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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 126 (fig. 4), 178 (fig. 10), 180 (fig. 10).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “450” has been used to designate both two different parts in fig. 23B.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power circuit and control circuit of claims 1, 26, and 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because figs. 4, 29, and 35 include text that is too small and unclear to read.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 89 of the submitted specification, “up and down arrows 80” should be “up and down arrows 84.”
In ¶ 96 of the submitted specification, “up and down arrows 80” should be “up and down arrows 84.”
In ¶ 118 of the submitted specification, “low temperature threshold 166” should be “low temperature threshold 164.”
In ¶ 134 of the submitted specification, “base unit 338” should be “base unit 336.”
In ¶ 151 of the submitted specification, “probe unit 396” should be “probe unit 376.”
Applicant duplicates the incorporation of 63/084,826 in ¶ 237. The Office recommends merging this paragraph with ¶ 1.
The use of the terms “Bluetooth,” “Wi-Fi,” “Li-Fi,” and “Calrod,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The active element in claims 1, 26, and 31 (“e.g., a heating element, electric motor, controller, etc.”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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)(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 1, 9–12, 15, 23, 26, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minvielle et al. (US Pub. 2017/0332676).
Claim 1: Minvielle discloses an electrical appliance (clear from at least ¶¶ 4 and 12), comprising:
a controller (¶ 76, “conditioner control system”; 1115; see also ¶ 132) operatively connected to a power circuit (clearly evident from ¶ 12), a control circuit (¶132, “circuitry,” “circuit”), a power source (¶ 12), a sensor (1120) for sensing a parameter level (¶ 104, “temperature”), and an active element (e.g. “bake element,” ¶ 62); and
the controller configured to receive an input of the parameter level from the sensor (¶ 104) and to output a duty cycle for controlling a power level of the active element via the control circuit at various times (¶ 98, “pulse width modulation,” which necessitates a duty cycle) to achieve a target set point of the parameter (claim 5, “target temperature”), the duty cycle based on proportional and integral control (see at least ¶¶ 76 and 86–88; 1550, 1570),
wherein the controller uses the proportional control and the integral control when the control circuit is energized (¶ 76, “the conditioner control system proportionally decreases the power of each heating element by proportionally reducing the time each heating element is on”), and accumulates integral error only when a parameter process variable sensed by the sensor is determined to be within an interval of the target set point (¶ 88, “an anti-reset-windup 1590 control may inhibit the integral control 1570 until the measured temperature 1510 is within the proportional band 1550 to reduce overshoot on start-up,” where the proportional band 1550 is defined by the target temperature 900).
Claim 9: Minvielle discloses that the integral error is calculated based on a parameter level reading at the sensor (measured temperature 1510), the target set point (offset 1560 determined by the measured temperature 1510 compared to the target temperature 900), and a time interval (¶ 87, “integral time”).
Claim 10: Minvielle discloses a switching device operatively connected to the controller and the active element, such that a signal received by the controller selectively powers the active element (¶ 76, “the conditioner control system proportionally decreases the power of each heating element by proportionally reducing the time each heating element is on”; see ¶ 98 mentioning switching with the pulse width modulation, and explaining how the pulse width modulation is facilitated by solid state relays that rely on signals).
Claim 11: Minvielle discloses that the switching device is a relay (¶ 98, “solid state relays”).
Claim 12: Minvielle discloses that the target set point of the parameter is set by a user (¶ 6, “set point temperature prescribed by the user”; although this passage discusses the prior art, the overall disclosure makes clear that the invention does not innovate on this point, and it carries over to the disclosed invention as practiced).
Claim 15: Minvielle discloses that the active element is an electrically powered heating element (evident from “watts” in relating to the heating elements (including the bake element) in ¶ 62).
Claim 23: Minvielle discloses that the duty cycle is further based on derivative control (1530, see ¶ 85).
Claim 26: Minvielle discloses a controller (¶ 76, “conditioner control system”; 1115; see also ¶ 132) for use with an electrical appliance (clear from at least ¶¶ 4 and 12), comprising:
a processor (¶ 132, “control system,” “processor”) operatively connected to a memory (¶ 135, “memory”);
the controller operatively connected to a power circuit (clearly evident from ¶ 12), a control circuit (¶ 132, “circuitry,” “circuit”), a power source (¶ 12), a sensor (1120) for sensing a parameter level (¶ 104, “temperature”), and an active element (e.g. “bake element,” ¶ 62); and
the controller configured to receive an input of the parameter level from the sensor (¶ 104) and to output a control signal for controlling a power level of the active element at various times via the control circuit (¶ 98, “pulse width modulation”) to achieve a target set point of the parameter (claim 5, “target temperature”), the control signal output based on proportional and integral control (see at least ¶¶ 76 and 86–88; 1550, 1570);
wherein the controller uses the proportional control and the integral control when the control circuit is powered on (¶ 76), and accumulates integral error only when a process variable sensed by the sensor is determined to be within an interval of the target set point (¶ 88, “an anti-reset-windup 1590 control may inhibit the integral control 1570 until the measured temperature 1510 is within the proportional band 1550 to reduce overshoot on start-up,” where the proportional band 1550 is defined by the target temperature 900).
Claim 31: Minvielle discloses an electrical heating appliance (clear from at least ¶¶ 4 and 12), comprising:
a controller (¶ 76, “conditioner control system”; 1115; see also ¶ 132) operatively connected to a power circuit (clearly evident from ¶ 12), a control circuit (¶ 132, “circuitry,” “circuit”), a power source (¶ 12), a sensor (1120) for sensing a parameter level (¶ 104, “temperature”), and an active element (e.g. “bake element,” ¶ 62); and
the controller configured to receive an input of the temperature level from the sensor (¶ 104) and to output a control signal for controlling a power level of the heating element at various times via the control circuit (¶ 98, “pulse width modulation”) to achieve a target set point of the temperature (claim 5, “target temperature”), the control signal output based on proportional and integral control (see at least ¶¶ 76 and 86–88; 1150, 1570),
wherein the controller uses the proportional control and the integral control when the control circuit is powered on (¶ 76), and accumulates integral error only when a temperature process variable sensed by the sensor is determined to be within an interval of the target set point temperature (¶ 88, “an anti-reset-windup 1590 control may inhibit the integral control 1570 until the measured temperature 1510 is within the proportional band 1550 to reduce overshoot on start-up,” where the proportional band 1550 is defined by the target temperature 900).
Claim 32: Minvielle discloses that the control signal output comprises a duty cycle, a voltage level, or a pulse-width modulation signal (¶ 98 explains the pulse-width modulation signal).
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 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hornung (US Pat. 4,035,787).
Minvielle discloses that the sensor is a thermistor (¶ 76, “thermistor”).
Minvielle does not disclose that the sensor is a probe comprising a negative thermal coefficient thermistor.
However, Hornung discloses a similar system with a probe (18) comprising a negative thermal coefficient thermistor (90).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the thermistor of Minvielle as the negative thermal coefficient thermistor probe taught by Hornung as a known and effective means of determining an internal food temperature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pouchak et al. (US Pub. 2005/0230491).
Minvielle does not disclose that the controller sets a power level of the active element using the reading of the parameter at the sensor using a lookup table.
However, Pouchak discloses a system that involves temperature control, including proportional and integral error (see ¶ 26), and also discloses setting a temperature-related element (bypass valve 208) using a sensed temperature 200 and a lookup table 202 (see ¶ 38, which also mentions that this may include calculating an integral error on the bypass temperature).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the lookup table taught by Pouchak as a known means of designing a conversion of a sensed temperature (in consideration of a set point temperature) to a temperature adjustment output (i.e. in Minvielle, a power level) using a predetermined or calculated integral error depending on the sensed temperature.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ceste, Sr. (US Pat. 4,812,625).
Minvielle does not disclose that the controller is further configured to relate the input of the parameter level from the sensor and to the target set point of the parameter using a predefined offset equation.
However, Ceste discloses a similar cooking apparatus, wherein a controller (10; 73, 74) is configured to relate an input of a parameter level from a sensor and to a target set point of the parameter using a predefined offset equation (col. 9, ll. 52–64 explains that the measured temperature is given an offset of +5 °F to account for a predicted temperature variation between where the temperature probe is and where the desired cooking temperature is supposed to be controlled).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement an offset equation, like that taught by Ceste, into the controller of Minvielle to account for a difference in measured and effectively desired control temperatures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Minvielle discloses that the interval is defined as the proportional band 1550. This band is defined primarily by the target temperature (around which the band is set) and a preset size depending on the conditioning element (see ¶ 81). Minvielle also discloses that “the integral control 1570 may adjust the proportional band 1550 up or down depending on the offset 1560” (¶ 87). Minvielle also discloses that its derivative control 1530 may adjust the proportional band based on the rate of temperature increase (see ¶ 85). Overall, Minvielle does not disclose or suggest that the interval would be defined by at least all of a proportional constant, an integral constant, and an integral error.
Byrne (US Pub. 2015/0185712) is highly relevant prior art and is very similar to Minvielle. Byrne discloses a simple interval defined by a preprogrammed proportional band.
Atwood et al. (US Pub. 2002/0072112, see ¶ 1093) and Hayes (US Pat. 3,938,017, see col. 3, ll. 16–21) also disclose systems that restricts integral error accumulation to an interval (see ¶ 1093).
Claims 3–8 all depend from claim 2.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 all provide mathematical equations in written form. These claims are not perfectly clear because the mathematical order operations is not apparent based on the claims themselves. However, the equations and their order of operations are fully understandable in light of the disclosure, and the claims are found definite under § 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761