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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31 contains an obvious error, in that it currently depends from claim “8”, and it should properly depend from claim --28-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 3-20, 22 and 24-41 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a receiver unit of the cooktop controller”. It is not clear if this references the already introduced receiver unit in claim 1, upon which this claim depends, or if this is introducing another receiver unit. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood to mean “the receiver unit of the cooktop controller”.
Claim 3 recites “a transmitter unit”. It is not clear if this references the already introduced transmitter unit in claim 1, upon which this claim depends, or if this is introducing another transmitter unit. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood to mean “the transmitter unit of the cooktop controller”.
Claims 22 and 24 recite “a receiver unit of the cooktop controller”. It is not clear if this references the already introduced receiver unit in claim 21, upon which those claims depends, or if these are introducing another receiver unit. For purposes of examination, these limitations are understood to mean “the receiver unit of the cooktop controller”.
Claim 14 recites “a standby mode of the inductive cooktop” in line 1. It is not clear if this references the already introduced standby mode in claim 1, line 8 upon which it depends, or if this is introducing another standby mode. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood to mean “the standby mode of the inductive cooktop”.
Claim 14 recites “a ready mode of the inductive cooktop” in line 6. It is not clear if this references the already introduced ready mode in claim 1 upon which it depends, or if this is introducing another ready mode. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood to mean “the ready mode”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Burghardt (German Patent Publication DE102015222797A1; in applicant’s IDS, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Burghardt discloses an inductive cooktop, comprising:
at least one cooking zone (Burghardt, fig. 1, on top of 3) ;
at least one heating coil (8) associated with the cooking zone; and
a cooktop controller (Burghardt 10, 11, 12, 6, 7; ¶0031, “circuitry and/or the transmitter may be located generally on the cookware and/or within the cookware”) configured to drive the at least one heating coil in an operating mode of the inductive cooktop to heat a cooktop utensil with a transmitter unit (Burghardt, transmission device, 7, pot electronics 6), which cooktop utensil is placed on the cooking zone,
wherein the cooktop controller is configured such that the inductive cooktop is operable in a standby mode in which driving of the at least one heating coil is disabled (If the power is turned on but no utensil that responds is placed on the coil; ¶0045, “If, for example, the cooker electronics detect that there is no more metal on a cooktop or that the level of a received data signal falls below a specified limit value, the heat output is automatically switched off”.),
wherein the cooktop controller is configured such that the inductive cooktop is operable in a ready mode (¶¶0042, 0044, If the cooking appliance is switched on, the associated coil ("cooktop coil") is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance by means of a signal transmission via the transmission device, e.g. by means of a transmission of temperature data.),
wherein the inductive cooktop is switchable from the standby mode to the ready mode by a wake-up signal received by a receiver unit of the cooktop controller (¶0035, 0044, set up for transmission of energy and for the transmission of data),
wherein, in the ready mode, the at least one heating coil is drivable by the cooktop controller such that, on one hand, the cooktop utensil is prevented from being effectively heated for a preparation operation and that, on an other hand, signal transmission between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit is enabled by the at least one heating coil (¶0042, for this mode, the transmission for heating is not active but the connection between the transmitter and receiver is..) , and
wherein the inductive cooktop is automatically switchable from the ready mode to the operating mode by the cooktop controller and as a function of a response signal, identifying the cooktop utensil, received by the receiver unit in the ready mode (¶0021, “receiving device” of appliance opposite the “cooking device of the cooking utensil”).
Regarding claim 2, Burghardt discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses an induction cooktop wherein in the ready mode, the at least one heating coil is drivable by the cooktop controller such that transmission of an operating power from the inductive cooktop to the cooktop utensil that is placed on the cooking zone associated with the at least one heating coil is enabled by the at least one heating coil (¶0042; heating coil power secondary coil to send transmission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose those limitations]
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 11- 19, 21-26, 28, 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt (German Patent Publication DE102015222797A1; in applicant’s IDS, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 3, Burghardt discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses an induction cooktop wherein the inductive cooktop is configured to implement a method for automatically correlating at least one cooktop utensil with the at least one cooking zone (Burghardt, ¶0045), the at least one cooking zone being one of plurality of cooking zones ((¶¶0034-36, 0038, “at least one hotplate”; Burghardt, hob 3, ¶0057. hob has several hotplates, 0042, the correlation mode when the cooktop syncs with the utensil based on data or signals transmitted once the secondary coil was generated), which are inductively heated by at least one respective heating coil, the method comprising:
providing the cooktop with the cooktop controller configured to drive the at least one respective heating coil with a correlation signal (¶0060 ;“The hotplate is then controlled by a circuit in the form of cooker electronics 11, specifically via a power controller 12, which energizes the coil 9; ¶0019, “[t]he cooking utensil also has a transmission device which is set up to receive the temperature signal [correlation signal] processed by the circuit (and possibly other data) and to transmit or forward it wirelessly to the cooking appliance.”);
providing the at least one cooktop utensil with an induction coil inductively couplable with the at least one respective heating coil of the cooktop and a transmitter unit (Burghardt, ¶¶0007,0034, 0035, “secondary coil arranged in the …bottom of the cooking utensil”);;
supplying the transmitter unit with an operation power (Burghardt, ¶0034, “This magnetic field induces a voltage in the secondary coil, which is advantageously arranged in the region of the bottom of the cooking utensil, which voltage can be used to supply the circuitry etc.”) when a voltage is induced by at least one of the at least one respective heating coil into the induction coil of the cooktop utensil that is placed on the cooking zone associated with the at least one of the at least one respective heating coil;
transmitting, by the transmitter unit of the cooktop utensil, by the operating power, a response signal that identifies the cooktop utensil and correlates with the correlation signal induced into the induction coil of the cooktop utensil by the at least one of the at least one respective heating coil associated with the cooking zone to a receiver unit of the cooktop controller or of a third device that is in signal communication with the cooktop controller (Burghardt, ¶0061, ¶0035, “The transformer-based power supply using two coils that are close together has the further advantage that the signal can also be transmitted from the cooking utensil to the cooking appliance (and possibly also in the opposite direction),
However, Burghardt does not specifically disclose
comparing the response signal, in an evaluation unit of the cooktop controller or of the third device, which evaluation unit is connected in signal communication with the receiver unit, to the correlation signal of the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zone; and
correlating the identified cooktop utensil with the cooking zone as a function of the comparison.
However, Burghardt does teach carrying out automatic pan recognition whereby “the cooking appliance can recognize the hob on which the cookware [was] placed.”(¶0042), and through this it would connect a utensil with a heating zone and “[t]he cooker electronics [would then know] on which hob a piece of cookware with the appropriate circuit is placed.” It is noted that this is essentially a comparison to see if the utensil and the heating zone are correlatable, given that the claim requires there only need be “one cooktop utensil” and “one cooking zone” (if they are not, then the device “is operated with a power control in normal operation”, ¶0042) . Moreover, in a further configuration, a utensil could transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance so that “the cooking appliance is able to allocate (“compare” and “correlate”) a cooking utensil to a corresponding hotplate”. (¶0044; “the cooking utensil is set up to transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance…so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate a cooking utensil” ). Thus, while not explicit, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Burghardt compare the response signal in an evaluation unit and determining which utensil goes with which zone, and then correlating the zone and the utensil, i.e. making sure that they are coupled together to perform the desired heating.Can't load full results
Regarding claim 4, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven successively for purposes of automatic correlation, or the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven simultaneously for purposes of automatic correlation (¶0042, “If the cooking appliance is switched on, the associated coil ("cooktop coil") is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance by means of a signal transmission via the transmission device, e.g. B. by means of a transmission of temperature data.”; given the “or” alternative in the claim, just finding this limitation in the art meets the claim.)
.
Regarding claim 5, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the correlation signals of the at least one respective heating coil of the individual cooking zones, which are generated by respective driving operations, differ from each other (¶0044, “Another development is that the cooking utensil is set up to transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance by means of the transmission device, in particular if the signal is not transmitted by a transformer, so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate a cooking utensil to a corresponding hotplate.” That is, the specific coils give off specific signals in order that specific utensils respond to that a particular cooking utensil may correspond to a particular zone or heating coil)..
Regarding claim 7, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the correlation of the cooktop utensil placed on a particular cooking zone of the plurality of cooking zones with the particular cooking zone is performed in the evaluation unit by way of an overall time lag between a driving of the at least one respective heating coil associated with the particular cooking zone with the correlation signal and a reception by the receiver unit of the response signal of the cooktop utensil placed on the particular cooking zone (Burghardt, it is inherent and necessary that there would be some lag between these functions, since they all have to operate consecutively, and the time from the start to the finish would be the overall lag time; ¶0034-0035)..
Regarding claim 11, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the response signal contains additional information on an operating setting of the cooktop utensil and/or an operating parameter of the cooktop utensil and/or an operating state of the cooktop utensil (Burghardt, ¶41, “the response signal contains temperature data”)..
Regarding claim 12, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein, for purposes of automatic correlation, the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven by the cooktop controller as a function of at least one trigger event that is dependent on the cooktop and/or the cooktop utensil and/or the third device (Burghardt, ¶0042, the “trigger” event could be the switching on or the placement of the utensil which then initiates the coupling scheme)..
Regarding claim 13, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the trigger event occurs continuously as a function of at least one predetermined time interval when the cooktop is on, or wherein the trigger event occurs as a function of at least one change in a correlation of the at least one cooktop utensil with at least one of the cooking zones of the plurality of cooking zones (Burghardt, ¶34-36, at least one coil ¶0042, again, the trigger event would be the placement or removal of the pan). .
Regarding claim 14, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein, in a standby mode of the inductive cooktop, the at least one respective heating coil is not driven by the cooktop controller (If the power is turned on but no utensil that responds is placed on the coil; ¶0045, “If, for example, the cooker electronics detect that there is no more metal on a cooktop or that the level of a received data signal falls below a specified limit value, the heat output is automatically switched off”.) and, in an operating mode of the inductive cooktop, the at least one respective heating coil is driven to heat a cooktop utensil with the transmitter unit which cooktop utensil is placed on the cooking zone(¶¶0042, 0044, If the cooking appliance is switched on, the associated coil ("heating coil") is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance by means of a signal transmission via the transmission device, e.g. by means of a transmission of temperature data.), the inductive cooktop additionally being operated by the cooktop controller in a ready mode, and the inductive cooktop being switched from the standby mode to the ready mode by a wake-up signal received by the receiver unit of the cooktop controller(¶0035, 0044, set up for transmission of energy and for the transmission of data), and, in the ready mode, the at least one respective heating coil being driven by the cooktop controller such that, on one hand, the cooktop utensil is prevented from being effectively heated for a preparation operation and, on an other hand, signal transmission between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit is enabled by the at least one respective heating coil (¶0042, for this mode, the transmission for heating is not active but the connection between the transmitter and receiver is..).
Regarding claim 15, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein, in the ready mode, the at least one respective heating coil is driven by the cooktop controller such that transmission of an operating power from the inductive cooktop to the cooktop utensil placed on the cooking zone associated with the at least one respective heating coil is enabled by the at least one respective heating coil (¶0042, the heating coil energizes the utensil which then connects).
Regarding claim 16, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the wake-up signal (¶0035 these are the signals generated from transmission unit 7) is generated by actuation of a control element that is provided on the cooktop utensil and is in signal communication with the transmitter unit (¶0042, in signal communication with transmitter 7 and connected to 11, 10; because the limitations are stated in the alternative “and/or”, by this one being met, the art reads on the entire claim), and/or by-a motion sensor that is mounted on the cooktop utensil and is in signal communication with the transmitter unit, and/or by-actuation of a control element that is provided on the inductive cooktop and is in signal communication with the receiver unit of the cooktop controller, and/or by actuation of a control element that is provided on a third device and is in signal communication with the receiver unit of the cooktop controller.
Regarding claim 17, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach an induction cooktop wherein an electric power with which the cooktop controller drives the at least one respective heating coil in the ready mode has an average value of less than or equal to 30 W, and/or wherein an electric power with which the cooktop controller drives the at least one respective heating coil in the ready mode has a pause/power ratio of greater than or equal to 1000:1. . However, to correlate the devices, the heating coil is only switched on for a short time, enough to power some electronics to then correlate via a transmitter and receiver (Burghardt, ¶0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use as little power as possible, even less than the 30 W in the claim, in order to power small electronics with a secondary coil, to correlate the utensil to the appliance without undue heating and wasting energy unnecessarily (see Power Chart for Appliance, retrieved from https://www.donrowe.com/usage-chart-a/259.htm, attached, where it is indicated that it takes less than or equal to 30 Watts to power small electronics, such as a DVD Player, TV satellite dish, or computer Tablet, i.e. a coil not heating but just in the ready mode; that this limitation is in the alternative means that only this needs to be met in order for the art to find obvious the claim)
Regarding claim 18, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the automatic correlation of at least one cooktop utensil with at least one cooking zone of the inductive cooktop having a plurality of cooking zones which are inductively heated by the at least one respective heating coil is performed in the ready mode (Burghardt, ¶¶35,42 the correlation mode when the cooktop syncs with the utensil based on data or signals transmitted once the secondary coil was generated). .
Regarding claim 19, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further teaches an induction cooktop wherein the inductive cooktop is automatically switched from the ready mode to the operating mode by the cooktop controller and as a function of the response signal received by receiver unit in the ready mode (Burghardt, ¶0039, the cooking appliance can automatically detect whether or not there is a cooking utensil as described above on the hotplate).
Regarding claim 21, Burghardt discloses a system, comprising: an inductive cooktop, comprising:
a plurality of cooking zones (Burghardt, 0036, “the hob can have a number of hotplates”) inductively heated by at least one respective heating coil (Burghardt, 0036, at least one hotplate being assigned at least one coil”), a cooktop controller (Burghardt 10, 11, 12, 6, 7; ¶0031, “circuitry and/or the transmitter may be located generally on the cookware and/or within the cookware”)configured to drive each at least one respective heating coil with a correlation signal (¶0060 ;“The hotplate is then controlled by a circuit in the form of cooker electronics 11, specifically via a power controller 12, which energizes the coil 9 , and a receiver unit (¶0021, “receiving device” of appliance opposite the “cooking device of the cooking utensil”); and
at least one cooktop utensil (2), comprising: an induction coil (8) inductively couplable with each at least one respective heating coil of the cooktop, and a transmitter unit, wherein the transmitter unit (7) is suppliable with an operation power when a voltage is induced into the induction coil by at least one of the at least one respective heating coil upon placement of the at least one cooktop utensil on at least one cooking zone of the plurality of cooking zones associated with the at least one respectively heating coil (¶0034-35, “This magnetic field induces a voltage in the secondary coil, which is advantageously arranged in the region of the bottom of the cooking utensil, which voltage can be used to supply the circuitry etc.”),
wherein the transmitter unit, when supplied with the operating power, is configured to transmit a response signal that identifies the at least one cooktop utensil and correlates with a correlation signal induced into the induction coil by the at least one of the at least one respective heating coil (¶0061, ¶0035, “The transformer-based power supply using two coils that are close together has the further advantage that the signal can also be transmitted from the cooking utensil to the cooking appliance (and possibly also in the opposite direction).
However, Burghardt does not explicitly teach wherein the response signal is comparable to the correlation signal of the at least one respective heating coil of the at least one cooking zone to generate a comparison, the at least one cooktop utensil being automatically correlatable with the at least one cooking zone as a function of the comparison.
Burghardt does teach carrying out automatic pan recognition whereby “the cooking appliance can recognize the hob on which the cookware [was] placed.”(¶0042), and through this it would connect a utensil with a heating zone and “[t]he cooker electronics [would then know] on which hob a piece of cookware with the appropriate circuit is placed.” It is noted that this is essentially a comparison to see if the utensil and the heating zone are correlatable, given that the claim requires there only need be “one cooktop utensil” and “one cooking zone” (if they are not, then the device “is operated with a power control in normal operation”, ¶0042) . Moreover, in a further configuration, a utensil could transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate (”compare” and correlate”) a cooking utensil to a corresponding hotplate (¶¶0043, 0044; “the cooking utensil is set up to transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance…so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate a cooking utensil”). Thus, while not explicit, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to have the device of Burghardt evaluate and compare the response signal in an evaluation unit and determine which utensil goes with which zone, and then correlating the zone and the utensil, i.e. making sure that they are coupled together to perform the desired heating.
Regarding claim 22, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 21, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the at least one cooktop utensil comprises a cookware item, and wherein the at least one cooktop utensil has at least one sensor configured to detect a placement event, or configured to detect the placement event and a nature of an underlying surface on which the at least one cooktop utensil has been placed,
wherein the cooktop controller (11,12) is configured to drive the at least one respective heating coil in an operating mode to heat the at least one cooktop utensil when the at least one cooktop utensil is placed on the at least one cooking zone,
wherein the cooktop controller is configured such that the inductive cooktop is operable in a standby mode in which driving of the at least one respective heating coil is disabled (¶0045, “If, for example, the cooker electronics detect that there is no more metal on a cooktop or that the level of a received data signal falls below a specified limit value, the heat output is automatically switched off”),
wherein the cooktop controller is configured such that the inductive cooktop is operable in a ready mode (¶0042, making the connections between the utensil and hob),
wherein the inductive cooktop is switchable from the standby mode to the ready mode by a wake-up signal received by a receiver unit of the cooktop controller (¶0042, 0035,” the signal can also be transmitted from the cooking utensil to the cooking appliance (and possibly also in the opposite direction; lf the cooking appliance is switched on [but not in active mode yet], the associated coil (“cooktop call’) is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance”), and
wherein, in the ready mode, the at least one respective heating coil is drivable by the cooktop controller such that the at least one cooktop utensil is prevented from being effectively heated for a preparation operation while signal transmission between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit is enabled by the at least one respective heating coil (¶0042, for this mode, the transmission for heating is not active but the connection between the transmitter and receiver is; since the next limitation is in the alternative “or” or “and/or” that limitation is met, the claim as a whole is met) .
.
Regarding claim 23, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 21, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the transmitter unit is configured to transmit the response signal to the cooktop controller or to a third device that is in signal communication with the cooktop controller, and wherein the response signal is compared in an evaluation unit (in cooker electronics 11) of the cooktop controller or of the third device, which evaluation unit is in signal communication with the receiver unit (¶0042; “data signal received at the receiving device of the cooking appliance (which contains information about the current temperature) is used by the cooker electronics of the cooking appliance to control”, ¶0041; “the cooker electronics 11 now know on which hob a piece of cookware with the appropriate circuit is placed”, please see rejection of claim 26 for obviousness of “comparison” ¶0044; also, because the “third device” is claimed in the alternative, it does not need to be found for the claims to be rejected)..
Regarding claim 24, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 21, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the system is configured to implement a method for automatically correlating the at least one cooktop utensil with the at least one cooking zone, the method comprising:
providing the cooktop with the cooktop controller configured to drive the at least one respective heating coil with a correlation signal; providing the at least one cooktop utensil with the induction coil inductively couplable with the at least one respective heating coil of the cooktop and the transmitter unit (¶¶0007,0034, 0035, “secondary coil arranged in the …bottom of the cooking utensil”);
supplying the transmitter unit with an operation power when a voltage is induced by at least one of the at least one respective heating coil into the induction coil of the cooktop utensil that is placed on the cooking zone associated with the at least one of the at least one respective heating coil (¶0034, “This magnetic field induces a voltage in the secondary coil, which is advantageously arranged in the region of the bottom of the cooking utensil, which voltage can be used to supply the circuitry etc.”);
transmitting, by the transmitter unit of the cooktop utensil, by the operating power, a response signal that identifies the cooktop utensil and correlates with the correlation signal induced into the induction coil of the cooktop utensil by the at least one of the at least one respective heating coil associated with the cooking zone to a receiver unit of the cooktop controller or of a third device that is in signal communication with the cooktop controller (Burghardt, ¶0061, ¶0035, “The transformer-based power supply using two coils that are close together has the further advantage that the signal can also be transmitted from the cooking utensil to the cooking appliance (and possibly also in the opposite direction));
However, Burghardt does not specifically disclose
“comparing the response signal, in an evaluation unit of the cooktop controller or of the third device, which evaluation unit is connected in signal communication with the receiver unit, to the correlation signal of the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zone; and
correlating the identified cooktop utensil with the cooking zone as a function of the comparison”.
However, Burghardt does teach carrying out automatic pan recognition whereby “the cooking appliance can recognize the hob on which the cookware [was] placed.”(¶0042), and through this it would connect a utensil with a heating zone and “[t]he cooker electronics [would then know] on which hob a piece of cookware with the appropriate circuit is placed.” It is noted that this is essentially a comparison to see if the utensil and the heating zone are correlatable, given that the claim requires there only need be “one cooktop utensil” and “one cooking zone” (if they are not, then the device “is operated with a power control in normal operation”, ¶0042) . Moreover, in a further configuration, a utensil could transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance so that “the cooking appliance is able to allocate (“compare” and “correlate”) a cooking utensil to a corresponding hotplate”. (¶0044; “the cooking utensil is set up to transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance…so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate a cooking utensil” ). Thus, while not explicit, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to have the device of Burghardt compare the response signal in an evaluation unit and determining which utensil goes with which zone, and then correlating the zone and the utensil, i.e. making sure that they are coupled together to perform the desired heating.
Regarding claim 25, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven successively for purposes of automatic correlation (¶0042, “If the cooking appliance is switched on, the associated coil ("cooktop coil") is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance by means of a signal transmission via the transmission device, e.g. B. by means of a transmission of temperature data.”; given the “or” alternative in the claim, just finding this limitation in the art meets the claim.), or the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven simultaneously for purposes of automatic correlation .
Regarding claim 26, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the correlation signals of the at least one respective heating coil of the individual cooking zones, which are generated by respective driving operations, differ from each other (¶0044, “Another development is that the cooking utensil is set up to transmit an identification number to the cooking appliance by means of the transmission device, in particular if the signal is not transmitted by a transformer, so that the cooking appliance is able to allocate a cooking utensil to a corresponding hotplate.” That is, the specific coils give off specific signals in order that specific utensils respond to that a particular cooking utensil may correspond to a particular zone or heating coil).
Regarding claim 28, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the correlation of the cooktop utensil placed on a particular cooking zone of the plurality of cooking zones with the particular cooking zone is performed in the evaluation unit by way of an overall time lag between a driving of the at least one respective heating coil associated with the particular cooking zone with the correlation signal and a reception by the receiver unit of the response signal of the cooktop utensil placed on the particular cooking zone (Burghardt, it is inherent and necessary that there would be some lag between these functions, since they all have to operate consecutively, and the time from the start to the finish would be the overall lag time; ¶0034-0035).
Regarding claim 32, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the response signal contains additional information on an operating setting of the cooktop utensil and/or an operating parameter of the cooktop utensil and/or an operating state of the cooktop utensil (¶41, “the response signal contains temperature data”).
Regarding claim 33, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein, for purposes of automatic correlation, the at least one respective heating coil of the cooking zones of the cooktop is driven by the cooktop controller as a function of at least one trigger event that is dependent on the cooktop and/or the cooktop utensil and/or the third device (Burghardt, ¶0042, the “trigger” event could be the switching on or the placement of the utensil which then initiates the coupling scheme)..
Regarding claim 34, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the trigger event occurs continuously as a function of at least one predetermined time interval when the cooktop is on, or wherein the trigger event occurs as a function of at least one change in a correlation of the at least one cooktop utensil with at least one of the cooking zones of the plurality of cooking zones (Burghardt, ¶0042, again, the trigger event would be the placement or removal of the pan). .
Regarding claim 35, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, and further teaches a system wherein, in a standby mode of the inductive cooktop (Burghardt, If the power is turned on but no utensil that responds is placed on the coil; ¶0045, “If, for example, the cooker electronics detect that there is no more metal on a cooktop or that the level of a received data signal falls below a specified limit value, the heat output is automatically switched off”.), the at least one respective heating coil is not driven by the cooktop controller and, in an operating mode of the inductive cooktop (¶0038, The heat-transferring heating element serves to heat the cooking utensil for heat-treating food contained therein”; this is the basic cooking mode, heat transfer from at least one respective heating coil to utensil), the at least one respective heating coil is driven to heat a cooktop utensil (2) with the transmitter unit (7) which cooktop utensil is placed on the cooking zone, the inductive cooktop additionally being operated by the cooktop controller in a ready mode (¶¶0042, 0044, If the cooking appliance is switched on, the associated coil ("cooktop coil") is switched on for a short time to supply energy to all cooking positions. Each cooking utensil located on a hotplate is now supplied with energy and can report its existence to the cooking appliance by means of a signal transmission via the transmission device, e.g. by means of a transmission of temperature data.) , and the inductive cooktop being switched from the standby mode to the ready mode by a wake-up signal (¶0035, 0044, set up for transmission of energy and for the transmission of data) received by the receiver unit (¶0021, “receiving device” of appliance opposite the “cooking device of the cooking utensil”) of the cooktop controller, and, in the ready mode, the at least one respective heating coil being driven by the cooktop controller such that, on one hand, the cooktop utensil is prevented from being effectively heated for a preparation operation and, on an other hand, signal transmission between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit is enabled by the at least one respective heating coil (¶0042, for this mode, the transmission for heating is not active but the connection between the transmitter and receiver is.).
Regarding claim 36, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 35, as above, and further teaches a system wherein, in the ready mode, the at least one respective heating coil is driven by the cooktop controller such that transmission of an operating power from the inductive cooktop to the cooktop utensil placed on the cooking zone associated with the at least one respective heating coil is enabled by the at least one respective heating coil (¶0042, the heating coil energizes the utensil which then connects) . .
Regarding claim 37, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 35, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the wake-up signal (¶0035 these are the signals generated from transmission unit 7) is generated by: actuation of a control element that is provided on the cooktop utensil and is in signal communication with the transmitter unit (¶0042, in signal communication with transmitter 7 and connected to 11, 10; because the limitations are stated in the alternative “and/or”, by this one being met, the art reads on the entire claim), and/or a motion sensor that is mounted on the cooktop utensil and is in signal communication with the transmitter unit, and/or actuation of a control element that is provided on the inductive cooktop and is in signal communication with the receiver unit of the cooktop controller, and/or actuation of a control element that is provided on a third device and is in signal communication with the receiver unit of the cooktop controller.
Regarding claim 38, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 35, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein an electric power with which the cooktop controller drives the at least one respective heating coil in the ready mode has an average value of less than or equal to 30 W, and/or wherein an electric power with which the cooktop controller drives the at least one respective heating coil in the ready mode has a pause/power ratio of greater than or equal to 1000:1. However, to correlate, the heating coil is only switched on for a short time, enough to power some electronics to then correlate via a transmitter and receiver (Burghardt, ¶0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use as little power as possible, even less than the 30 W in the claim, in order to power small electronics with a secondary coil, to correlate the utensil to the appliance without undue heating and wasting energy unnecessarily (see Power Chart for Appliance, retrieved from https://www.donrowe.com/usage-chart-a/259.htm, attached, where it is indicated that it takes less than or equal to 30 Watts to power small electronics, such as a DVD Player, TV satellite dish, or computer Tablet, i.e. a coil not heating but just in the ready mode; that this limitation is in the alternative means that only this needs to be met in order for the art to find obvious the claim).
Regarding claim 39, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 35, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the automatic correlation of at least one cooktop utensil with at least one cooking zone of the inductive cooktop having a plurality of cooking zones which are inductively heated by the at least one respective heating coil is performed in the ready mode (Burghardt, ¶¶0036, 0038, hob has a number of hotplates, ¶0057. hob has several hotplates)).
Regarding claim 40, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 39, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the inductive cooktop is automatically switched from the ready mode to the operating mode by the cooktop controller and as a function of the response signal received by receiver unit in the ready mode (¶0039, the cooking appliance can automatically detect whether or not there is a cooking utensil as described above on the hotplate)..
Claims 20 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt (DE102015222797A1; in IDS under “BSH Burghardt GMBH”, English translation attached;) in view of Bowles (U.S. Patent 4,319,109).
Regarding claim 20, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, but does not further teach an induction cooktop wherein the driving of the at least one respective heating coil is performed as a function of a placement event detected by a sensor or of an underlying surface on which the cooktop utensil has been placed and which is detected by the sensor, and/or
wherein a processing routine for automatically correlating the cooktop utensil with at least one cooking zone of the inductive cooktop is started as a function of a placement event detected by the sensor or of an underlying surface on which the cooktop utensil has been placed and which is detected by the sensor.
However, Bowles, in his induction heating, teaches wherein driving of the heating coil is performed as a function of a placement event detected by a sensor (Bowles, Abstract, the sensors 18, 20, and 22 monitor and maintain the drive as a function of the initial placement event and alter the power or even turn it off should the pot get removed) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Burghardt with the teaching of Bowles to monitor the placement of the utensil, in conjunction with, of course correlating the pot and the appliance so there would be a so there would be further way of better controlling the hob, and its placement and power to it, say, if the utensil was correlated to the appliance, but, for whatever reason, not sitting well on the hob in just quite the proper position and this would be a further safety feature.
Regarding claim 41, Burghardt teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, but does not further teach a system, wherein the driving of the at least one respective heating coil is performed as a function of a placement event detected by a sensor or of an underlying surface on which the cooktop utensil has been placed and which is detected by the sensor, and/or wherein a processing routine for automatically correlating the cooktop utensil with at least one cooking zone of the inductive cooktop is started as a function of a placement event detected by the sensor or of an underlying surface on which the cooktop utensil has been placed and which is detected by the sensor.
However, Bowles teaches wherein driving of the heating coil is performed as a function of a placement event detected by a sensor (Bowles, Abstract, the sensors 18, 20, and 22 monitor and maintain the drive as a function of the initial placement event and alter the power or even turn it off should the pot get removed) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Burghardt with the teaching of Bowles to monitor the placement of the utensil, in conjunction with, of course correlating the pot and the appliance so there would be a so there would be further way of better controlling the hob, and its placement and power to it, say, if the utensil was correlated to the appliance, but, for whatever reason, not sitting well on the hob in just quite the proper position and this would be a further safety feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8- 10, 27, and 29-31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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 at 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights