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 .
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it is over 150 words and includes implied phrase(s). “The present disclosure relates to” is implied and should be deleted. Other edits should be made as needed to reduce the word count to 150 words. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 9 of the page, “the heating power” should be corrected to –a heating power--.
In claim 6, “the temperature difference” should be corrected to --a temperature difference--.
In claim 8, “the temperature difference” should be corrected to --a temperature difference--.
In claim 17, “the temperature difference” should be corrected to --a temperature difference--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 limitation “control unit.” is not interpreted under 112(f), and is interpreted as it would be by ordinary skill in the art, as an electronic controller.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
protection device of claim 1 which is interpreted as a control unit according to specification p.7
calibration device of claim 12, for which the examiner was not able to identify a structure in the specification described as performing the function of “calibration.” Notably, the examiner was unable to find any mention in the specification of the control unit performing this function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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 12 and 13 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. Claims 12 and 13 include a “calibration device,” which is interpreted under 112(f). The disclosure does not describe any structure that performs the claimed functions of the calibration unit, and thus lacks adequate written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a temperature sensor for measuring a real temperature.” According to the instant specification at p.1 lines 13-14, “By real temperature is meant an actually prevailing temperature and not a temperature that has been determined by a measuring device.” It is not clear how the sensor can measure the real temperature when the real temperature is “not a temperature that has been determined by a measuring device” because a sensor is a measuring device. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least reduces the heating power.” This is claimed as an alternative to switching off the heating device, but it is not clear what other actions are encompassed besides reducing the power, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –reduces the heating power--. Claim 1 recites this limitation twice, at line 9 of the page and lines 14-15 of the page. Claims 2, 6, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 at line 13 of the pages recites “the protective device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the protection device--.
Claims 2-18 and 20 recite “The food preparation device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 1 and 19 are directed to “A food preparation apparatus.”
Claim 8 recites “the second predetermined temperature threshold value.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This limitation is introduced in claim 2, but claim 8 depends only from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “a control unit.” Claim 1 recites “a protection device.” According to the specification at p.7 lines 2-3, “The protection device is thus implemented by the control unit 17.” It is not clear in the claims whether there is any relationship between the control unit and the protection device, or whether an additional component is required.
Claim 15 recites “a resistance of the thermistor can be converted into a determined temperature.” Claim 15 depends from claim 1, which recites “the determined temperature, which is determined by means of the thermistor.” Thus, it is not clear whether claim 15 is referring to the same determined temperature (from the thermistor) or to a different one.
In claims 12 and 13, claim limitation “calibration device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear linkage between the function of calibration and any disclosed structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (GB 2269980) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047).
Regarding claim 1, Little discloses:
A food preparation apparatus (p.1 lines 3-5, “kettle”) comprising
a [resistor] (p.1 lines 24-29 “positive temperature coefficient” in the prior art, though the invention discloses “Pb/Ag” in one embodiment, which is not a thermistor) as a heating device for heating a food by means of the food preparation apparatus,
a temperature sensor (10, 13, p.5 lines 23-27) for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating,
a protection device which is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature is determined by the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value (p.7 lines 11-22),
Little does not disclose:
[the resistor is a] thermistor
wherein the food preparation apparatus is configured such that a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor, and the protective device is configured such that it also switches off the heating device depending on the determined temperature or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the determined temperature, which is determined by means of the thermistor.
Schilling teaches:
For determining the temperature or temperature changes in an area of a heating appliance, temperature sensing can directly take place through at least one associated heating resistor, e.g. if the latter is constructed as a PTC or NTC resistor (col 2 lines 52-59).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kettle of Little by forming at least one of the heating resistors as an NTC or PTC thermistor to allow it to be used as one of the several temperature sensors.
Regarding claim 2, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling teaches:
the protection device is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature is determined by the thermistor which is above a second predetermined temperature threshold value (Little: p.7 lines 11-22, “any of the sensors”).
Regarding claim 3, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling teaches:
the first predetermined temperature threshold value is smaller than the second predetermined temperature threshold value.
Little and Schilling do not explicitly disclose this. However, the first threshold is for a sensor adjacent to a resistance heater, and the second sensor is for a temperature sensor embodied as the resistance heater itself. One would expect the heater itself to have a higher temperature than a sensor spaced apart from the heater. Thus, it would be obvious to set the threshold temperature for the heater to be higher than the threshold for the sensor spaced apart from the heater to obtain the benefit of reduced false alarms and smooth operation.
Regarding claim 6, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the protection device is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device when the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference.
Little discloses two embodiments: one where the heaters are turned off in response to any one of several sensors, and another embodiment that turns off the heaters in response to a sensed temperature (voltage) difference indicating that the kettle is tilted (p.6 lines 9- p.7 line 10).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kettle of Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling to additionally prevent overheating due to tilting (pouring) by turning off the heaters in response to detecting tilting as a difference in temperatures between the sensor and the thermistor.
Regarding claim 7, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not explicitly teach:
the predetermined temperature difference is between 30 °C and 60 °C.
The temperature difference that indicates a tilted state will depend on the length and arrangement of the thermistor (and thus how much the tilt affects the total resistance), the location of the temperature sensor, and the degree of tilt.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a predetermined temperature difference is between 30 °C and 60 °C because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling (as combined in claim 6) does not explicitly teach:
the food preparation device is configured such that, after the heating device has been switched off by the protection device, the heating device can only be switched on again if
a temperature is determined by the temperature sensor which is below the first predetermined temperature threshold value (Little: p.7 lines 11-22),
a temperature is determined by the thermistor which is below the second predetermined temperature threshold value (Little: p.7 lines 11-22), and
the temperature difference between the temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the temperature determined by the thermistor is smaller than a predetermined temperature difference (see the combination for claim 6, Little p.6 line 9 – p.7 line 10).
Little teaches that any of these conditions are sufficient to turn the power off because they indicate an unsafe condition. Thus, it is obvious to arrange the kettle so that the heater can only be switched on again if it is safe to do so as indicated by these three metrics. Otherwise, switching the power on again would immediately result in the power being switched off. Since violating any of these conditions would result in the power being switched off, Little effectively teaches that the heater can only be switched on again if all of these conditions are met.
Regarding claim 9, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the food preparation apparatus comprises a control unit which is configured such that the heating by the heating device is controlled depending on the temperature determined by the temperature sensor.
Little teaches a simple control circuit (see Fig 3) but does not show a control capable of implementing both a sensor and a thermistor as a sensor. Schilling teaches an electronic control device 20, which processes inputs to determine temperatures and differences in temperature and controls the heaters (col 6 lines 44-50).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kettle of Little to have the control unit of Schilling to allow it to process the more complex data coming from the thermistor.
Regarding claim 19, Little modified as described above by Schilling teaches:
A food preparation apparatus (Little: p.1 lines 3-5, “kettle”) comprising
a thermistor (resistor of Little modified to be thermistor as taught by Schilling in the combination for claim 1) as a heating device for heating a food by means of the food preparation apparatus,
a temperature sensor (Little: 10, 13, p.5 lines 23-27) for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating, and
a control unit (Little control circuit of Fig 3 modified to an electronic control device as taught by Schilling, see combination for claim 9 above) coupled to the thermistor and the temperature sensor such that it is able to control the heating of the thermistor and to switch off or reduce power to the thermistor (Little p.7 lines 11-22) in response to at least one of (a) receipt of a temperature received from the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value (Little p.7 lines 15-18 “any of the sensors”) and (b) receipt of a temperature received from the thermistor (Little p.7 lines 15-18 “any of the sensors”) which lies above a second predetermined temperature threshold value, different from the first predetermined threshold value (It is obvious that the expected temperature of a heating resistor itself would be higher than the expected temperature adjacent a heater, and thus it is obvious to set the threshold for the thermistor higher than the threshold for the sensor.).
Regarding claim 20, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling teaches:
the first predetermined temperature threshold value is smaller than the second predetermined temperature threshold value.
Little and Schilling do not explicitly disclose this. However, the first threshold is for a sensor adjacent to a resistance heater, and the second sensor is for a temperature sensor embodied as the resistance heater itself. One would expect the heater itself to have a higher temperature than a sensor spaced apart from the heater. Thus, it would be obvious to set the threshold temperature for the heater to be higher than the threshold for the sensor spaced apart from the heater to obtain the benefit of reduced false alarms and smooth operation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (GB 2269980) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047) and Graf (DE 102015205489).
Regarding claim 10, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling teaches:
the thermistor is a PTC thermistor (Schilling col 2 lines 52-59, see combination for claim 1)
Little and Shilling do not explicitly teach:
and the resistance of the PTC thermistor increases linearly or at least approximately linearly with the temperature.
Graf teaches:
a cooking appliance having a heating resistor that has a linear temperature/resistance characteristic, which resistor also serves as a temperature sensor (¶33).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kettle of Little as modified by the thermistor of Shilling to have the PTC with a linear temperature/resistance characteristic, as taught by Graf, because Graf teaches that this is appropriate for a PTC heating resistor that is also a sensor.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (GB 2269980) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047) and Cosgrove (GB 2404099).
Regarding claim 11, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the temperature sensor comprises a NTC thermistor as a sensor and the resistance of the NTC thermistor is exponential depending on the temperature.
Little is silent on the type of sensor.
Cosgrove teaches:
a temperature sensor for a kettle, the temperature sensor being a negative temperature coefficient thermistor wherein the resistance of the NTC thermistor is exponential depending on the temperature (p.22 line 26 – p.23 line 9). NTC thermistors “tend to have a greater magnitude change in resistance with temperature, thus giving more precise results” (p.23 lines 10-18).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the kettle of Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling to have the sensor (apart from the heating resistor) be a NTC thermistor with an exponential characteristic because Cosgrove teaches that this gives precise results for a kettle.
Regarding claim 12, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the food preparation apparatus comprises a calibration device which is configured such that the thermistor is calibrated.
Cosgrove teaches:
A kettle with an onboard controller (p.20 line 28 - p.21 line 17) for calibrating a PTC or NTC thermistor sensor using the temperature of boiling water or by comparing to independent means (p.19 lines 33-34). A delay can allow the temperature to come to equilibrium (p.2 lines 10-14). Onboard calibration minimizes production and calibration time in the factory, reducing costs (p.20 lines 28-36).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the kettle of Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling to have the controller perform onboard calibration to reduce production time and costs. Since Little discloses multiple sensors, it is obvious to use a dedicated temperature sensor, such as the NTC sensor of the modification by Cosgrove, as an independent means to calibrate the PTC sensor (as modified) formed as a printed thick film resistance heater in Little.
Regarding claim 13, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling and the calibration of Cosgrove teaches:
the calibration device is configured such that the calibration device calibrates the thermistor by means of the temperature sensor (Cosgrove: “independent means”).
Claims 4, 5, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (GB 2269980) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047) and Wu (CN 113397382).
Regarding claim 4, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the first predetermined temperature threshold value is between 180 °C and 220 °C.
Wu teaches a kettle for boiling water wherein a “PTC heating element can be set at any temperature between 150 degrees centigrade and 250 degrees centigrade” ([n0003]).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first threshold (of the sensor) to be in the range of 150-250 °C, in particular 180-220 °C avoiding the upper end of the range because the sensor is adjacent the thermistor heating element and will thus be somewhat cooler than the element itself.
Regarding claim 5, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling does not teach:
the second predetermined temperature threshold value is between 210 °C and 250 °C.
Wu teaches a kettle for boiling water wherein a “PTC heating element can be set at any temperature between 150 degrees centigrade and 250 degrees centigrade” ([n0003]).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second threshold (of the heater) to be in the range of 150-250 °C, in particular 210-250 °C, capturing the upper end of the range because the sensor is the thermistor heating element itself.
It is self-evident that a hotter element can heat water faster, but than an element that is too hot may cause safety or material concerns.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set a second threshold temperature between 210 °C and 250 °C because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 17, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling and the temperature of Wu does not teach:
the protection device is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device when the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference.
Little discloses two embodiments: one where the heaters are turned off in response to any one of several sensor, and another embodiment that turns off the heaters in response to a sensed temperature (voltage) difference indicating that the kettle is tilted (p.6 lines 9- p.7 line 10).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kettle of Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling and the temperatures of Wu to additionally prevent overheating due to tilting (pouring) by turning off the heaters in response to detecting tilting as a difference in temperatures between the sensor and the thermistor.
Regarding claim 18, Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling and the temperatures of Wu does not explicitly teach:
the predetermined temperature difference is between 30 °C and 60 °C.
The temperature difference that indicates a tilted state will depend on the length and arrangement of the thermistor (and thus how much the tilt affects the total resistance), the location of the temperature sensor, and the degree of tilt.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a predetermined temperature difference is between 30 °C and 60 °C because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraut (US 2018/0177340) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047).
[AltContent: textbox (base)]
PNG
media_image1.png
497
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kraut discloses:
A food preparation apparatus (¶1) comprising
a thermistor (¶17 “a cold conductor material meaning a PCT resistance or a heat conductor material meaning a NTC resistance.” PCT appears to be a typo for PTC.) as a heating device for heating a food (¶56) by means of the food preparation apparatus,
a temperature sensor (¶56 “a first sensor 15 and/or a second sensor 16 are arranged for the determination of the local temperature,” ¶22) for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating,
a protection device (54, ¶63 “The heating means 10 is thereby preferably connected with a control unit 54 by a connecting means 14 such that the temperature within the cooking pot 3 is controllable.”) which is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature is determined by the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value (this is the function of a thermostat or similar controller that provides “controllable” temperature, see ¶63. ¶21 “temperature regulation … realised, for example by switching on and off of the resistance element).
Kraut does not disclose:
the food preparation apparatus is configured such that a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor, and the protective device is configured such that it also switches off the heating device depending on the determined temperature or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the determined temperature, which is determined by means of the thermistor.
Schilling teaches:
For determining the temperature or temperature changes in an area of a heating appliance, temperature sensing can directly take place through at least one associated heating resistor, e.g. if the latter is constructed as a PTC or NTC resistor (col 2 lines 52-59). An overheating protection means will switch off the power supply if a predetermined temperature is exceeded (col 3 lines 19-21).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kraut by using at least one of the NTC or PTC heating resistors of Kraut as a temperature sensors, as taught by Schilling, to reduce the number of sensors needed. It would further be obvious to modify the control unit to provide overheating protection by switching off the power in the event of the temperature sensors exceeding an overheating temperature.
Regarding claim 14, Kraut as modified by Schilling teaches:
the food preparation apparatus comprises a base part (see annotated Fig 8 above) with a control unit (with continued reference to Kraut: 54) and a food preparation vessel (cooking pot 3) with the thermistor (¶60, ¶17) and the temperature sensor (15, 16 is in the heating element, according to Kraut Fig 1), wherein the food preparation vessel can be inserted into the base part (see Fig 8, it is typically understood that a food processor container is removable/insertable from/to the base, e.g., for cleaning, and this is further implied by connecting means 14 as described in ¶63), wherein the control unit is configured such that it is able to control the heating of the thermistor and thus the heating of the food preparation vessel depending on the temperature determined by the temperature sensor (¶22).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraut (US 2018/0177340) in view of Schilling (US 5,396,047) and Pohl (US 2022/0071450).
Regarding claim 15, Kraut as modified by Schilling does not teach:
information is stored in the food preparation vessel by which a resistance of the thermistor can be converted into a determined temperature.
Pohl teaches:
a kitchen appliance with a vessel having a bladed agitator (¶17) and a heater (¶11) that can be inserted into a base (4) with a controller (18, 19). “The preparation vessel can furthermore have an optical code, for example a bar code or QR code, which includes an identification of the preparation vessel, and which can be read out by means of a corresponding reading means of the kitchen appliance. In this sense, the sensor of the kitchen appliance is then an optical sensor, which can recognize the optical signal of the preparation vessel” (¶14). The base has a controller which interfaces with temperature sensors on the vessel (¶30 “temperature detection means”). Pohl teaches identifying “a preparation vessel of a newer or older generation,” which can allow users to upgrade to a newer vessel while using the same base.
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kraut to have interchangeable vessels with a bar code or QR code for allowing the base to identify the vessel and its relevant characteristics, as taught by Pohl, to obtain the benefit of allowing users to upgrade to a newer vessel. Pohl does not explicitly teach storing information about the temperature sensor, but it would be obvious to have the QR code or bar code correlate to a profile with any information relevant to the control of the vessel, such as the properties of the heaters, sensors, the volume of the vessel, the temperature capability of the vessel, and information about the agitator.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, White (WO 2010040981) discloses:
A food preparation apparatus (p.1 lines 1-7) comprising
a thermistor (p.3 lines 21-29 thick film element) as a heating device for heating a food by means of the food preparation apparatus,
a temperature sensor (sensor track 30, p.12 lines 26-30, or including sensing sections 33 as in Fig 3, p.13 lines 1-15 or NTC thermistor 14, see Fig 1, p.10 lines 24-26) for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating,
a protection device (electronic control 10, p.15 line 19) which is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature (corresponding to a resistance/voltage) is determined by the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value (p.15 lines 15-17)
White does not disclose:
wherein the food preparation apparatus is configured such that a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor, and the protective device is configured such that it also switches off the heating device depending on the determined temperature or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the determined temperature, which is determined by means of the thermistor.
The sensor track 30 is made of the same material as the heater 23, but is electrically isolated from it, as shown in Figs 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Spitthöver (US 2019/0223258) discloses:
A food preparation apparatus (¶2) comprising
a thermistor (¶66 “The dashed line shows the determined resistance values of a detected resistance of the heating element 210, which can be used to determine a temperature of the heating element 210 or the medium 20” This means that the resistance changes predictably with temperature and is thus a thermistor) as a heating device for heating a food by means of the food preparation apparatus (¶65),
…
wherein the food preparation apparatus is configured such that a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor (¶14), and the protective device (¶42 “control device”) is configured such that it also switches off the heating device depending on the determined temperature or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the determined temperature (¶22 “heating control… burning of the medium can be avoided”), which is determined by means of the thermistor.
Spitthöver does not disclose, and teaches away (¶27) from:
a temperature sensor for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating,
a protection device which is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature is determined by the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value
Regarding claim 1, Schilling (US 5,396,047) discloses:
A food preparation apparatus (col 3 lines 1-10 “cooking”) comprising
a thermistor as a heating device (col 2 lines 52-56 “heating resistor…constructed as a PTC or NTC resistor”) for heating a food by means of the food preparation apparatus,
a temperature sensor (col 2 lines 59-64 “separate temperature sensor”) for measuring a real temperature generated by the heating,
a protection device (control unit 10, col 5 lines 15-22 “performing regulating”) which is configured such that it switches off the heating device or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device if a temperature is determined by the temperature sensor which lies above a first predetermined temperature threshold value (col 2 lines 30-36, col 6 lines 57-66), wherein the food preparation apparatus is configured such that a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor (col 2 lines 52-56, “temperature sensing can directly take place through at least one associated heating resistor”).
Schilling does not disclose:
and the protective device is configured such that it also switches off the heating device depending on the determined temperature or at least reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the determined temperature, which is determined by means of the thermistor.
Kloppers (WO 2010008279) discloses calculating temperature by measuring resistance of a heating element (p.4 lines 1-21). Periodic recalibration is performed by placing the heating element in an oven (p.4 lines 23-30).
Graf (DE 102015205489) discloses an oven wherein “the heating resistor component 20 itself formed as a temperature-dependent resistor, in particular as a PTC thermistor or PTC element and is therefore itself used as a temperature sensor.”
Li (CN 107013823) discloses an LED lightbulb with “a positive temperature coefficient part and negative temperature coefficient part, positive and negative temperature comparing circuit and control circuit.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761