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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trice (US 20210095854 A1) in view of Bennett (US 10485379 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Trice teaches that a method (the method of operating the assembly of FIG. 1) of operating a cooktop (FIG. 1, digital cooktop system 100), the cooktop comprising a plurality of heating elements (FIG. 1, the burners displayed (e.g., rear burner 108, center front burner 110)), a griddle (FIG. 2, griddle 5) removably positioned over the plurality of heating elements, the griddle defining a first heating zone and a second heating zone (FIG. 1, the regions corresponding to front and rear burners 110 and 108), a temperature sensing assembly (FIG. 4, paragraph 41, temperature sensors 380) 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, wherein the temperature sensing assembly comprises 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 (Trice, paragraph 41, there is a temperature sensor 380 in each burner, and therefore in the three zones of the griddle 5), and a griddle detection system (FIG. 3, sensor 118), the method comprising: receiving a request to perform a griddle cooking operation (i.e., when a user initiates a cooking operation by activating the middle gas valve); determining that the griddle is present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system (paragraph 45, the sensor 118 detects the presence of the griddle).
Trice fails to teach receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes a common target temperature for the first heating zone and the second heating zone; 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 and the second zone temperature to the common target temperature.
However, Bennett teaches receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes a common target temperature for the first heating zone and the second heating zone; 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 and the second zone temperature to the common target temperature (claim 17, the assembly heats multiple burners to bring them up to a common target temperature).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by ensuring multiple zones reach the same target temperature, as taught by Bennett, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Bennett with the motivation of ensuring an even temperature across the surface of the griddle 5.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Trice and Bennett teaches that the cooktop further comprises a control knob assembly comprising a manual valve for manually regulating a heating level of a heating element of the plurality of heating elements or placing the heating element in a griddle mode (Trice, FIG. 2, the control knobs 120 may be used to control griddle temperature); and an encoder for selecting a target temperature of a heating zone associated with the heating element in the griddle mode (Trice, FIG. 2, the two particular control knobs that control the burners beneath the griddle may be used to manipulate regional temperature).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Trice and Bennett teaches that the cooktop further comprises an interactive display, wherein user inputs and user notifications are communicated at least partially using the interactive display (FIG. 2, user control panel 122).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Trice and Bennett teaches that the interactive display is a touch screen display (Trice, paragraph 29, the user control panel 122 may be a touch screen).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the combination of Trice and Bennett teaches that operating the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature to the common target temperature comprises: implementing a closed-loop feedback control algorithm based on the first zone temperature and the second zone temperature (Trice, paragraph 46, the controller 200 may operate the heating through a feedback loop).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Trice and Bennett teaches that the griddle further defines a third heating zone, the temperature sensing assembly monitors a third zone temperature of the third heating zone, the method further comprising: receiving a third target temperature; obtaining the third zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operating the plurality of heating elements to drive the third zone temperature to the third target temperature (Trice, FIG. 4, there is a third zone which the center wok burner 116 heats in the process described above).
Regarding claim 14, Trice teaches a cooktop (FIG. 1, digital cooktop system 100) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (the vertical, horizontal, and lateral directions respectively shown in FIG. 3), the cooktop comprising: a plurality of heating elements (FIG. 1, the burners displayed (e.g., rear burner 108, center front burner 110)); a griddle (FIG. 2, griddle 5) removably positioned over the plurality of heating elements, the griddle defining a first heating zone and a second heating zone (FIG. 1, the regions corresponding to front and rear burners 110 and 108); a griddle detection system (FIG. 3, sensor 118) for detecting the griddle on the cooktop; a temperature sensing assembly (FIG. 4, paragraph 41, temperature sensors 380) 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, wherein the temperature sensing assembly comprises 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 (Trice, paragraph 41, there is a temperature sensor 380 in each burner, and therefore in the three zones of the griddle 5); and a controller (FIG. 3, controller 200) 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; determine that the griddle is present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system (paragraph 45, the sensor 118 detects the presence of the griddle).
Trice fails to teach receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes a common target temperature for the first heating zone and the second heating zone; 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 and the second zone temperature to the common target temperature.
However, Bennett teaches receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes a common target temperature for the first heating zone and the second heating zone; 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 and the second zone temperature to the common target temperature (claim 17, the assembly heats multiple burners to bring them up to a common target temperature).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by ensuring multiple zones reach the same target temperature, as taught by Bennett, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Bennett with the motivation of ensuring an even temperature across the surface of the griddle 5.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trice and Bennett as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Blake (WO 2021252503 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination of Trice and Bennett fails to teach receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes 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.
However, Blake teaches receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation includes 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 (claim 6, multiple regions of the heating area are kept at different temperatures through the use of burners, temperature sensors, and controllers).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by ensuring multiple zones can be independently heated, as taught by Blake, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Bennett with the motivation of allowing a user to perform different cooking operations at different parts of the griddle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Trice, Bennett, and Blake teaches that the first target temperature and the second target temperature are different by greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit (Blake, paragraph 29, each region may be heated between 120 and 250 degrees).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Trice and Bennett fails to teach receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation is a single burner operation at a first target temperature; obtaining the first zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operating a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature.
However, Blake teaches receiving a command that the griddle cooking operation is a single burner operation at a first target temperature; obtaining the first zone temperature using the temperature sensing assembly; and operating a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements to drive the first zone temperature to the first target temperature (claim 6, multiple regions of the heating area are kept at different temperatures through the use of burners, temperature sensors, and controllers).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by ensuring multiple zones can be independently heated, as taught by Blake, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Bennett with the motivation of allowing a user to perform different cooking operations at different parts of the griddle.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Trice, Bennett, and Blake teaches receiving a request to operate a second heating element of the plurality of heating elements in an open-loop cooking mode; determining a target heating level of the second heating element; operating the second heating element at the target heating level; and adjusting operation of the first heating element to maintain the first zone temperature at the first target temperature (Blake, claim 6, multiple regions of the heating area are kept at different temperatures through the use of burners, temperature sensors, and controllers).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trice and Bennett as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Moss (US 20230151969 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the combination of Trice and Bennett fails to teach that the controller is further configured to: determine that the griddle is not present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system; and provide a user notification that the griddle is not present.
However, Moss teaches that the controller is further configured to: determine that the griddle is not present on the cooktop using the griddle detection system; and provide a user notification that the griddle is not present (paragraph 11, the oven, upon detecting the absence of a cooking utensil, sends an alert notification).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by having the system alert the user when the griddle is not in place when the middle burners are activated, as taught by Moss, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Moss with the motivation of ensuring the proper items are being used for various cooking operations.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trice and Bennett as applied to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Santana (US 20220187859 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Trice and Bennett fails to teach that the closed-loop feedback control algorithm comprises a proportional control algorithm, a proportional-integral control algorithm, or a proportional-integral-derivative control algorithm (claim 3, the system employs a PID controller).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Trice by using a PID controller, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trice with these aforementioned teachings of Santana with the motivation of using a cheap and widely available technology to make repairs simple.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8 and 9 of the remarks, the Applicant argues that Trice does not teach temperature sensors embedded within multiple griddles. However, the Examiner notes that the claims recite temperature sensors embedded in the heating zones of each griddle. Each of the temperature sensors of Trice detects an individual temperature of an individual zone of a griddle. Whether the sensors are embedded in the griddles themselves is immaterial.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762