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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims:
“a cooker body … wherein the controller, the functional driver device, the heating control device, and the heating device are all provided inside the cooker body.” [Claim 1]
“an identification contact point of the secondary interface”, wherein the identification circuit is configured to connect a contact point of the primary interface to the identification contact point of the secondary interface [Claim 3]
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) are: Heating Device, Functional Device, Functional Driver Device in claim 1, and a Power Supply Device and Heat Dissipating Device in claim 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
Regarding claim 1, it describes a “heating device,” but does not provide further sufficient structure to perform the claimed function as there are many different mechanisms of heat generation. In the specification, Applicant discloses, “the heating device can be a heating wire plate, a heating coil and etc.” [Specification, para. 10] Accordingly, the heating device will be understood to describe a heating wire, a heating coil and any equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 1, it describes a “functional device,” but does not provide further sufficient structure to perform the claimed function as there are many different mechanisms of heat generation. In the specification, Applicant discloses, the functional device can be a range hood, a steam generator, a barbecue device and etc.” [Specification, para. 10] Accordingly, the functional device will be understood to describe a range hood, steam generator, barbecue and any equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 further describes a “functional driver device,” but does not provide further sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. In the specification, Applicant discloses,
“the functional driver device specifically is a range hood driving board for driving the range hood to work.” [Specification, para. 16] Accordingly, the functional driver device will be understood to describe a driving control board and any equivalents thereof.
Claim 8 further describes a “power supply device” but does not provide further sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. In the specification, Applicant discloses the power supply device, “is provided with a power supply interface for connecting a power supply line” wherein the interface “can be adapted to the common power lines in the market, for example, the 2-core power line, the 3-core power line, the 4-core power line and the 5-core power line, and it achieves compatibility with multiple power lines, and thus the universality of the power supply device 108 is improved.” [Specification, paras. 155, 162]. Therefore, power supply device will be understood to describe a power supply adapted for a multi-core power line and any equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 requires “a heat dissipating device, provided between the heating control device and the functional driver device, and/or provided between the heating control device and the power supply device, and configured to dissipate heat from the heating control device and the functional driver device” which in interpreted under 35 USC 112 (f).
The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph … or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus-function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention.").
In this case, the Specification describes a “a heat dissipating device, provided between the heating control device and the functional driver device, and/or provided between the heating control device and the power supply device, and configured dissipate heat from the heating control device and the functional driver device.” [Specification, para. 62] The Specification does not describe what structures define the heat dissipating device, but merely repeats substantially the claimed language. As a result, claim 9 contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is 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. The immediate claim states that the identification circuit includes an optocoupler with a resister connected to “a third pin of the optocoupler.” [Claim 4] However, The Specification discloses that “the identification circuit 206 comprises … a first optocoupler 2004, … and a first resistor 2006, connected to the fourth pin of the first optocoupler 2004.” [Specification, para. 118] As the claim language only describes the location of 3 total pin connections, the claim language “a third pin” will be understood to mean the 4th pin of the optocoupler. Nonetheless, the claim language is indefinite and needs to be amended or cancelled.
Claim 5 is 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. The immediate claim states that the identification circuit includes an optocoupler with the first pin connected to “a second contact point of the primary interface.” [Claim 5] However, The Specification disclosed that “the pin 4 (i.e., the first pin) of the second optocoupler 2016 is connected to the third contact point in the primary interface 202 of the communication circuit 200, and the third contact point is an RXDX contact point.” [Specification, para. 124] As the Specification consistently recite the RXDX contact point is the third contact point of the primary interface [Para. 30, 124, 151] the claim language will be understood to mean the first pin (i.e. pin 4) of the optocoupler is connected to the third contact point, i.e. the RXDX contact point. Nonetheless, the claim language is indefinite and needs to be amended or cancelled.
The term “standardized interface” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standardized” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In order to properly define this structure, the standard by which this interface is designed for must be disclosed (USB, UART etc.). Virtually all electrical interfaces are designed along some standardized connection, so the structural difference between an interface and a standardized interface as claimed is unclear, and therefore, indefinite. This term will be understood to refer to any electrical interface connection between the heating control device and secondary interface.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the driving device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has only disclosed a functional device and functional driver device, but not a driver device. Furthermore, Applicant discloses in the Specification (paras. 18, 23-6 etc.), and illustrates in Fig. 2, that the secondary interface is connected to the control devices, not the heating device or functional device. Accordingly, this limitation will be understood to mean the functional driver device. Nonetheless, the claim language is indefinite and needs to be amended or cancelled.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation “a heat dissipating 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. The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Applicant provides no further structure to perform heat dissipation, as it is only described as conducting “heat dissipation to the heating control device 104 and the functional driver device 106, and can conduct heat dissipation to the heating control device 104 and the power supply device 108.” [Specification, paras. 164-5]. 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. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted to mean any component capable of dissipating heat in the integrated cooker system.
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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 113921001).
Chen anticipates:
Regarding claim 1, An integrated cooker [Fig. 1, para. 7] comprising:
a cooker body [paras. 48-52] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses an air fryer, and thus, necessarily discloses a cooker body. This will be understood as the body of the appliance surrounding the cooking cavity.)
a controller [Fig. 1 (10)] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses a CPU (10) that provides controller functions of the cooking device and thus teaches this limitation.)
a heating device; [Fig. 1 (7), para. 52, 73] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the heating unit (7) includes a heating element, specifically a heating tube.)
a functional device; [Fig. 1 (6), para. 52] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the fan control unit includes a fan and fan motor.)
a functional driver device [Fig. 1 (6), para. 52] configured to receive a driving control signal from the controller to control a working state of the functional device; [para. 52, 66] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the fan control unit further includes a motor drive control device, that controls the working state of the fan in response to received control signals from the controller (via the interface control circuit)).
and a heating control device [Fig. 1 (7), para. 52, 73] configured to receive a heating control signal from the controller to control a working state of the heating device; [para. 52, 67] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the heating unit further includes a heating element control device, that controls the working state of the heating element in response to received control signals from the controller (via the interface control circuit), and thus teaches this limitation.)
wherein the controller, the functional driver device, the heating control device, and the heating device are all provided inside the cooker body. [Fig. 1, paras. 48-56] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses an air fryer with an embedded control module comprising the CPU, and interface control circuit and human interaction unit in electrical connection with the cooking executing module. The air fryer must contain the heating device and fan inside of the cooker body in order to perform cooking operations, and Chen discloses the fan control unit and heating unit each comprise both the control device (heating control and functional driver devices) and the actuator (heating device and functional device). Therefore, the functional driver device, heating control device and heating device, all must be provided inside the cooker body. Chen further discloses that an operation key and display unit are arranged on the air fryer for manual user operation of the air fryer, where inputs are analyzed in the human interaction unit. Accordingly, the controller must also be in the cooker body as the human interaction unit is in electrical connection with the operation keys/display and embedded on the same chip. Furthermore, the cooking execution module and CPU are in physical electrical connection through the interface control circuit embedded on the control module, and thus, the controller must be in the cooker body in order to provide control signals to the cooking execution module through the circuit. Therefore, it is inherent that the controller, functional driver device, heating control device and heating device are provided inside the body of the air fryer disclosed in Chen.)
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses
An integrated cooker control method [Fig. 2], implemented by a controller [Fig. 1 (10)] of an integrated cooker [Fig. 1, para. 7], the integrated cooker further including a cooker body [paras. 1-7], a functional driver device [Fig. 1 (6)], a heating control device [Fig. 1 (7)], a heating device [Fig. 1 (7)], and a functional device [Fig. 1 (6)], with the controller, the functional driver device, the heating control device, and the heating device all provided inside the cooker body [Fig. 1, paras. 48-56] (Examiner Note: As discussed in claim 1 above, Chen teaches this limitation.), the integrated cooker control method comprising:
in response to detecting a heating control instruction, analyzing the heating control instruction and sending a heating control signal to the heating control device to control a working state of the heating device; [Fig. 2 (S-5), paras. 52, 67, 83] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses a controller method wherein the controller executes the cooking command in response to a user selected cooking operation. The cooking commands are made up of a combination of heater, fan and light commands to execute the selected operation (e.g. change temperature, fan on, cake mode etc.) Chen further discloses that the controller sends control signals to the cooking executing module through the interface control circuit where the instructions are parsed into individual heating, fan and light commands that are sent to the respective control devices to execute with the peripheral component. Thus, when a heating instruction is initialized, the controller will analyze the instruction and send the heating control to the associated heating device. Accordingly, Chen discloses a method where upon detection of a heating instruction, the controller analyzes the instruction and sends it to control the heating device, and thus teaches this limitation.) and
in response to detecting a driving control instruction, analyzing the driving control instruction and sending a driving control signal to the functional driver device to control a working state of the functional device. [Fig. 2 (S-5), paras. 52, 66, 83] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses a controller method wherein the controller executes the cooking command after user selection of a cooking operation. The cooking commands are made up of a combination of heater, fan and light commands to execute the selected operation (e.g. change temperature, fan on, cake mode etc.) Chen further discloses that the controller sends control signals to the cooking executing module through the interface control circuit where the instructions are parsed into individual heating, fan and light commands that are sent to the respective control devices to execute with the peripheral component. Thus, when a driving instruction is initialized, the controller will analyze the instruction and send the driving control to the associated driver device. Accordingly, Chen discloses a method where upon detection of a driving instruction, the controller analyzes the instruction and sends it to control the functional driving device, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Regarding claim 13,
A controller for an integrated cooker [Fig. 1 (10)], the integrated cooker [Fig. 1] further including a cooker body [Fig. 1], a functional driver device [Fig. 1 (6)], a heating control device [Fig. 1 (7)], a heating device [Fig. 1 (7)], and a functional device [Fig. 1 (6)], with the controller, the functional driver device, the heating control device, and the heating device provided inside the cooker body [Fig. 1, paras. 48-56] (Examiner Note: As discussed in claim 1 above, Chen teaches this limitation.), the controller being configured to:
in response to detecting a heating control instruction, analyze the heating control instruction and send a heating control signal to the heating control device to control a working state of the heating device [Fig. 2 (S-5), paras. 52, 67, 83] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the controller executes the cooking command after instruction initialization. Chen further discloses that the controller sends control signals to the cooking executing module through the interface control circuit where the instructions are parsed into individual heating, fan and light commands that are sent to the respective control devices to execute with the peripheral component. Accordingly, Chen discloses a controller that, upon detection of a heating instruction, analyzes the instruction and sends it to control the heating device, and thus teaches this limitation.); and
in response to detecting a driving control instruction, analyze the driving control instruction and send a driving control signal to the functional driver device to control a working state of the functional device. [Fig. 2 (S-5), paras. 52, 67, 83] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the controller executes the cooking command after instruction verification. The cooking commands are made up of a combination of heater, fan and light commands to execute the selected operation (e.g. change temperature, fan on, cake mode etc.) Chen further discloses that the controller sends control signals to the cooking executing module through the interface control circuit where the instructions are parsed into individual heating, fan and light commands that are sent to the respective control devices to execute with the peripheral component. Accordingly, Chen discloses a controller that, upon detection of a driving instruction, analyzes the instruction and sends it to control the functional driver device, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 112856501).
As discussed above, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses a communication circuit [Fig. 1 (14)];
wherein the controller is connected to the heating control device and the functional driver device through the communication circuit [Fig. 1 (4,10,14), paras. 56, 64] (Examiner Note: As illustrated in Fig. 1, the controller (10) is connected through the interface control circuit (14) to the cooking execution module (4) comprising the fan and heating control devices, and thus, anticipate this limitation.). Chen further discloses the controller detecting an initialization instruction. [para. 29] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses, after the control module receives input controls, the information is matched to cooking operations, where the operation instructions are sent from the controller to the heating control device and fan control device to execute. This will be understood to disclose the controller acts in response to an initialization instruction, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Chen does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to, determine a heating flag bit corresponding to the heating control device and a driving flag bit corresponding to the functional driver device after initialization. Chen discloses a controller configured to determine a control signal that corresponds to a heating or fan control device, but does not explicitly disclose using flag bits for identification. [Chen: Fig. 2 (S-5), paras. 52, 66-7, 83] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses, after initialization, a control method of detecting an instruction and determining a control signal corresponds to a heating control or driving control device. Once the controller senses an instruction has been selected (i.e. received an initialization instruction), it sends a control signal to the interface control circuit where it is sent to the heating, fan or light control devices depending on the instruction. The interface control circuit must be performing some identification to determine the device associated with each control signal. Therefore, the controller disclosed in Chen necessarily makes a determination of the control device corresponding to the control signal after initialization.)
However, Liu explicitly discloses a controller for an electromagnetic oven provided with a register of flag bits “used for managing each component in the chip, [and] controlling and monitoring,” the control signals at the parallel I/O port. This identification function can only execute after an instruction has been initialized, and thus, must occur after initialization [Liu: Fig. 2, paras. 37-8]. Liu provides the controller with the ability to identify flag bits of any control device connected to the controller after initialization. In other words, the controller is configured to determine the flag bit corresponding to the control device after initialization.
Chen and Liu are analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both related to controller systems in cookers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen with the flag bit registry disclosed in Liu in order to simplify the wiring and improve functionality of the control system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Liu and Chen could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different control devices will have different flag bits, and thus, connecting a heat control and functional driver device would generate a heating and driving flag bit. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a flag bit registry because the assignment of flag bits allows the interchangeability of peripheral components, and reduces wiring by removing the need for multiple control circuits. Furthermore, these benefits have the combined effect of increasing customization and control of the controller sub-systems. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses a communication circuit [Chen: Fig. 1 (14)] includes:
a primary interface connected to the controller [Chen: Fig. 1 (10-14), para. 56] (Examiner Note: An interface is a physical connection point between electrical components, and the claims do not recite or require any further structure for the interface. Chen discloses an interface formed by connection of the controller (10) at the interface control circuit (14), and thus, teaches this limitation.), and configured to receive at least one of the heating control signal or the driving control signal [Chen: para. 21, 58] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus [MPEP 2114-I]. Chen discloses the controller sends control signals to the interface control circuit, which then sends them to the respective heat and fan control devices, and thus, configured to receive the heating and driving control signals. The electrical components are communicatively connected, and thus, necessarily configured to receive control signals);
a secondary interface connected to at least one of the heating control device or the functional driver device [Chen: Fig. 1 (14-4), para. 64] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses an interface formed by the connection of the cooking execution module (4) (connected to both the heating and fan control devices) at the interface control circuit (14) that is configured to send control signals to the heating and fan control devices, and thus, teaches this limitation.), and configured to send the at least one of the heating control signal or the driving control signal [Chen paras. 66, 67] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus [MPEP 2114-I]. Chen discloses the primary interface circuit sends control signals from the controller to the fan control unit and heating unit. The electrical components are communicatively connected, and thus, necessarily configured to send a control signal.)
and an identification circuit [Chen: Fig. 1 (14)] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus [MPEP 2114-I]. The interface control circuit disclosed in Chen receives the control instructions and identifies the control device associated with the signal to send to the corresponding control devices (heat, fan, light). Therefore, the interface control circuit functions as an identification circuit, and teaches this limitation.) configured to connect a contact point of the primary interface to an identification contact point of the secondary interface, [Chen: Fig. 1(10-14, 14-4), para. 19, 66-7] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the interface control circuit connects a contact point of the primary interface to a contact point of the secondary interface, wherein the control signal is sent through the secondary interface to the corresponding control devices based on identification performed by the circuit. This will be interpreted to read onto this limitation as the circuit connects a contact with the primary interface with a contact of the secondary interface that corresponds to the identified flag bit associated with each control device.)
Chen does not disclose wherein the identification contact point corresponds to the driving flag bit or the heating flag bit after initialization. Chen discloses an identification contact point but does not disclose flag bits corresponding to the contact point. [Chen: Fig. 1 (14, 4) paras. 19, 66-7]
However, Liu discloses a controller assigns a flag bit (after initialization) associated with each control device based on their port connection (i.e. contact point). Therefore, an identification contact point will correspond to a flag bit after initialization, as each contact point is associated with a flag bit that corresponds to a control device. [Liu: para. 37-8]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen with identification contact points corresponding to flag bits after initialization as taught in Liu in order to improve functionality of the control system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Liu and Chen could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of cookers. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different control devices will have different flag bits, and thus, connecting a heat control and functional driver device would generate a heating and driving flag bit corresponding to the control devices at each contact point. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate identification contact points corresponding to flag bits because the assignment of flag bits at the contact point allows the interchangeability of peripheral components, and removes the need for multiple control circuits. Furthermore, these benefits have the combined effect of increasing customization and control of the controller sub-systems. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Chen further discloses, a controller method wherein, sending a control signal in response to detecting an initialization instruction. [Chen: Para. 29] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses a controller where, after initialization, it detects an instruction and determines a control signal corresponds to a heating control or driving control device. Once the controller senses an instruction has been selected (i.e. received an initialization instruction), it sends a control signal to the interface control circuit where it is sent to the heating or functional devices depending on the identified instruction. A prior art device will anticipate a method claim if it would necessarily perform the method claimed in its normal and usual operation, and therefore, Chen discloses the claimed method. [MPEP 2112.01-I].) As discussed in claim 2 above, Chen further discloses a controller configured to determine a control signal corresponding to the heating or fan control device after initialization, but does not explicitly disclose flag bits. [Chen: paras. 52, 66-7]
Chen does not disclose determining a heating flag bit corresponding to the heating control device and a driving flag bit corresponding to the functional driver device after initialization.
However, Liu discloses that, after initialization, the controller assigns flag bits at the parallel I/O port, where a flag bit will be assigned based on the identified control device. Therefore, Liu discloses determining a flag bit corresponds to a control device after initialization. [Liu: Fig. 2, paras. 37-8]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen with a step for determining a flag bit corresponding to a control device as taught in Liu in order to improve functionality of the control system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Liu and Chen could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of cookers. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosed method would determine a heating and driving flag bit when there is a heating control device and functional driver device connected to the controller. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a method for determining flag bits because it allows for the interchangeability of peripheral components, and removes the need for multiple control circuits. Furthermore, these benefits have the combined effect of increasing customization and control of the controller sub-systems. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu.
As discussed above, Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Chen, further discloses
a communication circuit [Chen: Fig. 1 (14)], and the communication circuit includes a first secondary interface [Chen: Fig. 1 (14-7)] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the cooking execution module is made up of the fan control device, light control device and heat control device. Each control device is connected to the interface control circuit via the secondary interface, and thus, each connection with the control device forms a distinct secondary interface. Accordingly, the interface between the interface control circuit (14) and first control device forms a first secondary interface.) and a second secondary interface [Chen: Fig. 1 (14-6)] (Examiner Note: Each control device is connected to the interface control circuit via the secondary interface, and thus, each connection with the control device forms a distinct secondary interface. Accordingly, the interface between the interface control circuit (14) and second control device forms a second secondary interface.) connected to at least one of the heating device or the driver device; [Chen: Fig. 1 (14,6,7), paras. 66-7] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses secondary interfaces connected to a heating and driver devices through electrical connection with the heating control device and functional driver control device respectively, and thus meets this limitation.)
the method further comprising:
sending the heating control signal to the heating device through the first secondary interface in response to detecting the heating control instruction [Chen: para. 67] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the controller, in response to a received user instruction, will load a cooking operation, parse it into discrete control logic, and then send the instructions to the control device corresponding to each step. When the operation is related to a heating step in the cooking operation, the controller sends heating control instructions through the identification circuit, where the heating control signal is identified, and sent through the secondary interface to the heating control device associated with control signal. Accordingly, the controller will send a heating control signal (in response to an instruction) through the first secondary interface if a heating control device is determined at that interface. A prior art device will anticipate a method claim if it would necessarily perform the method claimed in its normal and usual operation, and therefore, Chen in view of Liu discloses the claimed method. [MPEP 2112.01-I]); and
sending the driving control signal to the driver device through the second secondary interface in response to detecting the driving control instruction. [Chen: para. 66] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses the controller, in response to a received user instruction, will load a cooking operation, parse it into discrete control logic, and then sends the instructions through the interface control circuit to the control device corresponding to each step. When the operation is related to a driving step in the cooking operation, the controller sends driving control instructions through the identification circuit, where the functional driver device is identified, and sent through the secondary interface to the functional driver device associated with the control signal. Accordingly, the controller will send a driving control signal (in response to an instruction) through the second secondary interface if a functional driver device is determined at that interface. A prior art device will anticipate a method claim if it would necessarily perform the method claimed in its normal and usual operation, and therefore, Chen in view of Liu discloses the claimed method. [MPEP 2112.01-I]);
Chen does not disclose in response to determining that an identification contact point of the first secondary interface corresponds to the heating flag bit and in response to determining that an identification contact point of the second secondary interface corresponding to the driving flag bit. Chen discloses a method for determining an identification contact point of the first or second secondary interface corresponds to a heating or driving control device, but does not specifically disclose using flag bits for this method. [Chen: paras. 21, 29, 66-7] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Chen discloses the controller, in response to a received user instruction, will load a cooking operation, parse it into discrete control logic, and then sends the instructions through the interface control circuit to the control device corresponding to each step. The interface control circuit performs some identification at the contact point in order to send the heating or driving control signal through the first or second secondary interface to the associated control device.)
However, Liu discloses the controller assigns flag bits at the parallel I/O port after initialization, where a flag bit will be assigned to the corresponding control device based on the control device identified at the associated port connection, and thus acts as an identification contact point. [Liu: paras. 37-8] Accordingly, Liu, discloses a controller wherein, after initialization, the controller determines a flag bit corresponding to a control device at an identification contact point.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen with a step for determining a flag bit corresponding to an identification contact point of a secondary interface as taught in Liu in order to improve functionality of the control system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Liu and Chen could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosed method would determine a heating and driving flag bit at each identification point when a heating control device and functional driver device are connected to the secondary interfaces. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a method for determining flag bits associated to contact points of the interface because it allows for the interchangeability of peripheral components, and removes the need for multiple control circuits. Furthermore, these benefits have the combined effect of increasing customization and control of the controller sub-systems. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) in view of Liu (CN 112856501) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fan (CN 102820847).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 3
Neither Chen or Liu disclose the integrated cooker wherein the contact point of the primary interface is a first contact point of the primary interface; and
the identification circuit includes:
a triode, an emitter of the triode being connected to a second contact point of the primary interface;
an optocoupler, a first pin of the optocoupler being connected to a collector of the triode, and a second pin of the optocoupler being grounded; and
a resistor connected to a third pin of the optocoupler. (Examiner Note: The examiner has construed the third pin of the optocoupler as teaching a fourth pin, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above.)
However, Fan discloses “[t]he receiver port pin RX1 of the first microprocessor 201 is connected to the collector of the first optocoupler IC3 transistor in the optocoupler circuit through resistor R13. The collector of the first optocoupler IC3 is connected to the power supply circuit VCC through resistor R9. The emitter of the first optocoupler IC3 is grounded.” [para. 92] In other words, Fan discloses wherein the contact point of the primary interface is a first contact point of the primary interface [Fig. 4 (RX2)]; and the identification circuit [Fig. 4] includes a triode [Fig. 4 (Q6)], an emitter of the triode being connected to a second contact point of the primary interface [Fig. 4 (TX2)]; an optocoupler [Fig. 4 (IC3)], a first pin of the optocoupler being connected to a collector of the triode, and a second pin of the optocoupler being grounded; and a resistor (Fig. 4 [R9]) connected to a third pin of the optocoupler.
Fan is analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both related to controller systems in household appliances. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen in view of Liu with the optocoupler circuit disclosed in Fan to provide galvanic isolation and improve signal transmission quality. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Chen and Fan could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of household appliances. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the optocoupler circuit disclosed in Fan because Fan discloses the circuit provides isolation from electromagnetic signal interference and improves the quality of signal transmission. [Para. 97] Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu, further in view of Fan.
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Neither Chen or Liu disclose the integrated cooker wherein the contact point of the primary interface is a first contact point of the primary interface; and the identification circuit includes:
an optocoupler, a first pin of the optocoupler being connected to a second contact point of the primary interface, and a second pin and a third pin of the optocoupler being grounded; (Examiner Note: Examiner is construing the second contact point of the primary interface as the second contact point associated with the RXDX contact, consistent with interpretation based on 112(b) rejection above.)
a triode, a collector of the triode being connected to a fourth pin of the optocoupler; and
a resistor, a first end of the resistor being connected to a base electrode of the triode, and a second end of the resistor forming a signal transceiver of the secondary interface.
However, Fan discloses “the transmit port pin TX1 of the first microprocessor 201 is connected to the base of the first transistor Q5 in the first switching circuit through resistor R12. The emitter of the first transistor Q5 is connected to the power supply circuit VCC, and the collector is connected to the positive terminal of the second optocoupler IC4 diode in the optocoupler circuit. The negative terminal of the second optocoupler IC4 diode is grounded through resistor R14. The negative terminal of the diode in the first optocoupler IC3 is connected to the collector of the transistor in the second optocoupler IC4. The emitter of the transistor in the second optocoupler IC4 is connected to resistor R8 through the first signal line A.” [paras. 91-3] In other words, Fan discloses wherein the contact point of the primary interface is a first contact point of the primary interface [Fig. 4 (RX2)]; and the identification circuit [Fig. 4] includes: an optocoupler [Fig. 4 (IC4)], a first pin of the optocoupler being connected to a third contact point of the primary interface [Fig. 4 (TX2)], (Examiner Note: Connected by way of IC3) and a second pin and a third pin of the optocoupler being grounded; a triode [Fig. 4 (Q5)], a collector of the triode being connected to a fourth pin of the optocoupler; and a resistor [Fig. 4 (R12)], a first end of the resistor being connected to a base electrode of the triode, and a second end of the resistor forming a signal transceiver of the secondary interface. [Fig. 4 (TX1), para. 96] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus [MPEP 2114-I]. Fan discloses a resistor (R12) connected to a base electrode of the triode (Q5) and connected to the transmit line of the controller (201), and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen in view of Liu with the optocoupler circuit disclosed in Fan to provide galvanic isolation and improve signal transmission quality. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Chen and Fan could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to the control systems of household appliances. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the optocoupler circuit disclosed in Fan because Fan discloses the circuit provides isolation from electromagnetic signal interference and improves the quality of signal transmission. [Para. 97] Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Chen further in view of Liu, further in view of Fan.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) in view of Liu (CN 112856501) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 112202445).
As discussed above, Chen in view of Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Liu further discloses an identification circuit and to a controller configured to determine a heating or driving flag bit after initialization. [Chen: Fig. 1(10-14, 14-4), para. 19; Liu paras. 37-8] (Examiner Note: As discussed in claim 3 above, Chen in view of Liu discloses a controller that determines flag bits associated with the corresponding control device via an identification circuit.). Chen in view of Liu further implicitly discloses a power supply contact point of the primary interface. [Chen: Fig. 1, para. 21] (Examiner Note: Chen in view of Liu discloses an electrical control system, which necessarily must have a power supply module to power the control logic, and it must be connected to the controller and all the control devices to perform operations. Furthermore, the primary interface will necessarily have a power supply contact point to supply power through the identification circuit in order to send signals and perform logic operations to identify the control device associated with the control signal. Accordingly, Chen in view of Liu discloses this limitation.)
Neither Chen or Liu disclose the identification circuit includes a first resistor, a first end of the first resistor being connected to the contact point, and a second end of the first resistor being connected to a grounding contact point of the primary interface; or a second resistor, a first end of the second resistor being connected to the contact point, and a second end of the second resistor being connected to a power supply contact point of the primary interface; or a third resistor, a first end of the third resistor being connected to the contact point.
However, Wang discloses a pullup resistor (R6) where “one end of the second pull-up resistor R6 is connected with the third direct current power supply 18; the other end of the second pull-up resistor R6 is respectively connected with the 1 pin of the interface CON1.” [Fig. 4 (R6), para. 57] In other words, the resistor has a first end connected to the contact point, and the second end connected to a power supply contact point of the primary interface, and therefore, meets this limitation.
Wang is analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both related to controller systems in smart cookers, and thus in a relevant field of endeavor. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify Chen in view of Liu with the pullup resistor disclosed in Wang in order to ensure a high logic level. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Wang could be combined with Chen (in view of Liu), because they are all related to control systems for smart cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the pull up resistor disclosed in Wang because it sets logic high in order to help produce a clean TXDX signal, and prevent floating inputs. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Chen in view of Liu, and further in view of Wang.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) in view of Liu (CN 112856501) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2022/0151430).
As discussed above, Chen in view of Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Liu further discloses a heating control device includes a standardized interface input adapted to the secondary interface and a standardized output interface adapted to the heating device. [Liu para. 37] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the standardized interface will be interpreted as any electrical interface until a specific standard is disclosed by the applicant. Liu discloses 4 parallel 8 bit I/O ports for parallel input/output of data in the external device. Parallel ports provide a standardized electrical interface connection with the heating control device and secondary interface, and thus, teaches this limitation.)
Chen in view of Liu does not disclose the heating control device includes a single-tube heating control device or a half-bridge heating control device.
Wu discloses the heating control device can be a single-tube module or half-bridge driving scheme, and thus, discloses this limitation. [paras. 31, 34.]
Wu is analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both related to controller systems in household appliances, and reasonably pertinent to solve the problem of heating control in cookers. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Chen in view of Liu in order to control voltage in the control device. Single tube and half bridge circuits are well known in the controller arts as inverters and power supply switches, and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize it could be combined with Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Wu because a half bridge or single-pipe module is required to provide effective switching of driving currents and power regulation. Furthermore, Wu discloses that single-pipe module is more economical for multi-heater systems. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Chen in view of Liu, and further in view of Wu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) in view of Widanagamage (WO 2008144805).
As discussed above, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Chen further discloses a power supply device connected to the controller, heating control device and functional driver. [Chen: para. 21] (Examiner Note: Chen discloses an electrical control system, which necessarily must have a power supply module to power the control logic, and it must be connected to the controller and all the control devices to perform operations. Furthermore, Chen implicitly discloses a live and neutral line, as they are required for providing a path to and from the power source in order to power the device.)
Chen does not disclose the power supply device includes a ground line contact point.
However, Widanagamage discloses a powerline with neutral (821, 824) live (822, 825) and earth (823, 826) lines, and thus teaches this limitation. [pg. 8 L 32-3]
Widanagamage is analogous art to the claimed invention as they are all related to powered kitchen appliances. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to combine the device disclosed in Chen with the ground line disclosed in Widanagamage to safely provide power to the electrical components. One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to combine the teachings of Widanagamage with Chen because they are both related to control systems in household kitchen appliances, and 3-core power lines are well known to be used for supplying power in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the 3-core power line disclosed in Widanagamage because the ground connection allows for safe transmission of electrical control signals without risking shorting of the circuit. Furthermore, 3 core power lines are well known in the cooking art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would know a multi-core power line would be suitable for the device disclosed in Chen. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as obvious over Chen in view of Widanagamage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113921001) in view of Widanagamage (WO 2008144805) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hoshino (JP 2020177780).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Chen in view of Widanagamage discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Chen in view of Widanagamage further discloses, the heating control device is located among the driver device, and the controller. [Chen: Fig. 1 (6, 7, 10)] (Examiner Note: As Applicant’s Fig. 1 discloses 2 heating control devices in different relative arrangements with the functional driver device, and controller, located among will be understood to mean within a general vicinity of the claimed devices. Chen discloses the heating control device, the functional driver device and controller are in proximity of each other, and thus teaches this limitation.) As discussed in claim 8, Chen inherently discloses a power supply device, but does not explicitly disclose its arrangement within the cooker body. [Chen: para. 21]
Neither Chen or Widanagamage disclose wherein the functional driver device and the power supply device are arranged inside the cooker body side-by-side,
the heating control device is located among the driver device, the power supply device, and the controller, and the functional device is detachably fixed at a bottom of the cooker body;
the integrated cooker further comprising:
a heat dissipating device, provided between the heating control device and the functional driver device, and/or provided between the heating control device and the power supply device, and configured to dissipate heat from the heating control device and the functional driver device.
It would have been obvious to modify the controller system disclosed by Chen in view of Widanagamage such that the power supply device is next to the functional driver inside the cooker body device because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the power supply device near the functional driver device claimed provides any unexpected advantage as other arrangements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the power supply device can be arranged in many different ways without affecting the power supply function. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of that arranging the power supply close to the control modules in order to decrease the wiring harness and reduce the accumulation of noise between components. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed power supply device arrangement to work equally as well as the arrangement disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Chen in view of Widanagamage, modified as per above, still does not disclose the heating control device is located among the driver device, the power supply device, and the controller, and the functional device is detachably fixed at a bottom of the cooker body.
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the controller system disclosed by Chen in view of Widanagamage such that the heating control device is located among the driver device, the power supply device, and the controller because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the heating control device amongst these modules provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heating control device can be arranged in many different ways amongst the control modules without affecting the heating control. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that placing the control modules closer to each other will make a smaller control system. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed heating control device arrangement to work equally as well as the arrangement disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Chen in view of Widanagamage, modified as per above, still does not disclose the functional device is detachably fixed.
However, under MPEP 2144.V-C, the making a structure separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the controller system disclosed by Chen in view of Widanagamage such that the functional driver device is detachable because making separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-V-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the heating control device amongst these modules provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a detachable functional driver device will function equally as well as an integral functional driver device for provide driving control signals. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that detachable peripheral components are well known in the cooking control arts, and allows for the replacement of individual parts instead of a whole control system, simplifying operation and maintenance and reducing operational costs. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the detachable functional driver device to work equally as well as the integral functional driver device disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Chen in view of Widanagamage, modified as per above, still does not disclose the functional device is at a bottom of the cooker body.
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the controller system disclosed by Chen in view of Widanagamage such that the detachable functional driver device is arranged at the bottom of the cooker body because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the functional driver device at the bottom of the cooker body provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the functional driver device device can be arranged in many different ways within the cooker body without affecting the driving control. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that arranging the functional driver device at the bottom of the cooker will work equally as well as a functional driver device arranged elsewhere in the cooker body. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the functional driver device arranged at the bottom of the cooker body to work equally as well as the functional driver device disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Chen in view of Widanagamage, as modified above, does not disclose the integrated cooker further comprising:
a heat dissipating device, provided between the heating control device and the functional driver device, and/or provided between the heating control device and the power supply device, and configured to dissipate heat from the heating control device and the functional driver device. (Examiner Note: As discussed in the 112 discussions above, this is interpreted as any component capable of dissipating heat.)
However, Hoshino discloses a heat sink (82/82F) between a “power control switching elements 83 on the side of the invertor circuit 81R” and the IH coils (17R). [Fig. 8, paras. 103, 107] This will be understood to disclose a heat sink provided between the heating control device and power supply device, and thus teaches this limitation.
Hoshino is analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both related to controller systems in household appliances. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the application to modify the controller system disclosed by Chen in view of Widanagamage with a heat dissipating device provided between the heating control device and power supply device in order to provide heat dissipation to the control modules. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Chen in view of Widanagamage can be combined with Hoshino with a reasonable expectation of success because they are all related to control systems for cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the heat dissipating device taught in Hoshino with the device disclosed in Chen in view of Widanagamage because the heat dissipating device provides thermal regulation to prevent overheating and damage to the electrical components. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Chen in view of Widanagamage, and further in view of Hoshino.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
JMC
4/17/2026
Examiner, AU 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights