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 .
The status of the 12/22/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 9-12, and 14 have been amended; Claims 1-8, and 15-17 have been canceled; and Claims 9-14, and 18-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saksena (US 20080006261)
Regarding Claim 9, Saksena discloses a steam cooking system (steam cooker 10; fig. 1), comprising:
a steam cooking chamber (cooking chamber 14; fig. 1);
a steam generator (steam generator 12) plumbed to deliver steam to the steam cooking chamber (para. 0019), the steam generator (steam generator 12) including:
a tank structure (enclosure enclosing the heating chamber 18) providing a heating chamber (heating chamber 18) for holding water (para. 0019);
a heater (burner unit 26 and heat exchanger 22) associated with the tank structure for heating water within the heating chamber so as to generate steam (steam) (para. 0020-0021);
at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46; fig. 3) associated with the tank structure (“water level probes 42, 44 and 46 for monitoring the water level within the cavity 38”, para. 0023);
a fill line (inlet 28) for selectively adding water to the tank structure (para. 0032);
a controller (controller 100) configured to control the heater (burner unit 26) and the fill line (inlet 28) (para. 0032), wherein the controller is configured to control a power level of the heater (burner unit 26) based at least in part upon a water level in the tank structure as indicated by the at least one water level sensor (para. 0032 and para. 0030) (it is noted the controller controls the burner unit 26 between ON (i.e. operating power of the burner) when the water level at level E1 and above and OFF (i.e. power level 0) when the water level falls below E1), so as to increase steam generator temperature based upon a near low water level indication (near level E2) provided by the at least one water level sensor (probe 44) and prior to controlling the fill line to add water (para. 0032. It is noted when water level is approaching level E2, the burner unit 26 is operating at its operating power level to increase temperature of liquid. When the water level falls to between level E1 and E2, water add through the inlet 28 is initiated. Therefore, near level E2 the burner 26 is operating its operating power level to increase water temperature prior to the water add when the water level falls below E2)
Regarding Claim 18, Saksena discloses the steam cooking system (steam cooker 10; fig. 1), wherein the steam cooking system further includes a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 50) associated with the steam generator, wherein the controller (controller 100) is configured to control a power level of the heater (between ON and OFF) based upon both (i) a temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (para. 0033) and (ii) the water level indicated by the at least one water level sensor (probes 42, 44, 46) (para. 0030 and 0032; fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saksena (US 20080006261) in view of Gaspard (US 20160187027)
Regarding Claim 10, Saksena discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein:
the fill line (inlet 28) includes a water fill valve (“valve (not shown) is opened and closed to control water flow into the heating chamber,”, para. 0021);
the controller (controller 100) is configured such that, when the at least one water level sensor (probe 44) indicates that a water level in the tank structure has fallen to a low limit level (level E2; fig. 3), the power level of the heater (burner unit 26) is increased (“ON” operation) and, thereafter, the water fill valve (valve of the inlet 28) is opened to add water to the tank structure (chamber 18) (para. 0032. When the water falls below E2, i.e. between E1 and E2, the water add is introduced through the inlet 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saksena does not disclose:
the controller is configured such that when the at least one water level sensor indicates that the water level in the tank structure has fallen to the low limit level, the power level of the heater is increased without reaching a full power level associated with the heater and, thereafter, the water fill valve is opened to add water to the tank structure and the power level of the heater is increased to the full power level.
However, Gaspard discloses a water heater (title) comprising
the controller (controller) is configured such that it operates the heater at a reduced power level during a test phase at t.sub.0 to determine the temperature behavior of the tank 2, thus the water level in the tank 2 is determined. After it determines there is a water fill occurring at t.sub.2 due to the temperature drop of the tank, the controller operates another test phase at t3 and thereafter the heater at a full power level (para. 0051, 0053, and 0056-0061).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Saksena to operates the heater at a reduced power level than its full operating power when the water level has fallen to level E2 because the water in the tank is getting low and to operate the heater at its full operating capacity after adding water to the tank as taught by Gaspard. Doing so would prevent overheating of the tank which can give rise to damage to the heater that can incur high replacement cost (para. 0056 of Gaspard), when there is not enough water in the tank i.e. when water level has fallen to level E2.
Regarding Claim 12, Saksena discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein:
the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) is configured for indicating a low limit level of water in the tank (level E1) and for indicating an intermediate level of water (level E2) in the tank that is between the low limit level of water in the tank and a high limit level of water (level E3) in the tank (fig. 3);
the fill line (inlet 28) includes a fill valve (valve) (para. 0021);
the controller (controller 100) is configured such that, when the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) indicates that a water level in the tank has fallen to the intermediate level (level E2), the power level of the heater is increased (“ON” operation) (para. 0032-0033, 0030. It is noted when water level falls to the level E2, the burner unit 26 operates at its operating power level to maintain temperature at desired temperature); and
after the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) indicates that the water level in the tank has fallen to the low limit level (level E1), the water fill valve (valve) is opened to add water to the tank (para. 0032) (it is noted when water level falls below level E2, the controller 100 opens the valve to add water through the inlet).
Saksena does not disclose:
the controller is configured such that, when the at least one water level sensor indicates that a water level in the tank has fallen to the intermediate level, the power level of the heater is increased without reaching a full power level associated with the heater; and
after the at least one level sensor indicates that the water level in the tank has fallen to the low limit level, the water fill valve is opened to add water to the tank and the power level of the heater is increased to the full power level.
However, Gaspard discloses a water heater (title) comprising
the controller (controller) is configured such that it operates the heater at a reduced power level during a test phase at t.sub.0 to determine the temperature behavior of the tank 2, thus the water level in the tank 2 is determined. After it determines there is a water fill occurring at t.sub.2 due to the temperature drop of the tank, the controller operates another test phase at t3 and thereafter the heater at a full power level (para. 0051, 0053, and 0056-0061).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Saksena to operates the heater at a reduced power level than its full operating power when the water level has fallen to the intermediate level i.e. at level E2 and to configure the controller of Saksena such that after the water level has fallen to the low limit level i.e. at E1 level, the water fill valve is opened and to operate the heater at its full operating power level as taught by Gaspard. Doing so would prevent overheating of the tank which can give rise to damage to the heater that can incur high replacement cost (para. 0056 of Gaspard). When water has fallen to level E2, the controller would operate the heater as reduced power to prevent overheating because water in the tank is getting low. When water has fallen to level E1, the water inlet valve is open to let in fresh water and the heater would operate at its full operating capacity to quickly heat the water. When water has fallen below level E1, the heater is shut off (para. 0032 of Saksena).
Regarding Claim 13, Saksena discloses the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) comprises a first level sensor (probe 42) for indicating the low limit level (level E1) and a second level sensor (probe 44) for indicating the intermediate level (level E2) (para. 0028).
Regarding Claim 19, Saksena discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the controller (controller 100) is configured to control the power level of the heater (burner 26. It is noted the burner 26 is controlled to turn “ON”) based upon the temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 50) so as to maintain the temperature at a preset temperature level (threshold value) (para. 0032-0033), until the water level indicated by the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) reaches a threshold low level (level E2).
Saksena does not disclose when the water level reaches the threshold low level, the controller begins to increase the power level of the heater, without regard to the preset temperature level, while maintaining the power level below a full power level of the heater.
However, Gaspard discloses a water heater (title) comprising
the controller (controller) is configured such that it operates the heater at a reduced power level during a test phase at t.sub.0 to determine the temperature behavior of the tank 2, thus the water level in the tank 2 is determined.
PNG
media_image3.png
535
876
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Saksena to operates the heater at a reduced power level than its full operating power when the water level has fallen to level E2, at which point the water in the tank is getting low, as taught by Gaspard. Doing so would prevent overheating of the tank which can give rise to damage to the heater that can incur high replacement cost (para. 0056 of Gaspard), when there is not enough water in the tank i.e. when water level has fallen to level E2.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Saksena (US 20080006261) and Gaspard (US 20160187027) as applied to claims 10 and 12 respectively above, further in view of Cupp (US 20160157657)
Regarding Claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the controller is configured such that the power level of the heater is gradually increased before the water valve is opened.
However, Cupp discloses the controller (controller 100) is configured such that the power level of the heater is gradually increased (increasing the operating power level of the heating unit 24) (para. 0020). In other words, Cupp discloses the controller operates to increase the power level of the heater to achieve the desired temperature of the steam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Saksena in view of Gaspard to gradually increase the power level of the heater to achieve desired temperature as taught by Cupp, in order to reduce energy consumption (para. 0020 of Cupp). The modification would result in the controller (controller 100 Saksena) is configured such that the power level of the heater (burner 26 of Saksena) is gradually increased before the water valve (valve of Saksena) is opened.
PNG
media_image4.png
535
876
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the controller is configured such that the power level of the heater is gradually increased until the at least one water level sensor indicates the water level in the tank structure has fallen to the low limit level.
However, Cupp discloses the controller (controller 100) is configured such that the power level of the heater is gradually increased (increasing the operating power level of the heating unit 24) (para. 0020). In other words, Cupp discloses the controller operates to increase the power level of the heater to achieve the desired temperature of the steam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Saksena in view of Gaspard to gradually increase the power level of the heater to achieve desired temperature as taught by Cupp, in order to reduce energy consumption (para. 0020 of Cupp). The modification would result in the controller (controller 100 Saksena) is configured such that the power level of the heater (burner 26 of Saksena) is gradually increased until the at least one water level sensor (water level probes 42, 44, 46) indicates the water level in the tank structure has fallen to the low limit level (level E1) (it noted the power level of the heater gradually increases when water level is between E1 and E2. When water level below E1, the burner 26 is shut off).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Saksena (US 20080006261) and Gaspard (US 20160187027) as applied to claim 19, further in view of Junge (US 20140169774)
Regarding Claim 20, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the preset temperature level is a temperature range.
However, Junge discloses a heating element operates to maintain water in a heated chamber at a predetermined temperature or within a predetermined range of temperatures (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preset temperature level of Saksena in view of Sturm to include temperature range as taught by Junge, in order to apply known technique to a known device, to ensure the temperature of the water is maintained at the desired range.
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendments made to the claims, therefore claim objections are withdrawn.
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendment made to claim 12, therefore 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 9, on p. 5 of the Remarks “However, this argument is conclusory. A clear reading of paragraph 0032 of Saksena is that the
water level probes are only used to control when to add water. The only mention of the heater
in paragraph 0032 is the last sentence, stating that "[i]f the current water level falls below tip 96
of the water level probe 42, the controller determines that the water level is below the MINIMUM water level and can shut down various components of the steam cooker 10 such as
the burner 26 (FIG. 1 )." Therefore, the only time water level impacts heating is when the water
level falls below a minimum level, in which case heating is shut down, by shutting down the burner. This described operation is the opposite of increasing temperature as required by claim 9.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because when the burner is turned, the burner operates at a power level i.e. operating power of the burner. Para. 0032 of Saksena states that when water level is at and above the tip 96 of the probe 42, the burner is turned on, operating at its operating power level. When the water level is below the tip 96 of the probe 42, the burner is turned off. Therefore, the power level of the heater (either ON, or OFF) is based on the water level in the chamber.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571)270-5569. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights