DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 1/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of copending Application No. 18469815. Claims 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18469815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have nearly identical claim language where the flat griddle with a single surface is a known and common feature that would be obvious for the claims in the copending applications in view of the art below and other cited prior art by applicant.
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 1,3-5,7,10-12,14-15,17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5676043 to Best.
As to claim 1, Best discloses A cooktop defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the cooktop comprising: a plurality of heating elements (Col 2, Line 45-60); a griddle (20) removably positioned (Col 5, Line 4-8) over the plurality of heating elements, the griddle defining a single flat and contiguous cooking surface (Col 5, Line 4-10) having first heating zone and a second heating zone (Zone 1,2 Fig 7); a temperature sensing assembly operably coupled to the griddle for monitoring a first zone temperature of the first heating zone and a second zone temperature of the second heating zone (65, Col 7, Line 34-44); and a controller (50) in operative communication with the plurality of heating elements and the temperature sensing assembly, the controller being configured to: receive a request to perform a griddle cooking operation, the request comprising a first target temperature and a second target temperature (User set, Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53); obtain the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operate the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature and the second zone temperature to the second target temperature (Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53).
As to claim 3, Best discloses a first temperature sensor embedded in the first heating zone of the griddle and a second temperature sensor embedded in the second heating zone of the griddle (Col 7, Line 34-44).
As to claim 4,14, Best discloses the first temperature sensor is positioned in a middle of the first heating zone and the second temperature sensor is positioned in a middle of the second heating zone (65, Fig 1, 2 middle as seen Fig 1).
As to claim 5,15, Best discloses operating the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature and the second zone temperature to the second target temperature comprises: implementing a closed-loop feedback control algorithm based on the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature (Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53; closed loop, takes temperature reading and adjusts output to accommodate accordingly in a loop).
As to claim 7,17, Best discloses the griddle further defines a third heating zone, the temperature sensing assembly monitors a third zone temperature of the third heating zone, and the controller is further configured to: receive a third target temperature; obtain the third zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operate the plurality of heating elements to drive the third zone temperature to the third target temperature (Fig 7; Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53).
As to claim 10, Best discloses wherein each of the plurality of heating elements are gas burners (Col 6, Line 18-25), the cooktop further comprising: a grate positioned above the gas burners for supporting the griddle (15/19; Claim 11).
As to claim 11,20, Best discloses comprising a control knob assembly for regulating a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements (50), the first heating element being associated with the first heating zone of the griddle, the control knob assembly comprising: a manual valve for manually regulating a heating level of the first heating element or placing the first heating element in a griddle mode; and an encoder for selecting the first target temperature of first heating zone in the griddle mode (Col 7, line 57-65).
As to claim 12, Best discloses A method of operating a cooktop, the cooktop comprising a plurality of heating elements, a griddle removably positioned over the plurality of heating elements, the griddle defining a single flat and contiguous cooking surface (Col 5, Line 4-10) having first heating zone and a second heating zone, and a temperature sensing assembly operably coupled to the griddle for monitoring a first zone temperature of the first heating zone and a second zone temperature of the second heating zone, the method comprising: receiving a request to perform a griddle cooking operation, the request comprising a first target temperature and a second target temperature; obtaining the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operating the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature and the second zone temperature to the second target temperature (As cited and rejected Claim 1 above: Fig 7, Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 2,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5676043 to Best as applied to claim 1,12 above in view of US Publication 20210095854 to Trice
As to claim 2, Best does not expressly disclose a griddle detection system, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the griddle is present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system before implementing the griddle cooking operation which is disclosed by Trice : (Par 0045).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Best to include a griddle detection system, wherein the controller is configured to determine that the griddle is present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system before implementing the griddle cooking operation using the teachings of Trice so as to activate the correct griddle cooking schemes and avoid implementing the incorrect cooking condition risking fire or food damage.
Claims 4,8-9,14,18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5676043 to Best as applied to claim 1,12 above.
As to claim 4,14, Best discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the first temperature sensor is positioned in a middle of the first heating zone as viewed from front and side directions and the second temperature sensor is positioned in a middle of the second heating zone as viewed from front and side directions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensors in the middle as viewed from front and side directions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further as the intention of the device is uniform heating of the griddle zone it would be reasonable to consider any location in the zone to determine the temperature including the middle as viewed from front and side directions.
As to claim 8,18, Best does not expressly disclose the first target temperature and the second target temperature are different by greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Best does disclose how one heating element can be cooking hamburger while an adjacent could be holding raw meat (Col 6, Line 34-38). As such at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system would be capable of maintaining two different temperatures with a difference of over 100 degrees F such as searing steak and keeping a steak warm on an adjacent griddle.
As to claim 9,19, Best while does not expressly disclose the griddle cooking operation may operate to regulate the first target temperature and the second target temperature to a uniform temperature At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the user was cooking the same thing on two zones and would therefore set the temperature of the two zones to be the same for the same cooking item, then Best would regulate the first target temperature and the second target temperature to a uniform temperature to equally cook the equivalent food.
Claims 5-6,15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5676043 to Best as applied to claim 1,12 above in view of US Publication 20180010804 to Bach.
As to claim 5,15, Best discloses using a feedback look using temperature sensor to control the temperature of zones to a specific temperature respectively (Col 7, Line 34-44; Col 9, Line 5-53; closed loop, takes temperature reading and adjusts output to accommodate accordingly in a loop) but does not expressly disclose it uses a computerized closed-loop feedback control algorithm based on the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature, which is taught by Bach (Par 0042-0043).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Best to include wherein operating the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature and the second zone temperature to the second target temperature comprises: implementing a computerized closed-loop feedback control algorithm based on the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature using the teachings of Bach so as to more accurately control the temperature of the zones minimizing temperature overshoot.
As to claim 6,16, Best discloses wherein the closed-loop feedback control algorithm comprises a proportional control algorithm, a proportional-integral control algorithm, or a proportional-integral-derivative control algorithm (Bach: Par 0042-0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the provisional patenting does not need to be addressed until allowability, the examiner will maintain the rejection until such time.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that that griddle 20 does not define a cooking surface. Instead, Best teaches the use of plates 30 which define the separate cooking surface and cooking zones. Best, col. 5, lines 42-47. Moreover, griddle 20 is not flat as recited in the amended claims but instead has studs 33 protruding therefrom. See, e.g.,Best, FIG. 3. Notably, plates 30 would also not be considered equivalent to the claimed griddle, e.g., as Best teaches the use of airgaps or insulation strips 35 to thermally isolate each plate and each plate defines a single temperature zone. Best, col. 6, lines 47-49. Accordingly, neither griddle 20, plates 30, or the combination thereof disclose, teach, or suggest a griddle defining a single, flat, and contiguous cooking surface having first heating zone and a second heating zone.” the examiner is unconvinced. Griddle 20 is where the food is prepared and thus expressly constitutes the cooking surface. Griddle 20 is a single flat piece (Col 5, Line 4-10) meeting the new limitation. Studs 33 emanate below the griddle and do not impede the cooking surface, as such 20 is still a single flat piece. Plates 30 are not the griddle cooking surface, though they are part of the griddle assembly and facilitate the separate zones of cooking and are located below 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
JESSE SAMUEL. BOGUE
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights