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 06/18/2026 presents claims 1-3, 8, and 10-17 as amended, and claim 9 as cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-18 remain.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are amended to require “a communication unit that is mounted at or integrated into a cooker hood, wherein the unit includes a receiver and transmitter configured to wireless communication” and that Vegoff “fails to disclose or suggest any communication unit that is mounted at or integrated into a cooker hood.” This is not found persuasive because, while independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are amended to require a communication unit that is mounted at or integrated into a cooker hood, such does not make a contribution over US2018/0224127 to Lambert that teaches a communication unit (34) mounted at or integrated into a cooker hood (20) or over US2018/0116437 to Armstrong that also teaches a communication unit (50) mounted at or integrated into a cooker hood (74). Accordingly, the technical feature now shared amongst the groups fails to make a contribution over the aforementioned references. As such, Groups I, II, and III lack unity of invention a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
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 “cooking process auxiliary means” (claim 1), “first transmitter” (claim 1), “signal reader” and “reader antenna” (claim 6), “power supply” (claim 7), and “mounting means” (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0041 states “Hob 12 comprises a receiver 28” which should state “Hob 10.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a cooking process auxiliary means during a cooking process performed by the cooking appliance” which should be amended to recite “the cooking process auxiliary means” as such means is initially set forth in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: "heating mechanism/element,” “controls,” and “control unit” in claims 1-11, as well as, “heating mechanism” and "control unit" in claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “mounting means for mounting the separate unit at the cooker hood” (claim 8) has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” coupled with functional language “…for mounting…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Term “mounting” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Para. 0023 discloses the mounting means including “a hook-and-loop fastener, an adhesive strip, or one or more lugs for screws”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1 recites, in part, a cooking appliance comprising a hob having a cooking surface including “a cooking area adapted to support one or more cooking utensils for cooking food therein” followed by “a sensor configured to sense a physical property of an item to be cooked or a cooking process auxiliary means during a cooking process performed by the cooking appliance.” With respect to “cooking process auxiliary means,” the instant specification, in paragraph 0009, states that such means “may be any type of cookware, for example a pot or a pan.” The specification also states that “[a]dditionally or alternatively, the cooking process auxiliary means may be a cooking aid like a cooking fluid.” However, claim 1 already recites one or more cooking utensils for cooking food therein. As such, it is unclear as to the intended meaning of “cooking processes auxiliary means.” For instance, it is unclear if the “one or more cooking utensils for cooking food therein” and the “cooking process auxiliary means” refer to the same structure or to separate structures.
Further regarding claim 1, the “for cooking food therein” followed by “an item to be cooked” creates confusion as to whether the sensor is sensing a physical property of the food within the one or more cooking utensils or to a different food being cooked.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “the cooking surface comprising a cooking area adapted to support one or more cooking utensils” followed by “a cooker hood for extracting cooking vapours from a cooking area” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if there is any physical distinction between the claimed “cooking areas” and, if so, what that distinction would be. For instance, is there two different cooking areas, such as a first cooking area defined by the cooking surface of the hob and a second cooking area above the cooking utensils placed on the first cooking surface? Or is the intention for the “cooking surface” to refer to the same surface?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armstrong (US20180116437).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong teaches system for recording a physical property of an item to be cooked or of a cooking process auxiliary means, the system (Fig. 5) comprising:
a cooking appliance (10) comprising a hob (cooktop 12) having a cooking surface (14), the cooking surface comprising a cooking area adapted to support one or more cooking utensils (cooking utensil 18) for cooking food therein,
a cooker hood (appliance hood 74) for extracting cooking vapours from a cooking area (para. 0036; “may include one or more blowers or fans (not pictured) to circulate air or remove heat and fumes,” which would remove fumes from an area above surface 14), the cooker hood (74) being located above the cooking appliance (10) (para. 0036; “appliance hood 74 may be provided to above a portion of range appliance 10. Specifically, appliance hood 74 may be disposed above the top panel 14, e.g., along the vertical direction V.”),
a sensor (surface acoustic wave temperature sensor 54) configured to sense a physical property (para. 0027; “configured to detect changes in temperature, e.g., through strain deformation induced by heat at SAW temperature sensor 54”) of an item to be cooked or of a cooking process auxiliary means during a cooking process performed by the cooking appliance (Fig. 5),
a first transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit a status signal freely through space, which status signal corresponds to the physical property of the item to be cooked or of the cooking process auxiliary means, wherein the first transmitter is connected to the sensor (See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0027, “SAW temperature sensor 54 is generally provided in operable communication with acoustic wave reader 52. For instance, a pair of coupled antennas 56, 58 may be provided. A sensor antenna 56 may be electrically coupled to SAW temperature sensor 54. A reader antenna 58 may be electrically coupled to acoustic wave reader 52. Together or in isolation, sensor antenna 56 and reader antenna 58 may permit or provide communication, e.g., wireless communication, between SAW temperature sensor 54 and acoustic wave reader 52.”), and
a separate unit (acoustic wave reader 52) that is independent from the cooking appliance (52 is a separate structure that is housed at/in the hood external to the cooking appliance 10) and mounted at or integrated into the cooker hood (74), wherein the separate unit comprises:
a first receiver (58) configured to receive the status signal transmitted by the first transmitter (para. 0027; 58 and 56 permit wireless communication between sensor 54 and reader 52, and
a second transmitter electrically connected to the first receiver, the second transmitter being configured to forward the status signal transmitted by the first transmitter or to transmit a processed signal generated by processing the status signal (para. 0037; “Controller 50 may be in operable communication with acoustic wave reader 52. Moreover, controller 50 may be mounted within appliance hood 74, e.g., within a microwave control panel. Controller 50 may be electrically coupled to acoustic wave reader 52 therein. During operation, controller 50 may receive one or more temperature signals from acoustic wave reader 52.”) [Here, the reader 52 and sensor 54 are in communication with each other via 56 and 58. Additionally, acoustic wave reader is in communication with controller 50 such that the signal received by the reader 52 from the sensor 54 is received by the controller. As such, the acoustic wave reader 52 necessarily has a transmitter that communicates with the controller in order for the controller to receive the signals from the reader. As 56 and 58 are only disclosed as providing communication between 52 and 54, those of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that acoustic wave reader has a transmitter in addition to 58 that communicates with the controller 50. See also paragraph 0025, which discloses controller 50 being in communication with one or more sensors or switches that transmit sensed values or discrete signals to the controller. See also para. 0036, which discloses “acoustic wave reader 52 may be electrically coupled controller 50 or wirelessly connected to controller 50 via a wireless communications network.”],
wherein the cooking appliance comprises a second receiver configured to receive the processed signal or the status signal transmitted by the second transmitter of the separate unit, the second receiver being electrically connected to a control unit of the cooking appliance (para. 0036; “acoustic wave reader 52 may be electrically coupled controller 50 or wirelessly connected to controller 50 via a wireless communications network”) (para. 0037; “During operation, controller 50 may receive one or more temperature signals from acoustic wave reader 52. In optional embodiments, controller 50 may be configured to control heating assembly 16 in response to the temperature signals received from acoustic wave reader 52. As an example, a threshold value or value range, such as a predetermined baseline temperature, may be provided in controller 50 (e.g., within one or more memory units). The received temperature signal(s) may be actively compared to a predetermined baseline temperature) (para. 0038; “ controller 50 will initiate an increased heat output at the heating assembly 16 (e.g., wattage to the heating assembly 16 may be increased). In additional or alternative embodiments, if it is determined that a received temperature signal is above the predetermined baseline temperature, controller 50 may automatically decrease the heat output of heating assembly 16. For example, controller 50 will initiate a decreased heat output at the heating assembly 16 (e.g., wattage to the heating assembly 16 may be decreased or ceased).”) [Based on the above, the controller 50 is in electrical communication with the acoustic wave reader 52 to receive signals therefrom. As such, the controller inherently has the necessary structure to receive such a signal. This “receiver” would necessarily be in electrical communication with the processing circuitry of the controller in order to receive the signal, compare the signal to a baseline, and control the heating assembly.].
Regarding claim 2, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second transmitter and the second receiver are wirelessly coupled, wherein the second transmitter is configured to wirelessly transmit the processed signal or the status signal to the second receiver at least partially freely through space (as detailed above in claim 1, see wireless communication network between reader 52 and controller 50).
Regarding claim 3, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensor (54) comprises a temperature sensor and/or a surface acoustic wave sensor (surface acoustic wave temperature sensor-para. 0027), and/or - is a battery operated device or a passive unit.
Regarding claim 6, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first receiver comprises a signal reader, which includes or is coupled with a reader antenna (antenna 58 is coupled to acoustic wave reader 52).
Regarding claim 7, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the separate unit (reader 52) is a stand-alone unit (reader 52 is a structure separate from the cooking appliance and the hood. As such, reader 52 amounts to a stand-alone unit) having a power supply (In order to function as disclosed in Armstrong, reader 52 inherently requires a power supply).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Jenkins (US20180310760)
Regarding claim 4, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except wherein the second transmitter is an infrared transmitter and the second receiver is an infrared receiver.
While Armstrong teaches the reader (52) being electrically coupled or wirelessly connected to the controller (52) via a wireless communications network (para. 0036), Armstrong does not explicitly disclose using an infrared transmitter and receiver to couple the reader and controller.
Jenkins relates to a control system for a cooking device (para. 0002 and Figures 1A/B) and teaches a controller having an interface (26) that “may be a transmitter, a receiver, and/or a transceiver” (para. 0049) and “represents any suitable device operable to receive information from network 42, transmit information through network 42, receive information from motion sensors 22, transmit information to motion sensors 22, perform processing of information, communicate to other devices, or any combination of the preceding” (para. 0049). Jenkins teaches that preferable examples of network communication include “a WPAN (which may include, for example, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low power, Bluetooth 5, ANT+, Zigbee (IEEE 802.15.4), other IEEE 802.15 protocols, IEEE 802.11 A, B or G without limitation, and Wi-FI (IEEE 802.11)), a cellular communication network, an infrared communication network, any other wireless network operable to facilitate communication between the components, or any combination of the preceding” (para. 0068).
Accordingly, Jenkins teaches that it is known in the art to use infrared communication network as a viable means to wireless connect various cooking components together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armstrong with Jenkins, by substituting the wired or wireless connection between the reader and controller of Armstrong, with the infrared communication taught by Jenkins, for in doing so would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized communication means performing the same function of communicatively coupling electronic components and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Nivala (US20180351232)
Regarding claim 5, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except for wherein the separate unit comprises an amplifier for amplifying signals received from the sensor.
Nivala relates to cooking appliances (Fig. 1) and is concerned with wirelessly communicating temperature of a food being cooked to a remote device (para. 0002).
Nivala teaches using a wireless signal repeater (310) that includes an exterior antenna (314) and is configured to receive and transmit a wireless signal from a wireless food thermometer inside to cooking chamber (202) to a remote device (10) outside of the cooking appliance (200) (para. 0028). [In this case, repeater 310 is considered analogous to the reader of Armstrong that functions to send temperature information to the controller].
Nivala, additionally, teaches that the repeater (310) “can include a battery for storing an electrical charge, and an amplifier for amplifying the signal to be wirelessly retransmitted” (para. 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armstrong with Nivala, by adding to the reader of Armstrong, with the amplifier taught by Nivala, for in doing so would allow for the signal to be amplified (para. 0032 of Nivala) which would provide a stronger wireless signal to the controller at a farther distance from the cooking appliance, thereby allowing for the controller to be placed further away from the appliance if so desired (para. 0033 of Nivala).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Nivala (US20180351232)
Regarding claim 8, Armstrong teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for explicitly wherein the separate unit comprises a housing with mounting means for mounting the separate unit at the cooker hood.
While Armstrong illustrates the reader (52) and associated receiver/transmitter at a high level of generality (see Figs. 3 and 5), it is clear that the reader includes a housing of some kind.
Further, with respect to Fig. 5 and paragraph 0036, Armstrong discloses that the reader “is mounted to appliance hood 74.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it reasonable to conclude that, based on the direction of Armstrong, the reader includes a housing sufficient to allow for mounting to the appliance hood and that some form of mounting means is necessarily present in order for the reader to be mounted. However, Nivala is cited to in order to establish a preponderance of evidence, as detailed below.
Nivala relates to cooking appliances (Fig. 1 and 5) and is concerned with wirelessly communicating temperature of a food being cooked to a remote device (para. 0002).
Nivala teaches using a wireless signal repeater (510) that includes an exterior antenna (514) and is configured to receive and transmit a wireless signal from a wireless food thermometer inside to cooking chamber to a remote device (10) outside of the cooking appliance (200) (para. 0028 and Fig. 3). [In this case, repeater 510 is considered analogous to the reader of Armstrong that functions to send temperature information to the controller].
Nivala, additionally, teaches that the repeater having a housing (as shown in Fig. 5A) and mounting means for mounting the repeater to the appliance (See Fig. 5A, a portion of the housing of repeater 510 is positioned within hole 206 of the appliance and attachment 526 and coupler 516 aid in mounting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armstrong with Nivala, by adding to the reader of Armstrong, with the housing and mounting means of Nivala, for in doing so would provide sufficient structure to mount the reader to the hood without interfering with the operation of the reader.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication 20060123913 to Marsh details use of surface acoustic wave sensing elements and wirelessly communicating sensed signals (See Fig. 5).
U.S. Patent 7048199 to Melink details a cooking control system for communicating various sensed signals to a controller (See Fig. 2).
U.S. Publication 2021/0180796 to Egenter details using a sensor system in communication with a controller in order to control the cooking device (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0036-0039).
U.S. Publication 2020/0041346 to Funk details using an infrared sensor to detect operation of the appliance and communicate such detection to a controller for controlling one or more components of the appliance (Abstract and Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights