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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 states “control knob (2) connected” which should read “control knob connected”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Businaro (US 2019/0271466 A1), hereinafter Businaro.
Regarding claim 1,
Businaro discloses:
A gas supply tap (Gas Device 200) comprising a control knob (Control Knob 17) connected to an operating stem (Stem 16) adapted to operate a valve or a shutter (Pilot Valve 3) for opening and closing the tap comprising a detecting device (Sensor 30) to detect the position of said knob (Control Knob 17), a component of said detecting device (Sensor 30) being translationally and rotationally integral with said operating stem (Stem 16) (Page 4, Paragraph 89).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Businaro (US 2019/0271466 A1), hereinafter Businaro, in view of Padilla (US 2013/0113465 A1), hereinafter Padilla.
Regarding claim 2,
Businaro disclose the gas supply tap of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Businaro does not disclose wherein said component is a magnet.
Padilla discloses wherein said component is a magnet (Magnet 32) (Figures 1 and 4 and Page 2, Paragraph 17).
Therefore, would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas supply tap of Businaro wherein said component is a magnet as taught by Padilla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification by Padilla’s teaching that magnets are a superior choice to provide controllable features as “prior attempts at combining typical electromechanical devices such as variable resistor type potentiometers and push button assemblies has resulted in complicated, expensive, and unreliable multiple function control knob assemblies” (Page 1, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 3,
Padilla and Businaro disclose the gas supply tap of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above). Padilla further discloses wherein said magnet (Magnet 32) is a permanent magnet (Magnet 32) (Figures 1 and 4 and Page 2, Paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 4,
Padilla and Businaro disclose the gas supply tap of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above). Padilla further discloses wherein said magnet (Magnet 32) is magnetized along only one direction, and is diametrically magnetized (Page 2, Paragraph 17).
While Padilla does not specifically state their magnet is magnetized along only one direction and is diametrically magnetized, Padilla discloses a neodymium magnet. Neodymium magnets are magnetized only in one direction and are diametrically magnetized.
Regarding claim 11,
Padilla and Businaro disclose the gas supply tap of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above). Padilla further discloses wherein said magnet (Magnet 32) is magnetized along only one direction, and is diametrically magnetized (Page 2, Paragraph 17).
While Padilla does not specifically state their magnet is magnetized along only one direction and is diametrically magnetized, Padilla discloses a neodymium magnet. Neodymium magnets are magnetized only in one direction and are diametrically magnetized.
Claim(s) 5-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Businaro in view of Padilla and further in view of Laessler (US 2018/0106393 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Padilla and Businaro disclose the gas supply tap of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but do not disclose wherein said detecting device comprises a magnetic field sensor adapted to monitor the magnetic field variation caused by the movement of said magnet.
Laessler discloses wherein said detecting device comprises a magnetic field sensor adapted to monitor the magnetic field variation caused by the movement of said magnet (Page 2, Paragraph 12 and Page 4, Paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas supply tap of Padilla and Businaro wherein said detecting device comprises a magnetic field sensor adapted to monitor the magnetic field variation caused by the movement of said magnet as taught by Laessler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification by Laessler’s teaching that a self-operated regulator also known as a controller “brings about a significant reduction in the risk of explosion…[and] requires no external auxiliary power supply [and] the operating costs and the installation costs are low” (Page 1, Paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6,
Padilla, Businaro, and Laessler disclose the gas supply tap of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Padilla further discloses wherein said magnetic field sensor is a Hall-effect sensor (Hall Effect Sensor 30) (Page 2, Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 7,
Padilla, Businaro, and Laessler disclose the gas supply tap of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Padilla further discloses wherein said magnetic field sensor (Hall Effect Sensor 30) is a three-dimensional magnetic field sensor (Hall Effect Sensor 30) (Page 2, Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 8,
Padilla, Businaro, and Laessler disclose the gas supply tap of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Padilla further discloses wherein the magnetic field sensor (Hall Effect Sensor 30) is configured to detect the position of the magnet (Magnet 32) at one or more intermediate positions between the ends of the stem travel in both axial and rotational directions (Page 1, Paragraph 3 and Page 2, Paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 9,
Padilla, Businaro, and Laessler disclose the gas supply tap of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Padilla further discloses wherein for at least part of the operating positions, there is a plane (P) perpendicular to the axis (A) of the stem (Control Rod 41) that crosses both the magnet (Permanent Magnet 47) and magnetic field sensor (Hall Sensor 55) (Figure 4). The marked up image below shows this in Padilla with the red line being plane P.
PNG
media_image1.png
757
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12,
Padilla, Businaro, and Laessler disclose the gas supply tap of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Laessler further discloses wherein for all the operating positions of the stem (Control Rod 41), there is a plane perpendicular to the axis of the stem (Control Rod 41) that crosses both the magnet (Permanent Magnet 47) and the magnetic field sensor (Hall Sensor 55). See marked up image above wherein the red dotted line is the plane.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Businaro in view of Padilla and further in view of Rasi (US 2020/0072462 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Businaro discloses the gas supply tap of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not disclose wherein a cooktop for food comprising an atmospheric gas burner is fed by said tap.
Rasi discloses a cooktop (Gas Burner Arrangement 1) for food comprising an atmospheric gas burner (Gas Burner 2 and Gas Burner Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) fed by a tap (Gas Tap 3) (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas supply tap of Padilla and Businaro wherein a cooktop for food comprising an atmospheric gas burner is fed by said tap as taught by Rasi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification by Businaro’s teaching of “a control system for controlling the pilot flame of a combustible gas device” and understanding one common type of combustible gas device is a cooktop (Page 1, Paragraph 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cimino (US 2010/0282325 A1) discloses a gas supply system with Hall effect. Harris (US 5,234,196) discloses a gas tap to control a burner with valves. Colston (US 2021/0196078 A1) discloses a grill device with an ash-collection container. Moro (US 2015/0153048 A1) discloses a control device for gas appliances including gas taps. Ha (US 2018/0238522 A1) discloses a knob assembly for cook tops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICA FINNEY-LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve McAllister can be reached on (571) 272-6785. 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.
/FREDERICA V. FINNEY-LONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 05/29/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762