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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has been used to designate two different types of food monitoring sensors in figs. 4A and 4B. It appears that 5 is used to refer to an infrared sensor or camera in figs. 2 and 3, as well as the same in figs. 4A and 5A, but 5 also seems to refer to a temperature probe in figs. 4A and 4B, where different elements should have different reference characters (37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4)).
The drawings are objected to because any reference numeral (3, 4, and 13 in Figure5B for example) that does not include a lead line and is placed on the structure it represents must be underlined. See 37CFR1.84(q).
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 actuating level adjusting devices of claim 11, as well as the parallel fixed-pitch electrovalves of claim 14, the gas supply pressure sensor, the atmospheric pressure sensor, the environmental humidity sensor, and the room temperature sensor of claim 15, the different cooking zones being spaced apart in a vertical direction of claim 17, the auxiliary assembly and releasable connections of claims 18 and 19, and the electric battery of claim 20 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should begin by reciting “A food cooking unit,” and because it recites “said” twice. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, line 15, of the submitted specification, “memories” should be “memory.”
Page 1, line 18, of the submitted specification recites “in this memory,” the meaning of which is unclear, particularly as it does not seem to refer to the “memory” associated with the “microcontroller” mentioned immediately above.
The last full paragraph on page 4 begins with “can be” (including the lowercase with “can”). The passage is ungrammatical.
On page 5, line 3, of the submitted specification, “thermocouple colds down” should be “thermocouple cools down.”
The use of the terms “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth,” 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.
On page 8, line 22, of the submitted specification, “of may identify” should be “or may identify.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should begin by reciting “A food cooking unit.”
Claim 1 recites “the at least one regulation electrovalve” on each of lines 19 and 20, but each of these should recite “the at least one regulating electrovalve” to conform with the initial presentation of the limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the food monitoring system,” which should be “the food monitoring sensor” to comport with the presentation of the limitation in claim 1.
In claim 4 on line 8, “imaged” should be “images.”
In claim 6 on line 2, “system” should be “sensor.”
Claims 13 and 14 each recite “regulation electrovalve” at least once, each of which should instead recite “regulating electrovalve.”
Claim 15 is replete with the mention of the reference character “(7)” attributed to the electronic control device. While reference characters in parentheses are permitted in the claims, here, it seems an obvious error to include this once since it is the only one in the entire claims, and it should be struck at least for stylistic conformity and to avoid any confusion.
Claim 15, line 3, should be amended to recite “a gas supply pressure sensor.” Additionally, the language right after of “a gas feeding the cooking unit” is grammatically poor and should be improved.
Claim 15, line 6, should be amended to recite “an atmospheric pressure sensor.”
Claim 15, line 9, should be amended to recite “an environmental humidity sensor.”
Claim 15, line 12, should be amended to recite “a room temperature sensor.”
Claim 15 should be amended to end with a period.
Claim 16, line 1, should be amended to recite “the at least one cooking zone is.”
Claim 16 recite “defined by on top of” (l. 2), which is grammatically poor and should probably be amended to recite “defined by the tops of.”
Claim 18, line 3, recites “electronic control unit,” which should be “electronic control device” to comport with the initial presentation of the limitation in claim 1.
All remaining claims are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
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 actuating level adjusting devices in claim 11 (the disclosure explains that actuating means would actuate height legs or a cookware support; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “actuating means” from the disclosure to be a motor, or a hydraulic or pneumatic mechanism, or similar).
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).
Comment: Although the “electronic control device” of claim 1, and the “at least one vibrator device” of claim 12, are formulated as limitations to be interpreted under § 112(f), they are not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the first to be a computer, microprocessor, or the like, and the second to be a vibration motor or the like. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that “the electronic control device is configured to determine, from the information provided by the infrared sensor and/or by the camera.” Claim 5 depends from claim 4, which provides for “an infrared sensor,” “a camera,” and/or “a temperature probe.” The language in claim 5 excludes the temperature probe from its list, and therefore it’s unclear if the limitations of claim 5 can be ignored if the Office relies on prior art to show the temperature probe as one option for claim 4. Applicant may either amend the claim to add the temperature probe to the list (if this construction is supported by the original disclosure), or make clear at the start of the claim that the food monitoring system comprises the infrared sensor and/or the camera (thereby narrowing the options from claim 4).
Claim 7 provides for “different stored regulation programs.” However, claim 1 already provides for “different regulation programs.” The programs in each of these claims have some similarities and differences. Claim 7 is indefinite because it’s unclear if these programs are the same, or different.
Claim 9 recites “the data input,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it depends from claim 1, whereas antecedent basis for this limitation is provided in dependent claim 8.
In claim 11 on the last three lines, the language after “necessary manual adjustment” is duplicated from earlier in the claim and is introduced without proper grammar and punctuation. Claim 11 is also indefinite because it’s unclear if this language is meant to modify the limitations in the latter part of the claim about notifying a user.
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.
Comment: Because claim 1 requires an ignition source electrovalve, the subject matter of which is not supported by the parent application 16/761,832, claim 1 does not benefit from the filing date of the parent application, and therefore has the actual filing date of this application 10 March 2023. Furthermore, the Luis Alonso reference was published more than one year before this effective filing date, rendering prior art under § 102(a)(1).
Claims 1 and 3–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luis Alonso et al. (US Pub. 2021/0199303) in view of Chen et al. (CN 112443862 A).
Claim 1: Luis Alonso discloses a food cooking unit (title) comprising:
at least one cooking zone (¶ 77, “cooking zone”) defined on top of at least one gas burner (set of gas burners 1) supplied with gas from at least one regulating electrovalve (3);
an ignition source (2) for each cooking zone, adjacent to the at least one gas burner of said cooking zone for ignition thereof (see 2 and 1 in fig. 1), each ignition source being supplied with gas (evident from ¶ 90);
a safety electrovalve (4) for each cooking zone connected to the correspondent at least one regulating electrovalve for regulation of the gas provided thereto;
at least one food monitoring sensor (infrared sensor 5) for each cooking zone configured to monitor a cooking process carried out on the cooking zone (see at least ¶ 84) and/or a weight sensor (“weight sensors,” see ¶¶ 113–115) for each cooking zone configured to detect weight variations on the cooking zone;
at least one thermocouple (6) for each cooking zone in thermal contact with flames that apply heat to the cooking zone to generate a signal, and in connection with the correspondent safety electrovalve, which is configured to interrupt the gas flow when the signal generated is interrupted (see ¶ 93);
an electronic control device (7) connected to the at least one regulating electrovalve (see ¶ 83 and fig. 1), to the at least one food monitoring sensor (see ¶ 85 and fig. 1), the electronic control device stores different regulation programs of the at least one regulation electrovalve and is configured to regulate the at least one regulation electrovalve in application of one of the regulation programs in response to the signals obtained from the food monitoring sensor (see claim 1) and/or from the weight sensor; and
the electronic control device is also connected to the at least one thermocouple (via 10, see ¶ 96 and fig. 1) and is configured to interrupt the regulation program (see ¶ 96).
Luis Alonso does not disclose its electronic control device configured to close the at least one regulating electrovalve in response to an interruption of the signal generated by the at least one thermocouple. Instead, Luis Alonso only seems to disclose closing the safety electrovalve in response (see ¶ 93).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further close the regulating electrovalves 3 in response to thermocouple signal interruption to further prevent the escape of unburned fuel, i.e. the fuel that would be between valves 3 and 4 at the time of interruption.
Luis Alonso does not disclose each ignition source being supplied with gas from one ignition source electrovalve, its safety electrovalve for each cooking zone connected to the correspondent ignition source electrovalve, or the electronic control device being configured to close the ignition source electrovalve in response to an interruption of the signal generated by the at least one thermocouple.
However, Chen discloses a similar apparatus with an ignition source (20) with an ignition source electrovalve (30), a safety valve connected to the ignition source electrovalve (70, via 41), and an electronic control device (200) configured to close the ignition source electrovalve in response to a similar flame detector probe (110).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ignition source electrovalve, and associated safety closure feature taught by Chen to the apparatus of Luis Alonso as an added control and safety measure, particularly to prevent the escape of unburned gas.
Claim 3: Luis Alonso discloses that the at least one thermocouple is in contact with the flame produced by the ignition source (see ¶ 92).
Comment: There is no explicit antecedent basis for any “flame,” but one would clearly be present given how claim 1 explains that gas is provided to the ignition source.
Claim 4: Luis Alonso discloses that the food monitoring system comprises:
an infrared sensor (5) placed above the cooking zone and oriented thereto for remotely monitoring a temperature of a food placed on the cooking zone (see fig. 2 and ¶ 84); and/or
a camera placed above the cooking zone and oriented thereto for remotely obtaining images of a food placed on the cooking zone, the electronic control device implementing an image recognition algorithm and/or a trained neural network, and/or a trained machine learning model configured to determine a cooking status of the food placed on the cooking zone from the imaged obtained by the camera; and/or
a temperature probe (¶ 123) placeable on the cooking zone in thermal contact with, or embedded in, a food placed on the cooking zone for monitoring the food temperature, the temperature probe being connected to the electronic control device by wire or by wireless connection (one of a wired or wireless connection necessitated by ¶ 112 in conjunction with ¶ 123).
Claim 5: Luis Alonso discloses that the electronic control device is configured to determine, from the information provided by the infrared sensor and/or by the camera, the presence of a cookware placed on the cooking zone or the presence and type and/or size of a cookware placed on the cooking zone, and to automatically select, execute and/or adapt the regulatory program in response to said determination (¶ 47 explains that the infrared sensor, in conjunction with the electronic control device, detects the size (and, by necessity, the presence) of a cookware, and applies an appropriate regulation program in response).
Claim 6: Luis Alonso discloses that the electronic control device is configured to determine, from the information provided by the food monitoring system and/or by the weight sensor, an intervention of a user on the cooking zone and/or the addition of ingredients on the cooking zone, and to automatically select, execute and/or adapt the regulatory program in response to said determination (see at ¶ 51 discussing the food monitoring system).
Claim 7: Luis Alonso discloses that the electronic control unit is connected to an interface (8) for selection, by a user, of the applicable regulation program selected from different stored regulation programs corresponding to different kitchen recipes or to different kitchen recipes adapted to different amounts of food and/or to different types and/or sizes of cookware (see ¶ 82).
Claim 8: Luis Alonso discloses that the electronic control unit includes a data input (9) to receive modifications of the stored regulation programs (see ¶ 87).
Claim 9: Luis Alonso discloses that the data input is a wireless connection (¶ 87, “remote or wireless means”), and the modifications of the regulation programs are obtained from a remote data storage through the wireless connection (the data transferred wirelessly to the data input described in ¶ 87 necessarily qualifies as a remote data storage given how it is remote and possesses (stores) the data being transferred).
Claim 10: Luis Alonso discloses that the electronic control device is configured to emit warnings in response to the detection of an interruption of the signal of the at least one thermocouple (¶ 96).
Claim 11: Luis Alonso discloses that said cooking unit includes, in connection with the electronic control device, a level sensor (see ¶¶ 112 and 116–118) configured to detect any deviation level from horizontal of at least part of the cooking unit (ibid.), the electronic control device being configured to automatically correct the detected deviation level by automatically actuating level adjusting devices (¶ 118, “actuating means”) of the cooking unit adapted to modify the inclination of at least part of the cooking unit (¶ 118), or to notify a user of a necessary manually adjustment the level adjusting devices of the cooking unit adapted to modify the inclination of at least part of the cooking unit (¶ 117).
Luis Alonso does not explicitly disclose that its level sensor is configured to detect any deviation level from horizontal of a cookware support placed below the cooking zone for supporting a cookware thereon. Instead, Luis Alonso discloses that the level sensor detects “the horizontality of the cooking unit or part thereof,” as well as, separately (though in the same passages) “a cookware support, the cookware support being adjustable in inclination and being configured to hold a cookware in the cooking zone” (meaning that it would be below the cooking zone as claimed).
However, in light of what is disclosed in Luis Alonso, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the “part [of the cooking unit]” that its level sensor detects be the “cookware support,” since this is the element that would adjusted in response to the detected horizontality (as per ¶¶ 117 or 118), and therefore its horizontality level status is immediately connected to how it would need to be adjusted.
Claim 12: Luis Alonso discloses that the cooking unit includes at least one vibrator device (¶ 125, “vibrating device”) attached to at least a portion of the cooking unit including a cookware support placed below the cooking zone for supporting a cookware thereon (¶ 125), the vibrator device being controlled by the electronic control device in application of the regulation programs (¶ 126).
Claim 13: Luis Alonso discloses that the regulation electrovalve feeding each gas burner with gas is a single variable-pitch regulation electrovalve (¶ 79, “a single variable pitch regulation valve 3”).
Claim 14: Luis Alonso discloses that the regulation electrovalve feeding each gas burner with gas are several fixed-pitch electrovalves connected in parallel (disclosed generally in ¶ 81; the parallel connection nature invariably follows from the functionality of these described in ¶ 15).
Claim 15: Luis Alonso discloses that the cooking unit also integrates, in connection with the electronic control device, sensors selected from:
gas supply pressure sensor of a gas feeding the cooking unit (¶ 119), the electronic control device being configured to apply or adjust the regulation programs in response to the readings of said pressure sensor (ibid.);
atmospheric pressure sensor (¶ 120), the electronic control device being configured to apply or adjust the regulation programs in response to the readings of said atmospheric pressure sensor (ibid.);
environmental humidity sensor (¶ 121), the electronic control device being configured to apply or adjust the regulation programs in response to the readings of said environmental humidity sensor (ibid.);
room temperature sensor (¶ 122), the electronic control device being configured to apply or adjust the regulation programs in response to the readings of said room temperature sensor (ibid.); and/or
any combination of the above.
Claim 16: Luis Alonso modified by Chen discloses that the at least one cooking zone are a plurality of spaced apart cooking zones defined by on top of different spaced apart gas burners (Luis Alonso: see fig. 5 and ¶ 103), the food monitoring sensors and/or weight sensors of the different cooking zones being in connection with a single centralized electronic control device in charge of regulating all the regulation electrovalves and ignition source electrovalves feeding all the cooking zones (Luis Alonso: clearly illustrated in fig. 5, at least with respect to the food monitoring sensors).
Claim 17: Luis Alonso discloses that the different cooking zones are spaced apart in a vertical direction, defining overlapping cooking zones (¶ 110).
Claim 18: Luis Alonso modified by Chen discloses that the cooking unit includes an auxiliary assembly (Luis Alonso: ¶ 131, “auxiliary assembly”) comprising at least the regulation electrovalves (Luis Alonso: ¶ 131, “connected to the corresponding regulation valves 3”), the ignition source electrovalve (Chen: 30), the safety electrovalve (Luis Alonso: ¶ 131, “all the elements of the cooking unit other than the gas burners 1”) and the electronic control unit (ibid.), the auxiliary assembly and the components included therein being connected to the rest of the cooking unit through releasable connections (Luis Alonso: ¶ 131, “releasable connections”).
Claim 19: Luis discloses that all the releasable connections between the components included in the auxiliary assembly and other components external to the auxiliary assembly are axial releasable connections parallel to each other (the arrangement of the regulation valves 3, and the conduit form of the components, clearly disclose or suggest axial releasable connections parallel to each other).
Claim 20: Luis Alonso discloses that the cooking unit includes an electric battery supplying electrical energy at least to the electronic control device and to the sensors connected thereto (¶ 124).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luis Alonso and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byrne (GB 2444109 A).
Luis Alonso does not disclose that the at least one thermocouple comprises at least one first thermocouple connected to the safety electrovalve, and at least one second thermocouple connected to the electronic control device.
However, Byrne discloses a similar apparatus with a first thermocouple (26) connected with a valve at least analogous to a safety electrovalve (16), and a second thermocouple (18) connected to an electronic control device (28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both first and second thermocouples, as taught by Byrne, into Luis Alonso to provide reactive safety means to close the electrovalves (analogously represented as 14 in Byrne) and the safety valve.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,624,507 in view of Chen et al. (CN 112443862 A).
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1: Food cooking unit comprising:
at least one cooking zone defined on top of at least one gas burner supplied with gas from at least one regulating electrovalve;
an ignition source for each cooking zone, adjacent to the at least one gas burner of said cooking zone for ignition thereof, each ignition source being supplied with gas from one ignition source electrovalve;
a safety electrovalve for each cooking zone connected to the correspondent at least one regulating electrovalve and ignition source electrovalve for regulation of the gas provided thereto;
at least one food monitoring sensor for each cooking zone configured to monitor a cooking process carried out on the cooking zone and/or a weight sensor for each cooking zone configured to detect weight variations on the cooking zone;
at least one thermocouple for each cooking zone in thermal contact with flames that apply heat to the cooking zone to generate a signal, and in connection with the correspondent safety electrovalve, which is configured to interrupt the gas flow when the signal generated is interrupted;
an electronic control device connected to the at least one regulating electrovalve, to the at least one food monitoring sensor and/or to the weight sensor, the electronic control device stores different regulation programs of the at least one regulation electrovalve and is configured to regulate the at least one regulation electrovalve in application of one of the regulation programs in response to the signals obtained from the food monitoring sensor and/or from the weight sensor; and
the electronic control device is also connected to the at least one thermocouple and is configured to interrupt the regulation program, closing the at least one regulating electrovalve and the ignition source electrovalve in response to an interruption of the signal generated by the at least one thermocouple.
Claim 1: Food cooking unit comprising:
at least one gas burner associated with an ignition source and on which a cooking zone is defined to which the at least one gas burner applies heat by burning a gas flow supplied to the at least one gas burner;
at least one regulating electrovalve that regulates the gas flow supplied to said at least one gas burner;
at least one infrared sensor located above the cooking zone and focused towards said cooking zone for remote detection of the temperature of a food cooked in said cooking zone;
an electronic control device connected to said at least one infrared sensor and to said at least one regulating electrovalve for its control and regulation;
at least one thermocouple in thermal contact with the flames that apply heat to the cooking zone and in connection with a safety electrovalve to close a gas flow in the event of extinguishing the flames that apply heat to the cooking zone;
the thermocouple is directly connected to the safety electrovalve through a relay which in turn is connected to the electronic control device;
a thermal protection screen transparent to the infrared light is placed between said at least one infrared sensor and the cooking zone;
the electronic control device stores different regulation programs of the regulation electrovalves and safety electrovalve, and is configured to regulate said at least one regulation electrovalve and to close the safety electrovalve in application of one of the regulation programs and/or in response to the signals obtained from the at least one infrared sensor.
Claim 4: Cooking unit according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control device comprises a detector configured:
to detect, through the relay, a fire extinguish signal produced by the thermocouple, the control device being configured to control the relay allowing the closing of the safety electrovalve by interrupting the signal generated by the thermocouple in response to said fire extinguish signal;
or to detect, through the relay, a fire extinguish signal produced by the thermocouple, the control device being configured to confirm said fire extinguishing signal during a confirmation delay to avoid false positives, and to control the relay allowing the closing of the safety electrovalve by interrupting the signal generated by the thermocouple in response to said confirmed fire extinguish signal;
or to detect, through the relay, a fire extinguish signal produced by the thermocouple, the control device being configured to emit warnings in response to the fire extinguish signal; or
to detect, through the relay, a fire extinguish signal produced by the thermocouple, the control device being configured to confirm said fire extinguishing signal during a confirmation delay to avoid false positives and to emit warnings in response to the confirmed fire extinguish signal.
The reference patent does not disclose its electronic control device configured to close the at least one regulating electrovalve in response to an interruption of the signal generated by the at least one thermocouple. Instead, it only seems to disclose closing the safety electrovalve in response (see ¶ 93).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further close the regulating electrovalves 3 in response to thermocouple signal interruption to further prevent the escape of unburned fuel, i.e. the fuel that would be between valves 3 and 4 at the time of interruption.
The reference patent does not disclose each ignition source being supplied with gas from one ignition source electrovalve, its safety electrovalve for each cooking zone connected to the correspondent ignition source electrovalve, or the electronic control device being configured to close the ignition source electrovalve in response to an interruption of the signal generated by the at least one thermocouple.
However, Chen discloses a similar apparatus with an ignition source (20) with an ignition source electrovalve (30), a safety valve connected to the ignition source electrovalve (70, via 41), and an electronic control device (200) configured to close the ignition source electrovalve in response to a similar flame detector probe (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ignition source electrovalve, and associated safety closure feature taught by Chen to the apparatus of the reference patent as an added control and safety measure, particularly to prevent the escape of unburned gas.
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