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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Biagini (WO 2020/002456), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Biagini shows:
1. A cooking appliance comprising: a cooktop 1 including an outer perimeter and defining at least one opening 23,26; a plurality of burners 10 located on the cooktop (fig. 1); and at least one burner of the plurality of burners located on at least one turret (the entire cooktop is a turret) that defines an internal cavity (bottom 22 and sides 23 define an internal cavity) to direct a downdraft, the at least one turret is moveable within the at least one opening between at least one vacuum position (fig. 3B) and a flush position (fig. 3A).
2. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the turret defines a top surface and the at least one burner is located on the top surface of the turret (fig. 1).
3. The cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein the top surface of the turret is coupled to a glass top 32 that resides substantially on a same plane as the cooktop in the flush position (fig. 1,2a; page 4, lines 4-5).
4. The cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the glass top resides above the cooktop in the at least one vacuum position.
5. The cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the glass top resides below the cooktop in the at least one vacuum position (fig. 2B).
6. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the at least one burner that is located on the turret is configured to be heated in the at least one vacuum position and the flush position (inherent as the purpose of the vacuum is to remove smoke which is not needed in every cooking scenario, such as boiling water and the like).
7. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the at least one burner that is located on the turret is a single burner of a different size and shape than at least one other of the plurality of burners (fig. 1).
8. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the at least one burner that is located on the turret includes two or more burners (fig. 1).
10. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the turret defines at least one vent port 26 fluidically connected to the internal cavity (fig. 3B).
12. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein a power conduit extends between the at least one burner that is located on the turret to a control unit configured to administer heating of the at least one burner, the power conduit extending within the internal cavity (inherent as the entire turret is in the cavity).
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 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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biagini (WO 2020/002456), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Biagini fails to explicitly recite the claimed type of burner.
The selection of the type of burner is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on manufacturing considerations such as availability, cost, and consumer preference.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed type of burner into the invention disclosed by Biagini, so as to provide for manufacturing considerations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biagini (WO 2020/002456), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Nevertheless, Biagini fails to explicitly recite the cooking appliance including two turrets.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated two turret arrangements into the invention disclosed by Biagini, since it has been held that to provide duplicate parts for multiplied effect is not the type of innovation for which a patent is granted. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 18-20 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.
Claims 13-16 are allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As regards the invention recited in independent claim 13 and the dependent claims deemed allowable above, the combination recited in the claim is novel and unobvious. Of particular interest is the sensor detection system recited in the claims. Naturally the allowability of the limitation in and of itself is not at issue. Nevertheless, in combination with the remainder of the elements recited in the claim, the claimed subject matter is allowable.
While the prior art of record discloses many of the claimed limitations, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the invention as claimed.
Gagas (US 2010/0163549) discloses a similar detection system, but fail to disclose the specifically claimed relationship with the turret.
Accordingly, it is clear that the prior art of record does not anticipate, nor make obvious, the claimed invention, alone or in combination therewith.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
February 20, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762