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 Amendment
The Applicant argues that the protection device and the calibration device should not be interpreted under 112(f) because the “limitations are recited as structurally related to and functional with each other and thus connote sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.” This generic statement does not “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).” This argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “calibration device should not be rejected under 112(a) because the specification points out a temperature sensor. This argument is not persuasive. Although a temperature sensor is necessary for performing calibration, it is not sufficient for performing calibration as described in the specification. According to the specification, the calibration includes, “calibration is performed in an automated manner” (p.5) and “In order to calibrate the thermistor, for example, the initial resistance Ro of the thermistor 2 is determined at an initial temperature To determined by the temperature sensor 4. From these initial values, a temperature TPTC can then be determined by means of the thermistor using the equation…” (p.5). This is beyond the capability of a simple temperature sensor. For the same reason, the 112(b) rejection is maintained. The Examiner recommends rewriting the limitation in a way to avoid interpretation under 112(f).
Although the Examiner appreciates the design philosophy described, there is not a patentable distinction between Little, where the apparatus is switched off when any of several sensors (with one sensor being embodied as the heating thermistor) exceeds a threshold, and the instant claim 1, where the heating device is switched off if either the thermistor or the temperature sensor exceeds a corresponding threshold.
The Applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches or even suggests that two different threshold values could possibly be used. This argument is not persuasive, as selecting an appropriate threshold is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, who has ordinary creativity and is not an automaton. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." see MPEP §2141.
The Applicant argues that “[t]here is no explicit disclosure in Schilling that the temperature sensor would be "spaced apart" from the heater.” This argument is not persuasive. In particular, the base reference is Little, rather than Schilling, and Little discloses the temperature sensor “in close proximity with the heater element” (p.4 lines 21-25). Close proximity provides at least some space. The heating element and sensor are deposited on an insulated surface of a steel plate (p.2 line 18-p.3 line 4); in addition to the insulation providing some thermal isolation, steel is a rather poor conductor among metals. Direct contact of the thick film temperature sensor and the heating resistor would result in electrical contact, thus rendering the temperature sensor unsuitable for its intended purpose. Thus, separation is required.
The Applicant argues that “there would be no reason to assume that the spaced apart sensor should have a lower temperature and thus a lower threshold temperature.” This argument is not persuasive. Energy is converted to heat at the heating element, and this heat is transferred to the surroundings. The primary mode of heat transfer within the apparatus is conduction, and convection is in effect for transferring heat from the apparatus to water in the kettle of Little. As noted above, the heater is a thick film printed on an insulator on a surface of a steel plate. Although heat is transferred from the heating element to the steel for heating the water, the heat transfer is neither instantaneous nor complete; a temperature gradient remains. The higher the thermal conductivity of the surrounding materials, the more uniform the temperature will be, but a gradient is present. Zhao (An analytic model for transient heat conduction in bi-layered structures with flexible serpentine heaters) shows an example temperature distribution for an encapsulated heating element, which is at least somewhat representative of a heating element printed on an insulator. As shown in Fig 8, the heating element itself is hotter than the surrounding area, and there is a sharp gradient between the interior of the heating element and the exterior of the heating element. Thus, Zhao provides evidence to support that “the spaced apart sensor should have a lower temperature.”
PNG
media_image1.png
528
1375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1130
1375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s position is that, in the combination of Little and Schilling, one would expect the thermistor heating element to have a higher temperature than the temperature sensor at all times. Thus, a higher threshold would be required. Put another way, the temperature sensor would hit its lower threshold at approximately the same time and when the apparatus is in approximately the same state as when the thermistor hits its higher threshold (apart from differences arising from tilting to pour). The Examiner’s understanding of the Applicant’s Remarks is that the thermistor only shuts down the device when the temperature sensor has some sort of fault. The thermistor hits its threshold when the apparatus is in an overall hotter state than when the temperature sensor would its lower threshold, if the temperature sensor was functioning correctly. To the extent that this difference is supported by the instant specification, the Applicant may attempt to amend the claims to make this distinction clear.
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. Although the specification discloses a temperature sensor, this is not sufficient to perform calibration as claimed.
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 12-13 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.
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, 8-9, and 19 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.
The combination of Little as modified by the thermistor of Schilling further teaches:
the protection device is configured such that it switches off the heating device or 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”).
The combination does not explicitly teach:
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, but spaced apart from 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 (see arguments above relating to Zhao). 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. This is not “reduced false alarms” in the sense of primarily relying on a more accurate temperature sensor, as the Applicant has described, but reduced false alarms because each sensor has a threshold appropriate to its typical expected temperature.
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.)
wherein a temperature is also determined by means of the thermistor (as taught by Schilling col 2 lines 52-59),
wherein the control unit is configured to implement a protection device that is configured such that it switches off the heating device depending on the temperature determined by the thermistor or reduces the heating power of the heating device depending on the temperature determined by the thermistor (Little: p.7 lines 11-22, “any of the sensors”)., and
wherein 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. This is not “reduced false alarms” in the sense of primarily relying on a more accurate temperature sensor, as the Applicant has described, but reduced false alarms because each sensor has a threshold appropriate to its typical expected temperature.
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 14-15, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Each of claims 6 and 17 requires “the protection device is configured such that it switches off the heating device or reduces the heating power of the heating device when a temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference.” In Little, this function is intended to detect tipping to pour. However, this function is performed by a comparison of similar temperature sensors on opposite sides of the heating base. To meet the limitation of amended claim 1, one heating resistor was converted to a thermistor, and the existing dedicated temperature sensor was inferred to require a different cutoff threshold. To meet the limitation of claim 6/17 would require a corresponding temperature sensing part on each side of the heating base, and also the different cutoff thresholds of claim 1. Although this is supported by the instant specification, it does not make sense in the combination of Little and Schilling.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose “the food preparation apparatus comprises a base part with a control unit and a food preparation vessel with the thermistor and the temperature sensor, wherein the food preparation vessel can be inserted into the base part” in conjunction with the other claim limitations.
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 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
Prosecution Insights