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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/07/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a IR radiation” should read as “an IR radiation”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in an 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.
Regarding claim 13, claim includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a radiation source for emitting electromagnetic radiation, a first radiation guiding element designed to transmit the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source, a second radiation guiding element designed to transmit electromagnetic radiation reflected from the cookware to the radiation detector
In particular, the claim limitation “source” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “for emitting electromagnetic radiation” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “radiation source” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, “radiation source” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0035-0039 “[0035] The detection unit 16 comprises at least one radiation source 18 for emitting electromagnetic radiation 20 and at least one radiation detector 22 for receiving electromagnetic radiation 20. [0036] The radiation source 18 has at least one IR radiation element 32, which is provided for emitting electromagnetic radiation 20 in the form of infrared radiation 56. The IR radiation element 32 is embodied as an Nd-YAG laser. [0037] The radiation source 18 has at least one light radiation element 44. The light radiation element 44 is provided for emitting electromagnetic radiation 20 in the form of visible light 58 for the purpose of illuminating the set-down region 26. The light radiation element 44 is embodied here as an LED, namely as an RGB LED. [0038] The radiation source 18 is provided to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation 20. The radiation source 18 is provided here to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation 20 in the form of modulated infrared radiation 56. The infrared radiation 56 is frequency modulated, namely by means of the IR radiation element 32. [0039] The cooking system 10 has a first radiation guiding element 24 for transmitting the electromagnetic radiation 20 from the radiation source 18 to the set-down region 26 of the set-down plate 12. The cooking system has a second radiation guiding element 28 for transmitting electromagnetic radiation 30 reflected by the cookware 14.”
Furthermore, the claim limitation “element” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “guiding” and “transmit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “a first radiation guiding element” and “a second radiation guiding element” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, “a first radiation guiding element” and “a second radiation guiding element” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0039-0040 “[0039] The cooking system 10 has a first radiation guiding element 24 for transmitting the electromagnetic radiation 20 from the radiation source 18 to the set-down region 26 of the set-down plate 12. The cooking system has a second radiation guiding element 28 for transmitting electromagnetic radiation 30 reflected by the cookware 14. [0040] The cooking system 10 has an optical filter 34. The optical filter 34 is arranged upstream of the radiation detector 22 and provided to filter short-wave spectral parts from the reflected electromagnetic radiation 30. The optical filter 34 is integrated here in the second radiation guiding element 28. The optical filter 32 is embodied as a doped region 70 of the second radiation guiding element which is permeable for reflected electromagnetic radiation 30 in the form of infrared radiation 56 and impermeable for reflected electromagnetic radiation 30 in the form of visible light 58.”
Regarding claim 20, claim includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a fastening unit designed to fasten the first radiation guiding element and the second radiation guiding element below the set-down plate.
In particular, the claim limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “fastening” and “to fasten” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “fastening unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the fastening unit being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0020 “it is conceivable for the fastening unit to have at least one fastening element, by means of which the first radiation guiding element and/or the second radiation guiding element is/are fastened to the fastening unit in a form-fit and/or force-fit manner, for instance by way of a latching and/or plug-in connection and/or by means of a screw connection”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 13-14, 19-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Llorente (EP 2925086 A1 and see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 13, Llorente discloses, a cooking system (see hob device 10 in Fig. 4), comprising:
a set-down plate (see hob plate 34 in Fig. 4) for setting down cookware (see cooking 2utensil 14 in Fig. 4);
a detection unit (see light source 18 and sensor 22 in Fig. 4) designed to detect the cookware (see Fig. 4), said detection unit including a radiation source (see light source 18 in Fig. 4) for emitting electromagnetic radiation (disclosed in the specification “The light source 18 emits electromagnetic radiation having one wavelength outside a wavelength range of infrared radiation”) and a radiation detector (see sensor 22 in Fig. 4) for receiving electromagnetic radiation (disclosed in the specification “waveguide 24 conducts, in particular exclusively, infrared radiation emitted by the cooking utensil 14 set up at the set-up position 16 to the sensor 22”);
a first radiation guiding element (see waveguide 20 in Fig. 4) designed to transmit the electromagnetic radiation from the radiation source (18) to a set-down region (see set-up position 16 in Fig. 4) of the set-down plate (see Fig. 4 and disclosed in the specification “the waveguide 20 emits light emitted by the light source 18 to the set-up positions 16 the light emitted by the light source 18”); and
a second radiation guiding element (see waveguide 24 in Fig. 4) designed to transmit electromagnetic radiation reflected from the cookware (14) to the radiation detector (disclosed in the specification “waveguide 24 conducts, in particular exclusively, infrared radiation emitted by the cooking utensil 14 set up at the set-up position 16 to the sensor 22”).
Regarding claim 14, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, and constructed in a form of an induction cooking system (see heating elements 36 in Fig. 4 and disclosed in the specification “The heating elements 36, which are formed in the present case as induction heating elements are arranged in an installed position below the hob plate 34”).
Regarding claim 19, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, wherein the detection unit is designed to detect a temperature of the cookware based on the reflected electromagnetic radiation (disclosed in the specification “The hob device 10 comprises a sensor 22, which is provided to detect temperatures of cooking utensils 14 set up at the set-up positions 16 in the heating operating state”).
Regarding claim 20, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, further comprising a fastening unit (see electronic board of the control unit 28 in Fig. 4) designed to fasten the first radiation guiding element (20) and the second radiation guiding element (24) below the set-down plate (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 20, wherein the first radiation guiding element (20) and the second radiation guiding element (24) are arranged in a self-supporting manner (see Fig. 4) on the fastening unit (see electronic board of the control unit 28 in Fig. 4) starting from a fastening region (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, wherein the first radiation guiding element (20) has a first end region (see annotated Fig. 4) and the second radiation guiding element (24) has a second end region (see annotated Fig. 4), with the first end region and the second end region making contact with the set-down plate (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, wherein the radiation source includes a light radiation element designed to emit visible light for illuminating the set-down region (disclosed in the specification “the light source 18 in particular emits only visible light”).
Regarding claim 25, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13, wherein the set-down plate is embodied as a hotplate (see heating elements 36 in Fig. 4 and disclosed in the specification “The heating elements 36, which are formed in the present case as induction heating elements are arranged in an installed position below the hob plate 34”).
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 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.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llorente in view of Zaizen (JP 2006294286 A and see the PDF attached).
Regarding claim 15, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13.
wherein the radiation source is designed to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation.
Nonetheless, Zaizen teaches, wherein the radiation source (see light projecting units 15 to 17 in Fig. 1) is designed to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation (see modulation units 24 to 26 that modulate in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the radiation source of Llorente to further comprise modulation unit/units to emit modulated electromagnetic radiation as taught/suggested by Zaizen in order to obtain high frequency so as the influence of disturbance light, and/or the heating elements is reduced and the reflectance can be measured with high accuracy (see the specification of Zaizen).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llorente in view of Weder (US 20230043515 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13.
However, Llorente does not explicitly disclose, wherein the radiation source includes an IR radiation element designed to emit infrared radiation.
Nonetheless, Weder teaches, wherein the radiation source includes a IR radiation element (see infrared light emitting diodes (LEDs) 114 in Fig. 1A and 1B) designed to emit infrared radiation (see infrared light 122 in Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the radiation source of Llorente to further comprise the radiation source includes an IR radiation element designed to emit infrared radiation as taught/suggested by Weder in order to obtain more infrared light that is reflected back to the sensor/detector since the more infrared light that is reflected back to the sensor/detector, the higher the reflectance of the bottom of the cookware and hence the lower its emissivity (see para 0030 by Weder). Doing so would facilitate to obtain consistent, reliable and accurate result during sensing or detecting.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llorente in view of Tsubaki (JP 2008226574 A and see the PDF attached).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 13.
However, Llorente does not explicitly disclose, further comprising an optical filter arranged upstream of the radiation detector and designed to filter short-wave spectral parts from the reflected electromagnetic radiation (claim 17) and wherein the optical filter is integrated in the second radiation guiding element (claim 18).
Nonetheless, Tsubaki teaches, an optical filter (see filter 14 with lens 18 and side wall 16 in Fig. 1) arranged upstream (see Fig. 1) of the radiation detector (see infrared sensor 10 in Fig. 1) and designed to filter short-wave spectral parts (visible light) from the reflected electromagnetic radiation (disclosed in the specification “filter 14 for suppressing the transmission of visible light is provided above the infrared sensor 10, and a side wall 16 for suppressing the transmission of visible light is also provided around the infrared sensor 10”) and wherein the optical filter (see filter 14 with lens 18 and side wall 16 in Fig. 6)) is integrated in the radiation guiding element (see case 26 with light guide 56 in Fig. 1 and disclosed in the specification “The filter 14 is attached on the substrate 12 so as to cover the infrared sensor 10 on the substrate 12 through the side wall 16 surrounding the infrared sensor 10, and the filter 14 positioned directly above the infrared sensor 10 includes A lens 18 for narrowing the visual field of the infrared sensor 10 is integrally formed”) (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the second radiation guiding element of Llorente to further comprise an optical filter arranged upstream of the radiation detector and designed to filter short-wave spectral parts from the reflected electromagnetic radiation (claim 17) and wherein the optical filter is integrated in the second radiation guiding element (claim 18) as taught/suggested by Tsubaki in order to suppress the transmission of visible light so as the sensor/detector is able to receive only infrared light (see the specification of Tsubaki). Doing so would facilitate to obtain consistent, reliable and accurate result during sensing or detecting.
It is noted that the specification of the instant Application states “ If the cooking system has an optical filter, which is arranged upstream of the radiation receiving element, it is advantageously possible to prevent short-wave spectral parts from the reflected electromagnetic radiation, in particular short-wave spectral parts of electromagnetic radiation from the spectrum of the visible light, from striking the radiation detector and thus to achieve a particularly reliable and accurate detection of cookware and/or a temperature of cookware” (see para 0017).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llorente.
Regarding claim 23, Llorente discloses, the cooking system of claim 22, wherein the first end region and the second end region (see annotated first and second end regions in Fig. 4) are arranged at a distance (see small gap/distance between annotated first and second end region in Fig. 4) relative to one another when viewed at a right angle onto the set-down plate (see Fig. 4).
However, Llorente does not explicitly disclose, a distance of at most 5 mm.
Furthermore, the specification of Llorente states “The at least one sensor and the at least one light source are in particular arranged together, advantageously in a near zone, wherein a distance between the at least one sensor and the at least one light source is at most 3 cm, in particular at most 2 cm and advantageously at most 1 cm”. As seen in Fig. 4 the gap/distance between the first and second end regions is about 10 times smaller than the gap/distance between the sensor and the light source. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the distance between the first and second end regions of Llorente so as the distance is a distance of at most 5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761