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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/30/2026 are entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10, at line 10, recites “each of the valve”. The Examiner believes this should be “each of the valves”. Claim 20, in the second to last line, recites “due transitioning”. The Examiner believes this should be “due to transitioning”. 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.
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) 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadima (US 20240068669 A1) in view of Hensley (US 9297537 B2) and Salbide (US 20110126816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cadima teaches a cooking appliance (FIG. 1, cooking appliance 10) comprising: a plurality of burners (FIG. 3, first gas burner 304 and second gas burner 306) disposed on a cooktop (FIG. 1, cooktop surface 42); a plurality of knobs (FIG. 1, knobs 64) each configured to open and close one of a plurality of supply valves to provide fuel to one of the burners (FIG. 3); and a fuel shutoff system (FIG. 3, knob 308 controls the fuel supply to both first gas burner 304 and second gas burner 306) disposed below one of the knobs (FIGS. 3 and 4, the input 348 is positioned below the knob 308), and configured to (i) simultaneously starve each supply valve and each burner of fuel when activated and (ii) simultaneously facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and each burner when deactivated (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners).
Cadima fails to teach the fuel shutoff system having: a main valve connected to each of the supply valves such that each of the supply valves are downstream of the main valve relative to a fuel source, wherein the main valve is configured to open to facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and each burner and close to starve each supply valve and each burner of fuel, and a limit switch configured to control the electrical actuator to (i) close the main valve when activated and (ii) open the main valve when deactivated.
However, Hensley teaches the fuel shutoff system having: a main valve (FIG. 2, the valve of lockout valve assembly 148) connected to each of the supply valves such that each of the supply valves are downstream of the main valve relative to a fuel source, wherein the main valve is configured to open to facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and each burner and close to starve each supply valve and each burner of fuel (FIG. 2, the lockout valve assembly either cuts off or supplies fuel to all burners), and a limit switch (FIG. 2, the locking portions of the lockout valve assembly 148) configured to control the electrical actuator to (i) close the main valve when activated and (ii) open the main valve when deactivated (FIG. 2, the locking portions of the lockout valve assembly 148 open and close the valve).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via a main valve, as taught by Hensley, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Hensley with the motivation of ensuring all gas is cut off when the user is not cooking.
Hensley fails to teach an electrical actuator configured to open and close the main valve.
However, Salbide teaches an electrical actuator configured to open and close the main valve (claim 1, an electrical actuator controls a valve).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via an electrical actuator, as taught by Salbide, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Salbide with the motivation of automating the process.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide teaches that the fuel shutoff system includes a dial that is positioned concentrically with one of the knobs (FIG. 3, the knob 308 and the input 348 are concentric).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide teaches that the dial is configured to transition via rotation to (i) a first position to activate the limit switch and (ii) a second position to deactivate the limit switch (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners via rotation between two positions).
Regarding claims 7, 12, and 18, the the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide teaches that (i) the dial includes a protrusion extending downward therefrom and (ii) the protrusion is configured to engage and disengage the limit switch upon rotation of the dial to activate and deactivate the limit switch, respectively (Hensley, FIG. 2, the lock valve 126 extends downward from the knob 120 and actuates the valves).
Regarding claim 8, Cadima teaches a cooking appliance (FIG. 1, cooking appliance 10) comprising: a plurality of burners (FIG. 3, first gas burner 304 and second gas burner 306); a plurality of supply valves (FIG. 3, valves 312, 318, and 330) each configured to supply fuel to one of the burners; a plurality of knobs (FIG. 1, knobs 64) each configured to open and close one of the supply valves to provide fuel to one of the burners; a switch (FIG. 3, the mechanisms that open and close the valves) configured to open and close; a dial (FIGS. 3 and 4, the input 348 is positioned below the knob 308) disposed below a first of the knobs, wherein the dial is configured to transition between (i) a first position to engage and close the switch and (ii) a second position to disengage and open the switch (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners); and a controller (FIG. 3, controller 346) programmed to, receive communication from the switch indicative of the switch being opened or closed (FIG. 3, the controller 364 controls the valve based on the switch’s state).
Cadima fails to teach a main valve connected to each of the supply valves such that each of the supply valves are downstream of the main valve relative to a fuel source, wherein the main valve is configured to (i) open to facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and (ii) close to starve each supply valve of fuel.
However, Hensley teaches a main valve connected to each of the supply valves such that each of the supply valves are downstream of the main valve relative to a fuel source, wherein the main valve is configured to (i) open to facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and (ii) close to starve each supply valve of fuel (FIG. 2, the valve of lockout valve assembly 148, which may open or close to modulate fuel availability).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via a main valve, as taught by Hensley, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Hensley with the motivation of ensuring all gas is cut off when the user is not cooking.
Hensley fails to teach that the controller is programmed to, in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being closed, due to transitioning the dial to the first position, operate the electrical actuator to close the main valve, and in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being opened, due to transitioning the dial to the second position, operate the electrical actuator to open the main valve.
However, Salbide teaches that the controller is programmed to, in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being closed, due to transitioning the dial to the first position, operate the electrical actuator to close the main valve, and in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being opened, due to transitioning the dial to the second position, operate the electrical actuator to open the main valve (claim 1, an electrical actuator controls a valve in response to the turn of particular dials).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via an electrical actuator, as taught by Salbide, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Salbide with the motivation of automating the process.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide teaches that the dial is (i) concentric with the first of the knobs (FIG. 3, the knob 308 and the input 348 are concentric) and (ii) configured to transition between the first and second positions via rotation (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners via rotation between two positions).
Regarding claim 14, Cadima teaches a fuel shutoff system for a cooking appliance (FIG. 1, cooking appliance 10) comprising: a limit switch (FIG. 3, the mechanisms that open and close the valves) configured to (i) close the shutoff valve when activated and (ii) open the shutoff valve when deactivated (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners); and a dial (FIGS. 3 and 4, the input 348 is positioned below the knob 308) disposed below a control knob to one of the burners, wherein the dial is configured to transition between (i) a first position to engage and activate the limit switch and (ii) a second position to disengage and deactivate the limit switch (FIG. 3, the knob 308 may open or close a main gas line, cutting off or supplying fuel to all burners).
Cadima fails to teach a shutoff valve configured to (i) open to facilitate delivery of fuel to a plurality of burners and (ii) close to starve each of the burners of fuel
However, Hensley teaches teach a main valve configured to (i) open to facilitate delivery of fuel to each supply valve and (ii) close to starve each supply valve of fuel (FIG. 2, the valve of lockout valve assembly 148, which may open or close to modulate fuel availability).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via a main valve, as taught by Hensley, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Hensley with the motivation of ensuring all gas is cut off when the user is not cooking.
Hensley fails to teach an electrical actuator configured to open and close the shutoff valve; and that the limit switch is configured to control the electrical actuator.
However, Salbide teaches an electrical actuator configured to open and close the shutoff valve (claim 1, an electrical actuator controls a valve); and that the limit switch is configured to control the electrical actuator (in the combination the switch controls the actuator).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via an electrical actuator, as taught by Salbide, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Salbide with the motivation of automating the process.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cadima and Hensley teaches a controller, wherein the controller is programmed to, (i) receive communication from the switch indicative of the switch being opened or closed, (ii) in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being activated due to transitioning the dial to the first position, close the shutoff valve, and (iii) in response to receiving communication from the switch indicative of the switch being deactivated due to transitioning the dial to the second position, open the shutoff valve (FIG. 3, controller 346).
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 113494721 A).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 16, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide fails to teach that (i) the fuel shutoff system includes a ring disposed around and concentric with the dial, (ii) the ring defines a notch, (iii) the dial includes a protrusion extending radially outward therefrom and into the notch, and (iv) the protrusion is configured to engage edges of ring to limit rotational movement of the dial.
However, Liu teaches that (i) the fuel shutoff system includes a ring (FIG. the exterior circumferential surface of the knob 12) disposed around and concentric with the dial, (ii) the ring defines a notch (FIG. 12, opening 1221), (iii) the dial includes a protrusion (FIG. 12, knob tongue 13) extending radially outward therefrom and into the notch, and (iv) the protrusion is configured to engage edges of ring to limit rotational movement of the dial (FIG. 12, the tongues 13 engage with the surfaces to dictate and restrict movement).
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 Cadima by making it so the valves of Cadima may all be shut off via a main valve, as taught by Hensley, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Hensley with the motivation of ensuring all gas is cut off when the user is not cooking.
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of Cadeau (US 20140216581 A1)
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 25, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide fails to teach that the electrical actuator is a motor or solenoid.
However, Cadeau teaches that the electrical actuator is a motor or solenoid (paragraph 23, the actuator may be a motor).
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 Cadima by making it so the actuator is a motor, as taught by Cadeau, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Cadeau with the motivation of using a cheaper and more widely available part.
Claim(s) 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 12, and 18 above, and further in view of Pulzer (GB 2225415 A).
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, the combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide teaches that the protrusion is configured to transition the switch arm between the first and second positions upon rotation of the dial (Hensley, FIG. 2, the lock valve 126 extends downward from the knob 120 and actuates the valves).
The combination of Cadima, Hensley, and Salbide fails to teach that the limit switch has a switch arm extending therefrom, the switch arm is configured to transition between first and second positions to activate and deactivate the limit switch.
However, Pulzer teaches that the limit switch has a switch arm (FIG. 1, the arm of limit switch 50) extending therefrom, the switch arm is configured to transition between first and second positions to activate and deactivate the limit switch.
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 Cadima by making it so the limit switch operates using a physical arm, as taught by Pulzer, 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 Cadima with these aforementioned teachings of Pulzer with the motivation of using robust physical switches to prolong their life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 14, and all claims depending therefrom have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 7, 12, and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on page 7 that the lock valve 126 of Hensley reads on the protrusions as claimed, or that the valve 126 engages a limit switch. However, the Examiner notes that given broadest reasonable interpretation, the above referenced elements of Hensley read on the claims.
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