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 because figs. 4–7 and 9–12 are sectional views presented without plane indications and hatching as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phraseology that can be implied, “therefor are provided”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 is objected to because it is presented in block format without sections in its claim body. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the non-flat contact portion of the mounting plate.” Claim 6 is indefinite since there is no clear antecedent basis for this. Claim 1 provides that the contact portion of the mounting plate corresponds to the non-flat lower surface, but that correspondence doesn’t necessarily convey that the contact portion is non-flat, only that it interacts with it. One solution would be to amend claim 1 such that it made clear that the contact portion had a corresponding shape.
Claim 16 recites the same language as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqual et al. (US Pub. 2018/0238559) in view of Gomez et al. (US Pub. 2019/0113238).
Claim 1: Pasqual discloses a heating coil assembly for a cooktop appliance, the heating coil assembly comprising:
a heating element (100) comprising a coil section (see fig. 1);
a thermostat (105);
a sensor support assembly at which the thermostat is positioned, the sensor support assembly comprising:
a shroud cover (2645) comprising a top wall (the top of 2645 and 2646) and a sidewall extending downward from the top wall (see the sidewall extending downward from the top wall defined by 2645 in figs. 27 and 28), the top wall comprising an upper surface facing upward (see 2645 and 2646 in figs. 27–29) and a non-flat lower surface facing downward toward the thermostat (the structure of 2645 and 2646 together create a non-flat lower surface); and
a spring bracket (1610; ¶ 93 explains this may comprise a spring) configured to bias the shroud cover upwardly (evident from ¶ 93), the spring bracket comprising a mounting plate (1610), the spring bracket forming a central recess (1940) at which the thermostat is positioned (see ¶ 96), wherein the mounting plate of the spring bracket comprises a contact portion corresponding to the non-flat surface at the lower surface of the shroud cover (evident from ¶ 97 disclosing that “bracket 1610 may be located within, and connected to, the medallion 1445,” where medallion 1445 is an embodiment analogous to 1610).
Pasqual does not disclose a biasing arm. Instead, the spring disclosed in ¶ 93 is non-descript.
However, Gomez discloses a highly similar apparatus with a spring bracket (100) comprising a mounting plate (110) and a biasing arm (150, 170).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the spring bracket of Pasqual such that it had the spring arms taught Gomez since it is a known and effective way of implementing the springs incentivized to be a part of the spring bracket from Pasqual’s disclosure (¶ 93).
Claim 7: Modified as per claim 1 above, Gomez discloses that the biasing arm extends helically downward from the mounting plate (156 and 176 on each arm).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasqual in view of Gomez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cadima (US Pub. 2021/0080115).
Pasqual does not disclose that its shroud cover comprises an aluminum material, a copper material, or alloys thereof. Pasqual only discloses that 2645 could be constructed of a single piece of metal or other suitable thermally conductive material (¶ 105).
However, Cadima discloses a similar apparatus where a similar element (130) comprises aluminum, copper, or alloys thereof (¶ 24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the shroud cover of Pasqual using the aluminum, copper, or alloys thereof taught by Cadima as materials known to be suitable for contact between a cooking utensil and a thermostat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–5 and 8–10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
All of claims 12–20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, as well as the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pasqual and Gomez barely render obvious claim 1 under a broad (but not unreasonable) claim interpretation.
The subject matter of claims 2–6 is not disclosed by, nor obvious from, Pasqual and Gomez in view of any other prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, Cadima (US Pub. 2022/0018545) discloses support stakes extending downward from a lower surface of an element that could qualify as a shroud cover (130 qualifies as a shroud cover even if element 106 is labeled the shroud cover), but only discloses these support states extending into shroud cover 130, and not fastener openings of the thermostat.
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Cadima (US Pub. 2022/0018545) is probably the closest prior art of record for disclosing a shroud cover (130 qualifies as a shroud cover even if element 106 is labeled the shroud cover) with a sidewall (barely with 132), a flat upper surface, and a non-flat lower surface. However, this Cadima reference does not disclose its mounting plate contacting the element 130, as instead it contacts (labeled-as) shroud cover 106 (whose top wall 107 would have to be considered, on both top and bottom, to be either flat or non-flat given raised rim 172).
Cadima (US Pub. 2021/0222883), Cadima et al. (US Pub. 2021/0222886), and Reyes Soto et al. (US Pub. 2023/0070713) are relevant prior art.
Cadima (US Pub. 2022/0159790) would be highly relevant to the pending claims, but was published less than one year before this application’s filing date, and shares the same applicant and sole inventor with this application, excepting it as prior art as a grace period inventor-originated disclosure (MPEP § 2153.01(a)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761