DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/790968, filed on 07/06/2022, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/126558, filed on November 4, 2020, which claims benefit of Chinese patent application Serial No. CN201921977234.6 entitled "a modular multifunctional electronic teppanyaki" filed with the Chinese Patent Office on November 15, 2019.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 11/15/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of CN201921977234.6 application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites an extra “.” In line 2 as shown in the screenshot below:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites an extra space at the end as shown in the screenshot below:
PNG
media_image2.png
37
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). The specification describes Fig. 1 to 7. However, drawing submitted on 07/06/2022 has Fig. 1-3 only. Fig. 4-7 are missing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 contains the trademark/trade name Teflon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe surface treatment layer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almolda et al., EP 2658341 (hereafter Almolda) , and further in view of Dickens et al., US5227597 (hereafter Dickens).
Regarding claim 1,
“A modular multifunctional electronic griddle including a top panel, an inner panel, and electronic components arranged from top to bottom;.” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
PNG
media_image3.png
627
897
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Almolda
“the electronic griddle includes an outer frame” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
“ and a plurality of induction coils arranged in the outer frame,” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
… “the length and width of the top panel are both greater than the length and width of a mounting recess into which the griddle is mountable;” (The claim is interpreted as the griddle is mountable. Fig. 1 teaches griddle is mounted on a worktop.
Furthermore, the limitation “mounting recess” is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 teaches “The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).”)
“an upper part is divided into a plurality of independent heating spaces and an operation area by a partition;” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
“the heating space is configured to allow a plurality of heating panels to be placed thereon,” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
“and each heating panel is arranged corresponding to one of the induction coils,” (Fig. 1 in Almolda)
“and is configured to interact with the induction coils to produce an electromagnetic heating effect.” (Page 10, paragraph [18] in Almolda teaches “ it is also conceivable for a hob to have a classic heating zone level with in particular four independently operable heating zones. The induction heating units 40a comprise in each case elongate inductor coils (not illustrated) for generating a high-frequency alternating magnetic field.”)
Almolda is silent about “each induction coil is configured to independently generate heat,”.
Dickens teaches “each induction coil is configured to independently generate heat,”. Dickens teaches “The system comprises a stand 2 for supporting three induction coils 4 which are identical in construction. The stand has a grease trap 6 along its front horizontal surface and has controls 8 (one for each coil 4) on the front vertical surface” in column 3, lines 40-45. It is understood that each knob enables corresponding coil to generate heat independently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control each coil by a respective knob as taught in Dickens in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the control makes full power available to the coil if a griddle plate is present” as taught in column 9, lines 30-35 in Dickens.)
Regarding claim 2,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of heating panels has a different material from the rest of the heating panels.”(Almolda is silent about this limitation.
Dickens teaches “Griddle plates of different Curie temperatures can be used concurrently. Thus, a griddle can include areas having several different, closely-controlled temperatures” in column 3, lines 63-66. It is implied that griddle plates with different curie temperatures are formed of different materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the heating panels with different materials as taught in Dickens in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “by covering different regions of a griddle plate with different high .mu. materials, one plate can provide multiple temperatures. Thus, with only a few griddle plates, many different cooking temperatures can be provided” as taught in column 4, lines 1-5 in Dickens.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of heating panels are respectively made of different materials.” (Almolda is silent about this limitation.
Dickens teaches “Griddle plates of different Curie temperatures can be used concurrently. Thus, a griddle can include areas having several different, closely-controlled temperatures” in column 3, lines 63-66. It is implied that griddle plates with different curie temperatures are formed of different materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the heating panels with different materials as taught in Dickens in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “by covering different regions of a griddle plate with different high .mu. materials, one plate can provide multiple temperatures. Thus, with only a few griddle plates, many different cooking temperatures can be provided” as taught in column 4, lines 1-5 in Dickens.)
Regarding claim 5,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the top panel is flush with the upper surfaces of the plurality of heating panels and the partition.” (Fig. 2 in Almolda)
PNG
media_image4.png
504
744
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Almolda
Regarding claim 7,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the outer frame of the electronic component is to be embedded in the mounting recess so that the outer frame just fits with mounting recess.” (The claim is interpreted as the outer frame is mountable. Fig. 1 in Almolda teaches the outer frame is mounted on a worktop.
Furthermore, the limitation “mounting recess” is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 teaches “The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).”)
Regarding claim 8,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the inner panel is a heat insulation panel.” (Page 10, paragraph [18] in Almolda teaches cover plate 14a is made of glass ceramic. It is inherent that glass ceramic is heat insulating.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 8, wherein the heat insulation panel is made of a material that is non-ferromagnetic and has a heat insulation effect.” (Page 10, paragraph [18] in Almolda teaches cover plate 14a is made of glass ceramic. It is inherent that glass ceramic is heat insulating. It is implied that the glass ceramic is not ferro-magnetic.)
Regarding claim 10,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of heating panels is a ferromagnetic material layer.” (Page 11, paragraph [21] in Almolda teaches “The plate unit 23a consequently consists of a ferromagnetic and thus inductively heatable material.”
Regarding claim 11,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein at least one heating panel of the plurality of heating panels includes a top-down heating surface and a composite layer of magnetic material layer.” (Page 11, paragraph [21] in Almolda teaches “The plate unit 23 of the hob plate unit 20 is made of iron. The plate unit 23a consequently consists of a ferromagnetic and thus inductively heatable material.” Paragraph [21] further teaches “The plate unit 23 is provided in particular in the inner region for a direct placement of food to be cooked for cooking purposes”.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 11, wherein the heating surface layer is a ceramic material layer or an aluminum layer.” (Paragraph [8], page 6 in Almolda teaches “the hob plate unit and in particular the plate unit of the hob plate unit is provided in this case for the placement of cookware for cooking purposes and preferably has a correspondingly high strength and/or hardness in order to at least largely avoid scratch marks and/or damage to the hob plate unit and in particular to its plate unit due to cookware, in particular metallic cookware. Preferably, the material is a glass ceramic.”)
Regarding claim 13,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of heating panels includes a top-down surface treatment layer” (Paragraph [8], page 6 in Almolda teaches “the hob plate unit and in particular the plate unit of the hob plate unit is provided in this case for the placement of cookware for cooking purposes and preferably has a correspondingly high strength and/or hardness in order to at least largely avoid scratch marks and/or damage to the hob plate unit and in particular to its plate unit due to cookware, in particular metallic cookware. Preferably, the material is a glass ceramic.”)
“ and a composite layer of ferromagnetic material layer.” (Paragraph [9], page 7 in Almolda teaches “the hob plate unit consists at least partially and preferably at least substantially of an inductively heatable material.” Paragraph [9] further teaches “The inductively heatable material is preferably an electrically conductive and preferably ferromagnetic material, in particular a metal and preferably iron or an iron alloy, preferably a steel.”
Regarding claim 16,
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein there are 4 heating panels and 4 induction coils respectively.” (Page 10, paragraph [18] in Almolda teaches “ it is also conceivable for a hob to have a classic heating zone level with in particular four independently operable heating zones. The induction heating units 40a comprise in each case elongate inductor coils (not illustrated) for generating a high-frequency alternating magnetic field.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almolda and Dickens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eberhardt, DE10120500 (hereafter Eberhardt).
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the length and width of each heating panel gradually decreases from top to bottom along the thickness direction of the heating panel.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Eberhardt teaches induction grill plate 12 having bent-up edge in page 9, paragraph 1 of the attached machine translation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the heating panels with bent-up edge as taught in Eberhardt in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve contact heat transfer to a container as taught in page 9, paragraph [34] in Eberhardt.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almolda and Dickens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Storiz et al., US 20100199857 (hereafter Storiz).
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein the partition is made of heat insulating material.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Storiz teaches slot 26 between heating panels as partition in Fig. 4. Paragraph [30] teaches “the interior space defined by each opening or slot 26 is preferably filled with a thermally insulative material 30 to further prevent both conductive and convective heat transfer (FIGS. 4 and 9).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add partition made of heat insulating material as taught in Storiz in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to further prevent both conductive and convective heat transfer (FIGS. 4 and 9)” as taught in paragraph [30] in Storiz.)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almolda and Dickens as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Cheng, US 20170245677 (hereafter Cheng).
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 13, wherein the surface treatment layer is a Teflon non-stick treatment layer or a porcelain treatment layer.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Cheng teaches “cookware articles may be outfitted with what is often referred to as “nonstick” or “easy release” cooking surfaces. These surfaces typically include coated metal surfaces including fluorocarbons, such as PTFE; vitreous enamel; silicones; and ceramics” in paragraph [3]. It is inherent that Teflon is a type of PTFE.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the PTFE layer as taught in Cheng in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Some foods tend to stick to cookware surfaces. This tendency is particularly common with heated cookware surfaces when preparing such foods. To combat this tendency, cookware articles may be outfitted with what is often referred to as “nonstick” or “easy release” cooking surfaces” as taught in paragraph [3] in Cheng.)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almolda and Dickens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Downham, GB 2483232 (hereafter Downham).
“The modular multifunctional electronic griddle according to claim 1, wherein at least one heating panel of the plurality of heating panels is an insulating layer.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Downham teaches in abstract “A removable washable induction stovetop cover comprises a laminated sheet 5 with a layer 7 of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and a layer 8 of silicone. In some embodiments the sheet comprises an intermediate layer 6 of an electrically-insulating material e.g. a flexible glass fibre fabric (2, fig 1), or a rigid glass, ceramic or glass-ceramic material 6 at least 3mm thick.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the insulated stove top cover as taught in Downham in the griddle of Almolda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide a “removable induction stovetop cover for protecting the stovetop from spills and scratching” as taught in page 1, lines 12-15 in attached foreign patent of Downham.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761