DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 August 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for Claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 13 have voided interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The Claim interpretation section has been removed in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 20 August 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 2 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, and 16-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending claim 1 to recite: “…the temperature magnitude to a total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit; and the computer-implemented method further comprising generating, when…”
Recommend amending claim 13 to recite: “…the temperature magnitude to a total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit; and the controller further configured to reduce or terminate an energy input…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne (US-4740664-A) in view of Lee et al. (US-20080237215-A1) and Li et al. (CN-109699098-B, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Payne teaches a computer-implemented method (microprocessor 40, fig. 7; similarly, para 0027 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses using a microprocessor as the controller) for controlling a heating assembly (heating units 14a-14d, fig. 7; “open coil electric resistive heater or gas burner,” column 1, lines 15-17) of a cooktop appliance (“glass-ceramic cooktop appliance,” abstract), the method comprising:
detecting a temperature drop (“rate of change is to be updated,” column 16, lines 44-45; in block 168, temperature measurements are made; a temperature drop is not explicitly disclosed) during an observation period (block 168, fig. 10; “approximately eight seconds,” column 16, line 54);
a wait period (two second intervals, step 164, fig. 10);
obtaining a rolling difference (“rate of change of temperature, TMPSLP,” column 16, line 15; a “drop” is not explicitly disclosed) in temperature during a calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10);
determining, from the rolling difference in temperature (block 170 in fig. 10 is input into fig. 11), whether cookware is removed based on a comparison (step 186, fig. 11) of a quantity of differences (Payne teaches calculating a difference of GLSTMP4 and GLSMPT0, which is construed as a quantity; Payne teaches four time temperatures, fig. 11; similarly, fig. 4 on the Instant Application teaches a rolling difference of four temperatures) above (“YES” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “YES” branch is one if “YES” is determined or zero if “NO” is determined) a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15; “NOLDSLP,” fig. 11) to a quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (“NO” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “NO” branch is zero if “YES” is determined or one if “NO” is determined) wherein determining whether cookware is removed (step 186, fig. 11) comprises determining that cookware is removed by comparing the rolling temperature differences (“TMPSLP,” fig. 11) to the temperature magnitude (“NOLDSLP,” fig. 11); and
generating, when determining cookware is removed, a signal (step 188 if “YES” after step 186, fig. 11) corresponding to decreasing (power level is decreased by 1 in step 188, fig. 11) or terminating an energy input to the heating assembly (not explicitly disclosed).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a temperature drop of a threshold magnitude; allowing for temperature decrease during a wait period; evaluating whether a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit.
Payne, figs. 10-11
PNG
media_image1.png
554
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
748
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Lee teaches a temperature drop (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080) of a threshold magnitude (difference between Y1 and Y2, figs. 8 and 11); allowing for temperature decrease during a wait period (temperature decreases between Z1 and Z2, figs. 8 and 11).
Lee, figs. 8 and 11
PNG
media_image3.png
558
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
591
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Lee, by reverting back and forth between a temperature Y2 and Y1, as taught by Lee, during the rate calculation routine, as taught by Payne in fig. 10, in order to determine whether a load is present or absent on the ceramic plate by using an on/off sequence for the heat source based on the detected temperature, because the temperature change rate of the ceramic plate can be used to determined whether or not a cooking container is placed on the heating cooking apparatus, for the advantage of preventing the ceramic plate from overheating (Lee, para 0004; in Lee, fig. 8 shows no cooking container, and fig. 11 shows that a cooking container is present; similar to what Payne teaches, fig. 8 of Lee shows a faster rate of temperature change for the no-load condition than fig. 11 of Lee, which shows the presence of a container because there is a slow rate of change).
Payne/Lee do not explicitly disclose evaluating whether a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Li teaches evaluating whether a ratio (“m out of n absolute values,” para 0012) of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude (“m” are the measuring points that are “greater than a preset threshold” that are determined “based on the temperature change rate,” paras 0020-0021) to the total number of differences (“n” is the total number of measuring points, para 0020; e.g., there n=3 in fig. 2) exceeds a ratio limit (“when m out of n absolute values are greater than a preset threshold… it is determined that the cookware has shifted,” para 0012).
Li, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
530
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Li, by using the change of temperature algorithm, as taught by Payne in figs. 10-11, for multiple measuring points, as taught by Li, in order to determine whether the cookware has shifted, because if the cookware has shifted, then uneven heating of a pot may occur (Li, para 0005).
Regarding claim 3, Payne teaches determining whether cookware is removed (step 186, fig. 11) comprises: tabulating each difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) between a current temperature (“most recent temperature measurement,” column 16, line 52) and a previous temperature (“oldest stored temperature,” column 16, line 52) over a rolling basis through a fourth period of time (block 168, fig. 10); and comparing (step 174, fig. 11) the current temperature to a temperature threshold (“480° C,” column 17, line 21).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Payne in view of Lee and Li as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Payne teaches obtaining a first rolling difference in temperature (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) over a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; construed as a time period of eight seconds). Additionally, Lee teaches wherein detecting the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude during the observation period (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080; construed as starting at time Z1, figs. 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 5, Payne teaches wherein the observation period (block 168, fig. 10) comprises a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; construed as a time period of eight seconds) forming a rolling time window (block 168, fig. 10) during which the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude is detected (TMPGLS is calculated based on GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Payne teaches wherein the waiting period (step 164, fig. 10) comprises idling for a second period of time (two seconds, column 16, line 42) following detection of the temperature drop exceeding the threshold magnitude (step 170, fig. 10; flow repeats itself; construed such that step 164 can follow step 170); and obtaining temperature signals during a third period of time following the second period of time (“GLSTMP1 -> GLSTMP2,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Payne teaches the method comprising: generating a first timestamp (GLSTMP4, fig. 10; “the oldest stored temperature measurement GLSTMP4 is approximately eight seconds,” column 16, lines 53-54; a temperature measurement based on time is construed as a timestamp) corresponding to when the temperature drop exceeds the threshold magnitude (“GLSTMP3 -> GLSTMP4,” fig. 10); and generating a second timestamp (GLSTMP1, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the third period of time (“GLSTMP1 -> GLSTMP2,” fig. 10; “the previous reading is stored as GLSTMP1,” column 16, lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 8, Payne teaches the method comprising: determining (step 186, fig. 11) a temperature decrease (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) greater than a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) between the second timestamp (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and the first timestamp (GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Payne teaches the method comprising: generating a third timestamp (“GLSTMP0,” fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of a fourth period of time (duration of step 170, fig. 10), wherein the fourth period of time corresponds to the calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Payne teaches wherein obtaining the rolling difference in temperature during the calculation period (duration of block 170, fig. 10) comprises a difference (step 170, fig. 10) between a current temperature (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10) at a predetermined amount of time before the current temperature (“eight seconds,” column 16, line 54).
Regarding claim 11, Payne teaches wherein an initial current temperature (“the current value of GLSTMP is stored as GLSTMPO,” column 16, lines 45-46) corresponds substantially to the third timestamp (“GLSTMP0,” fig. 10) and an initial previous temperature (GSLTMP 1 takes place before GLSTMP0, fig. 10) corresponds substantially to the second timestamp (“GLSTMP1,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Payne teaches a cooktop appliance (“glass-ceramic cooktop appliance,” abstract), comprising:
a heating assembly (heating units 14a-14d, fig. 7) comprising an electric resistance heating element (“open coil electric resistive heater or gas burner,” column 1, lines 15-17); and
a controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) comprising a processor (a microprocess is construed as being a processor; similarly, para 0027 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses using a microprocessor as the controller) and a memory (“memory,” column 12, line 29) in operative communication with the heating assembly (fig. 7), the controller configured to:
detect a temperature drop (“rate of change is to be updated,” column 16, lines 44-45; in block 168, temperature measurements are made; a temperature drop is not explicitly disclosed) within a first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10; “approximately eight seconds,” column 16, line 54);
after a second period of time (step 164 fig. 10; construed as a time period of two seconds) from detection of the temperature drop of the threshold magnitude (step 164 takes place iteratively every two seconds after detection during steps 170 and 172, column 16, lines 42-43), obtain a temperature signal during a third period of time (“GLSTMP4 -> GLSTMP3,” fig. 10);
obtain a rolling difference (“rate of change of temperature, TMPSLP,” column 16, line 15) in temperature over a fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10; construed as a time period of two seconds) following the third period of time;
determine, from the rolling difference in temperature (block 170 in fig. 10 is input into fig. 11), whether cookware is removed based on a comparison (step 186, fig. 11) of a quantity of differences (Payne teaches calculating a difference of GLSTMP4 and GLSMPT0, which is construed as a quantity; Payne teaches four time temperatures, fig. 11; similarly, fig. 4 on the Instant Application teaches a rolling difference of four temperatures) above (“YES” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “YES” branch is one if “YES” is determined or zero if “NO” is determined) a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15; “NOLDSLP,” fig. 11) to a quantity of differences below the temperature magnitude (“NO” after step 186, fig. 11; the quantity in the “NO” branch is zero if “YES” is determined or one if “NO” is determined), wherein determining whether cookware is removed (step 186, fig. 11) comprises determining that cookware is removed by:
comparing the rolling temperature differences (“TMPSLP,” fig. 11) to the temperature magnitude (“NOLDSLP,” fig. 11); and
reduce or terminate an energy input to the heating assembly when determining based on whether cookware is determined to be removed (step 188 if “YES” after step 186, fig. 11; reduces the power level by 1; terminating the energy input is not explicitly disclosed).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a temperature drop of a threshold magnitude; evaluating whether a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Lee teaches a temperature drop (temperature drop from Y1 to Y2, figs. 8 and 11; “change of a temperature detected,” para 0080) of a threshold magnitude (difference between Y1 and Y2, figs. 8 and 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Lee, by reverting back and forth between a temperature Y2 and Y1, as taught by Lee, during the rate calculation routine, as taught by Payne in fig. 10, in order to determine whether a load is present or absent on the ceramic plate by using an on/off sequence for the heat source based on the detected temperature, because the temperature change rate of the ceramic plate can be used to determined whether or not a cooking container is placed on the heating cooking apparatus, for the advantage of preventing the ceramic plate from overheating (Lee, para 0004; in Lee, fig. 8 shows no cooking container, and fig. 11 shows that a cooking container is present; similar to what Payne teaches, fig. 8 of Lee shows a faster rate of temperature change for the no-load condition than fig. 11 of Lee, which shows the presence of a container because there is a slow rate of change).
Payne/Lee do not explicitly disclose evaluating whether a ratio of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude to the total number of differences exceeds a ratio limit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling heating for cooktop appliances, Li teaches evaluating whether a ratio (“m out of n absolute values,” para 0012) of the quantity of differences above the temperature magnitude (“m” are the measuring points that are “greater than a preset threshold” that are determined “based on the temperature change rate,” paras 0020-0021) to the total number of differences (“n” is the total number of measuring points, para 0020; e.g., there n=3 in fig. 2) exceeds a ratio limit (“when m out of n absolute values are greater than a preset threshold… it is determined that the cookware has shifted,” para 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Payne, in view of the teachings of Li, by using the change of temperature algorithm, as taught by Payne in figs. 10-11, for multiple measuring points, as taught by Li, in order to determine whether the cookware has shifted, because if the cookware has shifted, then uneven heating of a pot may occur (Li, para 0005).
Regarding claim 16, Payne teaches wherein determining whether cookware is removed comprises: tabulating each difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) between a current temperature (GLSTMP0, fig. 10) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10) over a rolling basis (the calculations in block 168, fig. 10, is construed as tabulating over or a rolling basis) through the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10; difference calculation is based on GLSTMP0); and comparing (step 174, fig. 11) the current temperature to a temperature threshold (“480° C,” column 17, line 21).
Regarding claim 17, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: obtain a first rolling difference (“GLSTMP0- GLSTMP4,” fig. 10) in temperature over the first period of time (time period between GLSTMP0 and GLSTMP4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: generate a first timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) corresponding to when the temperature drop exceeds the threshold magnitude (step 186, fig. 11); generate a second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the third period of time (“GLSTMP4 -> GLSTMP3,” fig. 10); and generate a third timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) corresponding to initialization of the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: determine a temperature decrease (TMPLP, fig. 10; “The rate of change of temperature, TMPSLP, is calculated as the difference between the most recent measurement and the oldest stored measurement,” column 16, lines 55-57) greater than a temperature magnitude (“0.4° C/sec,” column 17, lines 13-15) between the second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10) and the first timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Payne teaches the controller (microprocessor 40, fig. 7) configured to: obtain the rolling difference in temperature during the fourth period of time (“GLSTMP0 -> GLSTMP1,” fig. 10) comprising a difference between a current temperature (“the current value of GLSTMP is stored as GLSTMPO,” column 16, lines 45-46) and a previous temperature (GLSTMP4, fig. 10), wherein an initial current temperature corresponds substantially to the third timestamp (GSLTMP0, fig. 10) and an initial previous temperature corresponds substantially to the second timestamp (GSLTMP4, fig. 10).
Response to Argument
Applicant' s arguments filed 20 August 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Payne combined with Lee and Li.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights