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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US2013/0175257).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a cooking device (Title; plane heating element) (see also para. 0055 which details supporting cookware), comprising:
a base (Fig. 2( having a top surface (upper surface of 300) positioned to contact a cooking vessel configured to hold food during cooking (a cooking vessel containing food can be positioned in contact with the surface of 300); and
the base includes a heater having a ceramic substrate (ceramic support layer 200) and an electrically resistive trace (heat generating layer 200) on an exterior surface of the ceramic substrate (para. 0023; layer 200 is printed on an upper surface of layer 100), the heater is positioned to supply heat generated by applying an electric current to the electrically resistive trace (para. 0023-0024; heat is generating by supplying power to layer 200) to the top surface of the base for heating the cooking vessel to heat food in the cooking vessel,
wherein the electrically resistive trace is positioned on a top surface of the ceramic substrate that faces upward toward the top surface of the base (upper surface of 100; See Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrically resistive trace includes an electrical resistor material thick film printed on the exterior surface of the ceramic substrate (para. 0023; printing heat-generating paste) (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the electrically resistive trace extends in a serpentine pattern across the exterior surface of the ceramic substrate (see Fig. 1 showing a winding, sinuous pattern).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the serpentine pattern of the electrically resistive trace has a generally circular outer perimeter (See Fig. 1 showing a circular outer perimeter).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Aritaki (US2017/0013676).
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the heater includes a thermistor that is positioned on the ceramic substrate and in electrical communication with control circuitry of the heater for providing feedback regarding a temperature of the heater to the control circuitry of the heater (claim 3) and wherein the thermistor is positioned on a bottom surface of the ceramic substrate that faces away from the top surface of the base (claim 4).
Aritaki relates to an electric heater having an elongated heating resistor layer (para. 0002) and teaches the resistive layer (Fig. 1) (21/22) formed on an upper surface of a ceramic substrate (1; para. 0075).
Aritaki teaches using a thermistor (5) that is positioned on the ceramic substrate (1) and in electrical communication with control circuitry of the heater for providing feedback regarding a temperature of the heater to the control circuitry of the heater (para. 0092; detecting temperature of the heater when activated. The power to be supplied to the heater is controlled according to the detection result of the thermistor) and wherein the thermistor (5) is positioned on a bottom surface of the ceramic substrate that faces away from the top surface of the base (Fig. 1; thermistor 5 is placed on bottom surface of ceramic substrate 1, opposite to the heating layer 21/22, and facing away from top surface of 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Aritaki, by adding to the bottom surface of the ceramic substrate and to the heating layer of Lee, with the thermistor taught by Aritaki, for in doing so would provide a means for controlling the temperature of the heating layer, which would allow for the overheating to be prevented.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hurko (US 3971361).
Regarding claims 5-6, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the base includes a heating plate that forms the top surface of the base, the heating plate is positioned in contact with the heater to transfer heat from the heater to the top surface of the base for heating the cooking vessel to heat food in the cooking vessel (claim 5) and wherein the heating plate includes a domed top surface for contacting a concave bottom surface of the cooking vessel (claim 6).
Hurko relates to a cooking device (Abstract; Fig. 1) which includes a film resistive heater (38) Hurko teaches a heating plate (taken generally as plate 30 where the resistive heater is formed on the bottom surface thereof) that forms the top surface (top surface 32) of the base, the heating plate is positioned in contact with the heater (38) to transfer heat (3:23-37) to the top surface (32) of the base for heating the cooking vessel (10) to heat food in the cooking vessel and wherein the heating plate includes a domed top surface for contacting a concave bottom surface of the cooking vessel (3:54-68; “It is well to provide some means for reinforcing this composite plate 32 so that when it is heated it will not tend to buckle or warp. This need is satisfied by forming the composite plate 32 into a slight convex formation as shown in FIG. 1, on the order of 0.050 of an inch. This curvature is advantageous for another reason in that it tends to cooperate with the flexible nature of the bottom wall 18 of the cooking utensil 10 such that when the utensil is furnished with the food or liquids 45 to be cooked as seen in FIG. 2 the added weight of the utensil causes the flexible bottom wall 18 to flex and conform to the curvature of the top surface of the composite plate 32 of the surface heating unit 30 so as to obtain a maximum thermal coupling action between the heating unit 30 and the cooking utensil 10.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Hurko, by adding to the base and heater of Lee, with the heating plate taught by Hurko, for in doing so would provide a means for distributing heat generated rapidly over the entire surface to obtain uniform temperature distribution (3:23-37). Additionally, having an upper surface of the heating plate being domed allows for reinforcing which would reduce buckling or warping during heating, as well as, cooperating with the bottom wall of the cooking vessel (3:54-68).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takai (US2008/0083733).
Regarding claims 7-8, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the ceramic substrate has a polygonal shape (claim 7) and wherein the ceramic substrate has an octagonal shape (claim 8).
Takai relates to an electric heater in which a resistive heater (40) is arranged on the surface of a substrate (11). Takai teaches that the substrate (11) has an octagonal shape (Fig. 1 and para. 0028)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee with Takai, by modifying the shape of the ceramic substrate of Lee, being circular, with the octagonal shape taught by Takai, for in doing so would amount to the mere change in shape from one geometric shape to another which would be a matter of choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 4763099 to Balderson teaches a base (Fig. 2) including a resistive track (3) formed on an outer surface of a ceramic substrate (2). Figure 1 shows the resistive track formed in a serpentine manner with a circular outer perimeter.
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. 1:00-9:00 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