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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 13-16.
Independent claims 1 and 11 each recite “a pair of temperature junctions”. However, the corresponding dependent claims 3-6 and 13-16 inconsistently recite “voltage” and “temperature” junctions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023175218 A1 to Pablo Curto et al. (Pablo Curto) in view of WO 2023175218 A1 to Lovison et al. (Lovison).
In reference to independent claims 1 and 11, Pablo Curto discloses:
An oven appliance (1), comprising:
a cabinet (not shown, gas appliance 1 is an oven);
a chamber (9) defined within the cabinet for receipt of food items for cooking, the chamber delineated by a plurality of walls including a bottom wall, a left side wall, and a right side wall (not shown, an oven is known to have such walls);
a gas burner (2) positioned within the chamber (9);
a temperature probe (6, 13) positioned proximate the gas burner (9) (see Fig. 1); and
wherein a flame is determined to be emanating from the gas burner (thermocouple 13 determines that a flame is generated from the burner 2).
Pablo Curto is silent regarding thermocouple 6 or thermocouple 13 being dual junction comprising a pair of temperature junctions, a controller positioned within the cabinet being in data communication with the temperature probe, and the determination of the presence of a flame from the burner based on a voltage difference measured by the thermocouple.
Lovison teaches a similar gas appliance (11) with a thermocouple (19) with a first (20a) and a second connector (20b) coupled with a positive terminal (Tl) and a negative terminal (T2) (see Fig. 2), a voltage measurement circuit (21) connected to the first and second connector and configured to calculate the difference in electric voltage at the heads of the terminals so as to determine the electric voltage generated by the thermocouple (19), and provide an output correlated to the difference in voltage calculated (see Fig. 2, page 8 at lines 9-12 and page 9 at lines 6-13), and a controller device (23) in data communication with the thermocouple (19) (see Fig. 2) for determining and indicating a flame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermocouple and appliance of Pablo Curto with the dual connector thermocouple and controller of Lovison in order to allow for quick detection a flame based on a voltage difference.
In reference to dependent claims 3 and 13, Lovison further teaches: the temperature probe (19) further comprises a pair of voltage junctions (T1 and T2).
In reference to dependent claims 8, 10, 18 and 20, Lovison further teaches: a circuit coupling the temperature probe and the controller (see Fig. 2), wherein the circuit consists of a single pair of wires (20a, 20b) extending between the temperature probe (19) and the controller (23) (see Fig. 2).
In reference to dependent claims 7 and 17, Lovison further teaches the controller (23) is configured to determine the flame is emanating from the gas burner based on the voltage difference measured by the temperature probe reaching a threshold voltage (see Abstract and page 11 at lines 25-28).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pablo Curto in view of Lovison further in view of US 20140212821 A1 to Banu et al. (Banu).
In reference to dependent claims 2 and 12, Pablo Curto and Lovison are silent regarding the thermocouple being positioned within a sheath.
Banu teaches a similar oven (10) in which thermocouple (54) covered in a sheath (59) (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermocouple of Pablo Curto and Lovison to include the sheath as taught by Banu in order to protect the thermocouple.
In reference to dependent claims 4 and 14, Banu further teaches a first sensor (55) and a second sensor (57) of the thermocouple (54) are insulated from one another within the sheath (59).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pablo Curto in view of Lovison further in view of Measuring Temperature with Thermocouples – a Tutorial by David Potter (Potter).
In reference to dependent claims 5 and 15, Pablo Curto and Lovison are silent regarding the pair of temperature junctions comprise a first wire comprising a first metal, and a second wire comprising a second metal different from the first metal, wherein the first wire extends between the pair of temperature junctions.
Potter teaches the use of thermocouples in measuring temperature similar to those in Pablo Curto and Lovison. Potter teaches thermocouples having a pair of wires made of different metals (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermocouple of Pablo Curto and Lovison to produce the Seebeck Effect taught by Potter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the prior art does not disclose or teach the pair of temperature junctions each comprise a respective second wire extending from a respective temperature junction of the pair of temperature junctions and a third wire.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the prior art does not disclose or teach the single pair of wires consists of a first wire and a second wire, wherein the first wire comprises an identical material to the second wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights