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 07/08/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 9-11 has /have been amended, claims 17 and 21-22 were previously cancelled, claims 1-8, 24 and 26 has /have been cancelled, claims 27-32 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 9-16, 18-20, 23, 25 and 27-32 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 9-16, 18-20, 23, 25 and 27-32 are as follow.
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 9, 23 and 30 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 executing”/ “controller is 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 “executing”/ “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 9, 23 and 30 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 9-10, 13-16, 18-19 23, 25 and 30-31 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 9, McWilliams et al. disclose a method for operating a cooking appliance (an electrical heating assembly, [0012], Fig 1) having a cooktop surface (a glass-ceramic cooking plate 4 of well-known form, having an upper surface 6 for receiving a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1) configured for supporting a temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 8 on top of 4, [0032], Fig 1) on top of the cooktop surface, a heating element (heating element or elements 20, [0033], Fig 1) disposed beneath the cooktop surface, a temperature sensor (its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]) configured to detect a temperature of the cooking appliance, and a controller (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]; control system 26, [0035], Fig 1) configured to control operation of the cooking appliance, wherein the method comprises:
the controller receiving an indication (Display means 40 is suitably provided to display … the correspondingly-selected cooking plate temperatures, [0045]) of a presence of the temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1) on top of the cooktop surface, and
the controller executing a 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:
the controller receiving from said temperature sensor a temperature signal corresponding to said temperature detected by the temperature sensor (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
the controller adjusting power supplied to the heating element in response to said temperature detected by the temperature sensor approaching, reaching or exceeding a threshold temperature (provide user-selection of heating power of the electric heater within a predetermined range of heating powers, [0025]; cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030], Fig 2. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand “the control” is capable of “adjusting power supplied to the heating element in response to said temperature detected by the temperature sensor approaching, reaching 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 cooktop surface (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, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand “said threshold temperature” capable of “having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface” as claimed).
McWilliams et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the controller executing a temperature-protect mode (“executing a 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); the controller executing a 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 the controller executing a 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.
Claim 10, wherein the cooking appliance comprises a user interface (Display means may be provided to display the selected cooking mode and/or a selected setting of the cooking value selection means and/or the correspondingly selected cooking temperature and/or the correspondingly selected heating power, [0011]), and said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface (“said indication of the presence of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component” taught by Park et al. already) is received by the controller in response to a first manual user input user interface (Display means may be provided to display the selected cooking mode and/or a selected setting of the cooking value selection means and/or the correspondingly selected cooking temperature and/or the correspondingly selected heating power, [0011]).
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 (a control system 26, which suitably includes a microprocessor- based control arrangement 28, [0035], Fig 1; 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 (see Fig 1), 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, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand “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, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand “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 Independent Claim 30, McWilliams et al. disclose a method for operating a cooking appliance (an electrical heating assembly, [0012], Fig 1) having a cooktop surface (a glass-ceramic cooking plate 4 of well-known form, having an upper surface 6 for receiving a cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1) configured for supporting a plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the cooktop surface (cooking utensil 8, [0032], Fig 1. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand “cooktop surface” is capable of “configured for supporting a plurality of temperature-sensitive components on top of the cooktop surface” as claimed), a heating element (heating element or elements 20, [0033], Fig 1) disposed beneath the cooktop surface, a temperature sensor (its temperature is monitored by a temperature-responsive device 30, [0036]) configured to detect a temperature of the cooking appliance, and a controller (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]; control system 26, [0035], Fig 1) having a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures, each threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one (a predetermined cooking mode is user-selectable, [0008]; a control system 26, which suitably includes a microprocessor- based control arrangement 28, [0035], Fig 1) 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, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand the control system capable of control the temperature “that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component of the plurality of temperature sensitive components” as claimed) wherein the method includes:
the controller receiving an indication of 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]); and
the controller executing a 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 (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:
the controller selecting a corresponding threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures that is specific to the temperature-sensitive components on top of the cooktop surface and has been predetermined to be one that will not damage the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface (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, “the threshold temperature” capable of “is specific to the temperature-sensitive components on top of the cooktop surface and has been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop” as claimed).
the controller adjusting power supplied to the heating element in response to said temperature detected by the temperature sensor approaching, reaching, or exceeding the corresponding threshold temperature selected from the plurality of threshold temperatures (cooking plate temperatures selected in various operating positions of cooking value selection means, [0030], 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, the controller capable of “adjusting power supplied to the heating element in response to said temperature detected by the temperature sensor approaching, reaching, or exceeding the corresponding threshold temperature selected from the plurality of threshold temperatures” as claimed).
McWilliams et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the controller executing a 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); the controller executing a 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 the controller executing a 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.
Claim 31, wherein the cooking appliance comprises a user interface (Display means may be provided to display the selected cooking mode and/or a selected setting of the cooking value selection means and/or the correspondingly selected cooking temperature and/or the correspondingly selected heating power, [0011]), and said indication of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface (“said indication of the presence of the presence of the temperature-sensitive component” taught by Park et al. already) is received by the controller in response to a first manual user input user interface (Display means may be provided to display the selected cooking mode and/or a selected setting of the cooking value selection means and/or the correspondingly selected cooking temperature and/or the correspondingly selected heating power, [0011]).
Claims 11 and 32 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 11 and 32, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 11 and 32.
Heravi et al. further teach 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). Claim 32, 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 a second manual user input is received on the user interface 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 11 and 32; 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 12 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. applied above, further in view of Ishida et al. (US 2012/0269229 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 27-29, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 12 and 27-28.
Ishida et al. further teach Claim 12, wherein said temperature-sensitive component (temperature sensors 3, [0039], Fig 9; “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). Claim 27, 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 28, 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]). 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 12 and 27-28; 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.
Claim 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. applied above, further in view of Groll (US 2002/0040905 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 29.
Groll further teaches a temperature-sensitive component (a cooking utensil 10, [0019], Fig 1) and Claim 29, wherein the temperature-sensitive component comprises a cooking utensil having a non-stick coating applied at an inner surface of the cooking utensil (non-stick coating 24 of PTFE or a vapor deposited layer of a ceramic nitride such as titanium nitride or zirconium is applied to inner cook surface 25 of inner layer 26, [0021], Fig 3). 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 Groll’s further teaching of Claim 29; because Groll teaches, in Para. [0030] of providing an excellent protective layer on the temperature-sensitive component- a cooking utensil so that improved non-stick characteristic for the resulting cooking utensil.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The updated prior art been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding Independent claim 9,
namely “Mc Williams as modified by Park still fails to disclose or suggest that its
temperature-protect mode in paragraph [0039] adjusts power based on a threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature-sensitive component (i.e., cooking utensil 8) on top of the cooktop surface 4, as recited in independent claim 9. Although Mc Williams teaches that the temperature-protect mode uses a predetermined temperature threshold that "prevent[s] thermal damage to the cooking plate 4 and/or the electric heater 12" (see paragraph [0037]), Mc Williams is silent regarding the predetermined temperature threshold being one that will not damage the temperature-sensitive component (i.e., cooking utensil 8) on top of the cooktop surface 4. Moreover, none of the additional cited references
addresses this deficiency of Mc Williams as modified by Park”, and “independent claim 9 is a method claim and therefore the Office action's arguments regarding the functional aspects of apparatus claims cannot be used to reject claim 9. Rather, to properly reject independent claim 9, the Office must address every functional aspect of the claim and establish that each functional aspect is disclosed or rendered obvious by the cited art. Moreover, the mere assertion that Mc Williams discloses general structure of the claim 9 (e.g., a cooktop surface 4, a temperature-sensitive component 8, a heating element 20, a temperature sensor 30, 42, and a controller 26) does not mean that its temperature-protect mode will inherently adjust power based on a threshold temperature having been predetermined to be one that will not damage said temperature-sensitive component (i.e., cooking utensil 8)”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. teach exactly the amended claim 9: a method for operating a cooking appliance having a cooktop surface configured for supporting a temperature-sensitive component on top of the cooktop surface, a heating element disposed beneath the cooktop surface, a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the cooking appliance, and a controller configured to control operation of the cooking appliance, in this office action as shown above. 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.
The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding Independent claim 23,
namely “Mc Williams as modified by Park still fails to disclose or suggest that its controller 26 has a memory that stores a plurality of threshold temperatures, wherein each threshold temperature has been predetermined to be one that will not damage an associated temperature-sensitive component of a plurality of temperature-sensitive components”, “McWilliams as modified by the additional cited references certainly fails to disclose or suggest that its controller 22 is configured to select a threshold temperature from such a plurality of threshold temperatures, wherein the selected threshold temperature is specific to a temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop. Indeed, none of the cited references discloses or suggests a controller that select a threshold temperature from such a plurality of threshold temperatures, wherein the selected threshold temperature is specific to a temperature-sensitive component”, “the claimed memory and its stored plurality of threshold temperatures are structural features (i.e., not functional features), and therefore the Office action's arguments regarding functional features of apparatus claims cannot be used to reject those structural features. Rather, to properly reject these features of independent claim 23, the Office must properly”, and “although it has been held that "a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim" (see §MPEP 2114(11), quoting Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), independent claim 23 is not simply reciting a manner in which the cooking appliance is intended to be employed (i.e., used). Rather, as noted above, the context of claim 1 expressly states that the "controller in said temperature-protect mode [is] configured to ... select a threshold temperature from the plurality of threshold temperatures that is specific to the temperature-sensitive component on top of the surface of the cooktop." Thus, claim 1 is not merely reciting how the cooking appliance is intended to be used, but rather is reciting how the controller is actually configured (i.e., structured) to operate”
The examiner’s response: The combination of McWilliams et al. in view of Park et al. teach exactly a cooking appliance in this office action as shown above. Since the combination of prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112). 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 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