshold temperature, the prior art must disclose or render obvious a threshold temperature that actually has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature-sensitive component 8. Moreover, "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSRint'lCo. v. Teleflex Inc., 550U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006))”, and In rejecting claim 2, the Office action cites paragraph [0053] of Park as teaching that "a user interface 120 may be provided to receive control commands from the user." The Office action further cites paragraph [0008] of Mc Williams as teaching that "a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable." However, neither of these cited paragraphs (i.e., [0053] of Park and [0008] of Mc Williams) discloses receiving an indication of the presence of a temperature sensitive component based on a first manual user input. Although these paragraphs generally disclose user inputs, they do not disclose receiving an indication of the presence of a temperature-sensitive component based on a user input. Again, Park is silent regarding detection of its cookware 1 being based on a first manual user input. Moreover, Mc Williams does not disclose receiving any indication of a presence of its temperature-sensitive component 8, much less receiving such an indication based on a first manual user input. The Office cannot reject claim 2 simply because Park and Mc Williams disclose user input features. Rather, to properly reject claim 2, the prior art must disclose or suggest a controller that is "adapted to receive said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component based on a first manual user input." The mere disclosure of "a user interface 120" (paragraph [0053] of Park) or "a predetermined cooking mode [that] is user-selectable" (paragraph [0008] of McWilliams) does not read upon claim 2”, “Independent claim 9 is directed to a method for operating a temperature-protect mode on a cooking appliance, wherein "executing the temperature-protect mode includes ... adjusting power supplied to a heating element ... in response to [a] detected temperature approaching, reaching, or exceeding a threshold temperature, said threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage [al temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface." Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above in connection with independent claim 1, independent claim 9 is believed to be in condition for allowance over the cited references and withdrawal of the corresponding rejection of the claim is respectfully requested”, and “Claim 10 depends from independent claim 9 and is believed to be in condition for allowance over the cited references for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Moreover, claim 10 specifies that "said indication is received in response to a first manual user input." Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above in connection with claim 2, this feature of claim 10 is believed to further distinguish the cited references. For at least these reasons, claim 10 is believed to be in condition for allowance over the cited references and withdrawal of the corresponding rejection of the claim is respectfully requested”.
The examiner’s response: McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1) disclose exactly a cooking appliance as claimed; fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claims 1-2 and 9-10 as set forth in this office action shown above. Since the cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of these apparatus claim already, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2114-I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Claim 19 specifies that "power supplied to the heating element is adjusted in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree." As discussed above in connection with independent claim 1, Mc Williams fails to disclose or suggest the claimed threshold temperature (i.e., wherein the threshold temperature has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature sensitive component 8 on top of the surface of the cooktop 4). Moreover, Mc Williams certainly fails to disclose or suggest adjusting power so a detected temperature does not exceed the claimed threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree, as further recited in claim 19. Indeed, McWilliams does not disclose any predetermined degree beyond which a threshold temperature can be exceeded. Moreover, none of the additional cited references addresses these deficiencies of Mc Williams. In rejecting claim 19, the Office action cites paragraph [0030] of McWilliams as teaching "cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means according to cooking modes selected by cooking mode selection means." However, paragraph [0030] is silent regarding any predetermined degree beyond which a threshold temperature can be exceeded. The mere fact that paragraph [0030] discloses "cooking plate temperatures" does not mean it discloses a predetermined degree beyond which those temperatures can be exceeded. Indeed, the Office action has failed to identify any predetermined degree beyond which the "cooking plate temperatures" in paragraph [0030] can be exceeded”.
The examiner’s response: McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1) disclose exactly claim 19: wherein the power supplied to the heating element is adjusted (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030], Fig 2 McWilliams et al.) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined degree (of cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means according to cooking modes selected by cooking mode selection means in the heating assembly and control system, [0030] McWilliams et al.) as claimed. Since the cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of these apparatus claim already, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114-I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Claim 20 specifies that "power supplied to the heating element is adjusted in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature beyond a predetermined period of time." As discussed above in connection with independent claim 1, Mc Williams fails to disclose or suggest the claimed threshold temperature (i.e., wherein the threshold temperature has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature sensitive component 8 on top of the surface of the cooktop 4). Moreover, Mc Williams certainly fails to disclose or suggest adjusting power so a detected temperature does not exceed the claimed threshold temperature beyond a predetermined period of time, as further recited in claim 20. Indeed, Mc Williams does not disclose any predetermined period of time beyond which a threshold temperature can be exceeded. Moreover, none of the additional cited references addresses these deficiencies of Mc Williams. In rejecting claim 20, the Office action cites Col. 5, 11. 5-26 of Wilkins as disclosing a processing circuit 28 that "adjust[s] the power of the at least one heating element 18 to maintain a set-point temperature with time," wherein "monitoring of the temperature of the cooking utensil 10 is effected at predetermined time intervals, which may be between 0.1 and 4 seconds, preferably between 0.3 and 1 second and suitably about 0.5 second." However, this does not disclose a predetermined period of time beyond which a threshold temperature can be exceeded. Rather, the predetermined time intervals disclosed in Wilkins are merely time intervals at which the temperature of the cooking utensil 10 is monitored. Thus, Wilkins does not address the above deficiencies of Mc Williams”.
The examiner’s response: McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1) and Wilkins et al. (US 7,105,781 B2) disclose exactly claim 20: Wilkins et al. further teach a cooking appliance (see Title, Fig 1) with control circuit (control circuit 28, Fig 1) and temperature-responsive device (24 and 26, Fig 1), and Claim 20, wherein the power supplied to the heating element (to control energizing of the at least one heating element 18 from a power supply 36, Col 5 line 1-3, Fig 1 “the power supplied to the heating element” taught by McWilliams et al. already) is adjusted (The processing circuit 28, in association with the first temperature-responsive device 24, operates to adjust the power of the at least one heating element 18 to maintain a set-point temperature with time as indicated by reference numeral 38 in FIG. 2, Col 5 line 5-9) in order to ensure that the detected temperature does not exceed the threshold temperature (operate to de-energise the heater 6 if a maximum predetermined temperature of the cooking surface 4 is exceeded, Col 5 line 12-14. Note: “the detected temperature” and “the threshold temperature” taught by McWilliams et al. already) beyond a predetermined period of time (monitoring of the temperature of the cooking utensil 10 is effected at predetermined time intervals, Col 5 line 23-24, Fig 2); for the purpose of providing an excellent method of detecting an abnormal rise in temperature associated with a combination of a cooking utensil and a cooking surface overlying an electric heater, for operational safety while using the apparatus (Col 2 line 32-49). Since the cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of these apparatus claim already, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114-I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Independent claim 23 is directed to a cooking appliance comprising 1) a cooktop for supporting a plurality of temperature-sensitive components; and 2) a controller having a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures, each threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature-sensitive components. Moreover, claim 23 further specifies that the controller is configured to execute a temperature-protect mode in response to receiving an indication of a presence of a temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop, whereby in the temperature-protect mode the controller is configured to select a threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures that is specific to the temperature-sensitive component. As discussed above in connection with independent claim 1, McWilliams fails to disclose or suggest any threshold temperature that is predetermined to be one that will not damage its temperature-sensitive component 8. Moreover, it certainly fails to disclose or suggest a plurality of such threshold temperatures, particularly wherein 1) each threshold temperature has been predetermined to be one that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component; and 2) in the temperature-protect mode the controller is configured to select a threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures. The Office action contends that "Mc Williams et al. disclose ... a controller having a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures (a predetermined cooking mode is userelectable, [0008]; a control system 26, which suitably includes a microprocessor - based control arrangement 28, [0035], Fig l)." However, contrary to this assertion, none of these cited teachings discloses a controller that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures. That is, the mere disclosure that "a predetermined cooking mode is user-electable" (paragraph [0008]) and "a control system 26 ... suitably includes a microprocessor-based control arrangement 28" (paragraph [0035]) in no way teaches or suggests a controller having a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures. The Office action is not properly addressing the claimed subject matter, and is falsely citing portions of Mc Williams as teaching the claimed invention. The Office action further contends that "Mc Williams et al. disclose ... select[ing] a threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures ( control system 26 is provided with a cooking mode selection means 34 having a plurality of settings, whereby a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0040])." However, contrary to this assertion, paragraph [0040] does not disclose any such selection of a threshold temperature from a plurality of threshold temperatures. The mere disclosure that "[t]he control system 26 is provided with a cooking mode selection means 34 having a plurality of settings, whereby a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable" in no way teaches or suggests selecting a threshold temperature from a plurality of threshold temperatures. Again, the Office action is not properly addressing the claimed subject matter, and is falsely citing portions of Mc Williams as teaching the claimed invention”.
The examiner’s response: McWilliams et al. (US 2006/0196869 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1) disclose exactly a cooking appliance as claimed; fully discloses all the recited limitations of independent Claim 23 as set forth in this office action shown above. Since the cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of these apparatus claim already, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2114-I). During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights