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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Luis Alonso reference is the published parent application from which the present continuation-in-part application claims benefit (p. 9). Applicant states that, to overcome this rejection, Applicant will file a terminal disclaimer (p. 10). A terminal disclaimer does not void the applicability of the Luis Alonso reference to the claimed invention because it was published (on 1 July 2021) more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (10 March 2023), qualifying it as prior art under § 102(a)(1). The Office reproduces here a note in the § 103 section of the previous Office action, which remains in this Office action in the same place:
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).
A terminal disclaimer does not exclude a reference that qualifies as prior art under § 102(a)(1).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 19 May 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. 11,624,507 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 19 May 2026. All but fig. 6 are acceptable.
Applicant justifies new fig. 6 as being supported by fig. 2 and original claim 17. This argument is unpersuasive at least because there is no original support for vertically disparate, overlapping cooking zones that somehow each have their own arm and infrared sensor. Therefore, fig. 6 presents new matter, and the replacement sheet for fig. 6 has not been entered.
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 level sensor and level adjusting devices of claim 11 and the different cooking zones being spaced apart in a vertical direction of claim 17 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.
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 it prior art under § 102(a)(1).
Claims 1, and 3–17, and 20–22 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 regulating electrovalve and is configured to regulate the at least one regulating 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 sensor 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 images obtained by the camera;
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 sensor 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 device is connected to an interface (8) for selection, by a user, of the applicable regulation program selected from the different regulation programs stored on the electronic control device, the 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 device 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, the level adjusting devices being adapted to modify the inclination of at least part of the cooking unit (¶ 118), or to notify a user of a required manually adjustment of level adjusting devices of the cooking unit, the level adjusting devices being 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 regulating electrovalve feeding each gas burner with gas is a single variable-pitch regulating electrovalve (¶ 79, “a single variable pitch regulation valve 3”).
Claim 14: Luis Alonso discloses that the regulating 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:
a 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.);
an 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.);
an 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.);
a 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 is a plurality of spaced apart cooking zones defined by the tops 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 regulating 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 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).
Claims 21 and 22: Luis Alonso discloses that the food monitoring sensor comprises 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 (¶ 123, “a probe needle insertable in a food located on the cooking zone”), 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 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.
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 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
Prosecution Insights