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The amendment presents claims 1 and 2 as amended and claims 11-20 as withdrawn. Claims 1-10 remain pending examination.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office action on 01/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks do not clearly indicate support for the claim amendments. Rather, the accompanying remarks merely state that “[n]o new matter is believed to have been added.”
Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant traverses the Lee reference in that:
Independent claim 1 recites "the base includes a heater having a ceramic substrate composed of a sintered ceramic material." The Office Action states that support layer 100 of Lee constitutes the claimed "ceramic substrate." However, Lee does not teach a ceramic substrate "composed of a sintered ceramic material" as claimed. Rather, Lee expressly provides that support layer 100 is made of ceramic glass - specifically lithium aluminum silicate glass, a vitreous (glassy) material that is formed by a glass-melting and casting or rolling process rather than by sintering of ceramic powders. See Lee, paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0051] and [0052]. Sintered ceramics and ceramic glass are entirely different classes of materials that differ fundamentally in composition, structure, mechanical properties, thermal expansion characteristics, etc. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lee's ceramic glass support layer 100 is not a sintered ceramic material as expressly recited in amended claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches the claimed cooking device except for the ceramic material of the ceramic substrate being sintered (emphasis added).
The instant specification does not ascribe any special definition to “sintered.” As such, the plain and customary definition is “to cause to become a coherent mass by heating without melting.” (See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinter viewed on 04/29/2026). See also MPEP 2111.01.
Here, the ceramic substrate of Lee is a coherent mass made of ceramic. The remaining distinction is that Lee does not disclose that such ceramic material is heated without melting. However, this distinction refers to the manner of making the ceramic substrate, rather than any structural requirements of the substrate.
“[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.”
Figures 2-6 of the instant specification illustrate ceramic substrate 152 while paragraph 0030 of the published application states:
Heater 150 includes substrate 152 constructed from ceramic or the like, such as aluminum oxide (e.g., commercially available 96% aluminum oxide ceramic). Hereinafter, substrate 152 is referred to as ceramic substrate 152. In some embodiments, heater 150 may include one or more layers of ceramic substrate 152. Where heater 150 includes a single layer of ceramic substrate 152, a thickness of ceramic substrate 152 may range from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, such as 1.0 mm. Where heater 150 includes multiple layers of ceramic substrate 152, each layer may have a thickness ranging from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, such as 0.635 mm. In the embodiment illustrated, ceramic substrate 152 is octagonal in shape having an incircle diameter d of about 147 mm. However, ceramic substrate 152 may take other suitable shapes depending on the application, such as, for example, circular, hexagonal, square, etc. In general, the octagonal shape illustrated is easier to reliably manufacture on a commercial basis than, for example, a circular shape.
Here, the specification describes the substrate 152 being constructed from ceramic or the like and gives an example material (i.e., aluminum oxide). The claim’s scope is not limited to aluminum oxide. Additionally, the specification makes no mention as to what structural or physical characteristics would be imparted by a ceramic material being sintered. As such, it would be reasonable to conclude that “sintered,” within the given context, is used, not to structurally limit the ceramic material, but to define the manner of making the ceramic substrate.
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case, Lee teaches a ceramic material that appears to be the same or similar to that of the claimed ceramic material. The only distinction being “sintered.” However, as explained above, the reliance of “sintered” merely provides a distinction as to the manner of making the ceramic substrate. Therefore, Lee is considered to anticipate claim 1 as “sintered” is given no patentable weight.
Additionally, based on the amendment to claim 1, an alternative rejection under 35 USC 103 is presented herein that explicitly details using sintered ceramic material.
Applicant further traverses the Lee reference in that:
Claim 1 further recites "a base having a top surface positioned to contact a cooking vessel configured to hold food during cooking" and "the electrically resistive trace is positioned on a top surface of the ceramic substrate that faces upward toward the top surface of the base." The Office Action states that Figure 2 of Lee discloses the claimed base and that the upper surface of insulating layer 300 as viewed in Figure 2 of Lee constitutes the claimed top surface of the base. However, Lee is directed entirely to a planar heating element using ceramic glass. Lee does not disclose or describe any base of a cooking device that is "positioned to contact a cooking vessel" as claimed. Lee's disclosure concerns the layered construction of the plane heating element itself(support layer 100, heat-generating layer 200, and insulating layer 300). The Office Action summarily concludes that "a cooking vessel containing food can be positioned in contact with the surface of 300" but fails to provide a citation in support of this assertion. Lee contains no description of insulating layer 300 contacting a cooking vessel. The broad characterization that insulating layer 300 of Lee could serve as a top surface of a base is not sufficient to support the present rejection. Further, Lee fails to teach that the surface of support layer 100 on which heat- generating layer 200 is positioned "faces upward toward the top surface of a base" which is "positioned to contact a cooking vessel" as claimed. Again, the Office Action's conclusion that the surface of support layer 100 on which heat-generating layer 200 is positioned faces toward the top surface of a base which is positioned to contact a cooking vessel is entirely speculative and insufficient to support the present rejection.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a cooking device comprising “a base having a top surface positioned to contact a cooking vessel configured to hold food during cooking.” The limitation of “to contact a cooking vessel configured to hold food during cooking” refers to the intended use of the base and top surface and does not impart any structural limitations. As previously explained, Lee teaches a base having a top surface, as claimed. This top surface has the necessary structure (i.e., a surface) that is structurally capable of contact a cooking vessel configured to hold food during cooking. The top surface is not claimed as having any specific structural arrangements. As such, the top surface of the base of Lee possesses all the claimed structural requirements necessary to perform the claimed function. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments fail to indicate any structural distinction between the claimed top surface and that of Lee that would suggest that Lee would be incapable of performing the function.
The Examiner maintains that Lee teaches the same structure and structural cooperative relationships claimed in claim 1. While Lee does not explicitly teach “positioned to contact a cooking vessel,” such difference does not impart a patentable distinction for the reasons detailed above.
For the reasons detailed herein, the Examiner maintains that the instant claims are anticipated by or rendered unpatentable over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify that the ceramic substrate is “composed of a sintered ceramic material.”
Figures 2-6 illustrate ceramic substrate 152 while paragraph 0030 of the published application states:
Heater 150 includes substrate 152 constructed from ceramic or the like, such as aluminum oxide (e.g., commercially available 96% aluminum oxide ceramic). Hereinafter, substrate 152 is referred to as ceramic substrate 152. In some embodiments, heater 150 may include one or more layers of ceramic substrate 152. Where heater 150 includes a single layer of ceramic substrate 152, a thickness of ceramic substrate 152 may range from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, such as 1.0 mm. Where heater 150 includes multiple layers of ceramic substrate 152, each layer may have a thickness ranging from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, such as 0.635 mm. In the embodiment illustrated, ceramic substrate 152 is octagonal in shape having an incircle diameter d of about 147 mm. However, ceramic substrate 152 may take other suitable shapes depending on the application, such as, for example, circular, hexagonal, square, etc. In general, the octagonal shape illustrated is easier to reliably manufacture on a commercial basis than, for example, a circular shape.
While the specification makes it clear that the ceramic substrate 152 is constructed from ceramic, such as aluminum oxide, or the like, the specification does not mentioned such material being sintered.
Rather, “sintered” only appears once in the specification, namely in paragraph 0043 which states “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 9A, the wick structure includes sintered or arc sprayed metal 135a, such as copper or aluminum, provided on inside surfaces 125a, 130a of inner and outer shells 125, 130.” In this case, such sintering is not disclosed as being related to the ceramic substrate 152.
With respect to the claimed heater (that includes the ceramic substrate) paragraph 0038 of the specification states:
Heater 150 may be constructed by way of thick film printing. For example, in one embodiment, resistive trace 160 is printed on fired (not green state) ceramic substrate 152, which includes selectively applying a paste containing resistor material to top surface 152a of ceramic substrate 152 through a patterned mesh screen with a squeegee or the like. The printed resistor is then allowed to settle on ceramic substrate 152 at room temperature. The ceramic substrate 152 having the printed resistor is then heated at, for example, approximately 140-160 degrees Celsius for a total of approximately 30 minutes, including approximately 10-15 mins at peak temperature and the remaining time ramping up to and down from the peak temperature, in order to dry the resistor paste and to temporarily fix resistive trace 160 in position. The ceramic substrate 152 having temporary resistive trace 160 is then heated at, for example, approximately 850 degrees Celsius for a total of approximately one hour, including approximately 10 minutes at peak temperature and the remaining time ramping up to and down from the peak temperature, in order to permanently fix resistive trace 160 in position. Conductive traces 162a, 162b are then printed on top surface 152a of ceramic substrate 152, which includes selectively applying a paste containing conductor material in the same manner as the resistor material. The ceramic substrate 152 having the printed resistor and conductor is then allowed to settle, dried and fired in the same manner as discussed above with respective to resistive trace 160 in order to permanently fix conductive traces 162a, 162b in position. Glass layer(s) 156 on top surface 152a are then printed in substantially the same manner as the resistors and conductors, including allowing the glass layer(s) 156 to settle as well as drying and firing the glass layer(s) 156. In one embodiment, glass layer(s) 156 are fired at a peak temperature of approximately 810 degrees Celsius, slightly lower than the resistors and conductors. Conductive traces 172a, 172b for thermistor 170 are printed on bottom surface 152b of ceramic substrate 152 in substantially the same manner as conductive traces 162a, 162b, and glass layer(s) 159 are printed on bottom surface 152b of ceramic substrate 152 in substantially the same manner as glass layer(s) 156. Thermistor 170 is then mounted to ceramic substrate 152 in a finishing operation with the terminals of thermistor 170 directly welded to conductive traces 172a, 172b.
Here, the specification makes mention of printing, firing, and drying resistive trace 160 onto ceramic substrate 152. However, there is no mention of the ceramic substrate being sintered.
Accordingly, the originally filed specification fails to sufficiently describe the amended claim language of the ceramic substrate being composed of a sintered ceramic material. Therefore, the amendment introduces new matter.
Claims 2-10 inherit the above deficiency.
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 100) composed of a ceramic material (para. 0023; ceramic glass) 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).
Lee teaches the claimed cooking device except for the ceramic material of the ceramic substrate being sintered.
The instant specification does not ascribe any special definition to “sintered.” As such, the plain and customary definition is “to cause to become a coherent mass by heating without melting.” (See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinter viewed on 04/29/2026). See also MPEP 2111.01.
Here, the ceramic substrate of Lee is a coherent mass made of ceramic. The remaining distinction is that Lee does not disclose that such ceramic material is heated without melting. However, this distinction refers to the manner of making the ceramic substrate, rather than any structural requirements of the substrate.
“[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.”
Figures 2-6 of the instant specification illustrate ceramic substrate 152 while paragraph 0030 of the published application states:
Heater 150 includes substrate 152 constructed from ceramic or the like, such as aluminum oxide (e.g., commercially available 96% aluminum oxide ceramic). Hereinafter, substrate 152 is referred to as ceramic substrate 152. In some embodiments, heater 150 may include one or more layers of ceramic substrate 152. Where heater 150 includes a single layer of ceramic substrate 152, a thickness of ceramic substrate 152 may range from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, such as 1.0 mm. Where heater 150 includes multiple layers of ceramic substrate 152, each layer may have a thickness ranging from, for example, 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm, such as 0.635 mm. In the embodiment illustrated, ceramic substrate 152 is octagonal in shape having an incircle diameter d of about 147 mm. However, ceramic substrate 152 may take other suitable shapes depending on the application, such as, for example, circular, hexagonal, square, etc. In general, the octagonal shape illustrated is easier to reliably manufacture on a commercial basis than, for example, a circular shape.
Here, the specification describes the substrate 152 being constructed from ceramic or the like and gives an example material (i.e., aluminum oxide). The claim’s scope is not limited to aluminum oxide. Additionally, the specification makes no mention as to what structural or physical characteristics would be imparted by a ceramic material being sintered. As such, it would be reasonable to conclude that “sintered,” within the given context, is used, not to structurally limit the ceramic material, but to define the manner of making the ceramic substrate.
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this case, Lee teaches a ceramic material that appears to be the same or similar to that of the claimed ceramic material. The only distinction being “sintered.” However, as explained above, the reliance of “sintered” merely provides a distinction as to the manner of making the ceramic substrate. Therefore, Lee is considered to anticipate claim 1 as “sintered” is given no patentable weight.
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 sintered ceramic material 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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US2013/0175257) in view of Morassut (US2015/0230295).
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 100) composed of a ceramic material (para. 0023; ceramic glass) 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).
Lee teaches the claimed cooking device except for the ceramic material of the ceramic substrate being sintered.
Morassut relates to cooking devices (Abstract; para. 0001; and Figures 1-2) and the cooking device having a base that includes a heater having a ceramic substrate composed of a sintered ceramic material (ceramic heating plates 4 and 10 that are sintered ceramic materials including aluminum oxide, paragraphs 0019, 0020, and 0033.).
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 Morassut, by substituting the ceramic material of Lee, with that of Morassut, for in doing so amounts to no more than the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., a heater). See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally, using the sintered ceramic material (i.e., sintered aluminum oxide of Morassut) would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized ceramic materials performing the same function of functioning as a heating plate and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Lee] wherein the electrically resistive trace includes an electrical resistor material thick film printed on the sintered ceramic material 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, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Lee] 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, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches [Lee] wherein the serpentine pattern of the electrically resistive trace has a generally circular outer perimeter (See Fig. 1 showing a circular outer perimeter).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Aritaki (US2017/0013676) or, alternatively, over Lee in view of Morassut and Aritaki.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee (or Lee as modified by Morassut) 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 (or Lee, as modified by Morassut, 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) or, alternatively, over Lee in view of Morassut and Hurko.
Regarding claims 5-6, Lee (or Lee as modified by Morassut) 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 (or Lee, as modified by Morassut, 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) or, alternatively, over Lee in view of Morassut and Takai.
Regarding claims 7-8, Lee (or Lee, as modified by Morassut) 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 (or Lee, as modified by Morassut, 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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