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 .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figures 6A – 6H should include hatching to indicate section portions of an object. Hatching must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) and 1.84(n). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The “insulating materials” of claim 13
The “middle layer comprised of at least two layers” of claim 15
The “one of said top layer and said lower layer is glass and the other of said top layer and said lower layer is metal” of claim 20
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 606 in Figure 6B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0058], line 8, “about less one-third of” should read “about less than one-third of”
In paragraph [0058], line 9, “present” should read “presence”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 20, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the singular “induction coil” cannot “comprise a plurality of coils”, as a single induction coil is one continuous element
In claims 20 and 25, “wherein: wherein” should read “wherein”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “…lower layer is exposed...” is unclear because the term "is" creates an active method step in the apparatus claim and additionally requires a magnetic field to be present though no structure capable of creating the magnetic field has been claimed. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read the statement as "wherein when said lower layer is exposed to a magnetic field said lower layer generates heat energy that is transferred...".
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “…induction coil providing said magnetic field.” is unclear because the term “providing” creates an active method step in the apparatus claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read the statement as “…an induction coil configured to provide said magnetic field.”
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “…each of said at least two layers is comprised of a different metal or alloy.” is unclear whether the different material, of the at least two middle layers, refers to a different metal than that of the other top and bottom layers, or a different metal from each other. For purposes of examination, the examiner will read the statement as “…is comprised of a different metal or alloy from one another.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 24 and 25 describe the cooking system being an outdoor grill and an indoor grill. These claims do not further limit the scope of the claimed invention because any grill or cooking device can be used indoors or outdoors and therefore it is unclear how either recitation materially changes the structure or function of the grill.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11, 14, 17, 18, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuchs (US 20050258168 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs teaches, A cooking griddle (abstract, a roasting/grilling device with a roasting/grilling plate) comprising: a top layer (Fig 1, roasting/grilling plate (27)); a heat conductive middle layer below said top layer(Para 0046, an aluminum layer which is incorporated between two stainless steel layers); a lower layer below said middle layer, wherein said lower layer is ferritic (para 0012, lower side of the roasting/grilling plate, consists in the known manner of ferromagnetic material.); wherein when said lower layer is exposed to a magnetic field said lower layer generates heat energy that is transferred through said middle layer to said top layer.
Regarding claim 2. Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, wherein said middle layer is divided into at least two cooking zones by a gap in said middle layer (para [0046], the inclusion of the wedge running the length of the grilling plate inherently creates a gap).
Regarding claim 3, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, further comprising an induction coil configured to provide said magnetic field. (para [0013])
Regarding claim 4, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 3, wherein said induction coil comprises a plurality of coils placed below said lower layer to control strength of said magnetic field and heat production at predetermined locations in said lower layer. (para [0025]; Fig 1, induction coil (30))
Regarding claim 5, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, wherein said top layer comprises stainless steel. (para [0034], [0046])
Regarding claim 6, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, wherein said middle layer comprises at least one of aluminum and copper. (para [0046])
Regarding claim 7, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, wherein said lower layer comprises stainless steel. (para [0046])
Regarding clam 8, Fuchs teaches, The cooking griddle of claim 1, wherein said lower layer is formed into one or more geometric shapes to reduce induced heating at predetermined locations in said magnetic field. (Fig 1, measurement coil (29); para [0011] - [0014])
Regarding Claim 9, Fuchs teaches, A cooking system (abstract, a roasting/grilling device with a roasting/grilling plate) comprising: a top layer; a middle layer adjacent said top layer, wherein said middle layer is highly conductive; a lower layer adjacent said middle layer (para [0046]); an induction coil proximate to said lower layer, said induction coil for generating a magnetic field for heating said lower layer. (Fig 1, induction coil (30); Fig 4, induction means (40))
Regarding claim 10, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein said top layer comprises a single heating area. (Fig 2; para [0037])
Regarding claim 11, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein said top layer comprises a multi-zone heating area. (Fig 3; para [0045])
Regarding claim 14, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein: said top layer is comprised of stainless steel; and said middle layer is comprised of aluminum or copper. (para [0046])
Regarding claim 17, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein: said lower layer is comprised of stainless steel. (para [0046])
Regarding claim 18, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein: said top layer has a lower thermal conductivity than said middle layer. (para [0046]; the aluminum of the middle layer is known to have a higher thermal conductivity than the stainless steel of the top layer)
Regarding claim 24, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein: the cooking system is an outdoor grill. (para [0002])
Regarding claim 25, Fuchs teaches, The cooking system according to claim 9 wherein: wherein the cooking system is an outdoor grill. (para [0002])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Sykes et al. (US 20140161952 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fuchs teaches, the cooking system as described in claim 11. But Fuchs does not teach at least two heating surfaces that are separated by cavities or that said cavities are filled with insulating materials.
Sykes teaches (Figure 2) an alternative method to create a multizone cooking system wherein each of heating the surfaces (30) are separated by cavities (32) wherein the cavities are filled with insulating material (34). This construction allows each heating surface (30) to be operated independently at a different temperature (para [0009]).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to have modified Fuchs to incorporate the teachings of Sykes and place cavities filled with insulating materials between each heating surface of the multi zone heating device. Doing so would ensure that each heating surface could be operated independently at a different temperature without one heating plate influencing the temperature of the other thereby ensuring each heating plate was operating at the correct temperature.
Claims 15, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Groll (US 20050271894 A1).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Fuchs teaches the cooking system as described in claim 9. But Fuchs does not teach a middle layer that is comprised of at least two layers or that these two or more layers are different metals or alloys from one another.
Groll teaches (Figure 1), a multilayer composite cooking griddle plate that has at least 5 layers with at least 3 middle layers (4) (6) (6’). Regarding the middle layers, Groll teaches the lower thermal conductivity layer (4) may be formed of titanium, titanium alloy, or stainless steel because of its relatively lower heat conductivity. The titanium or stainless-steel layer (4) is roll bonded on both sides between two aluminum layers (6) (6’). These 3 layers are in turn roll bonded to between two top and bottom stainless-steel layers (7) (8) (para [0017]).
Groll also inherently discloses that using multiple middle layers in a heating plate helps heat transfer uniformly between layers. The titanium layer (4), by virtue of its lower coefficient of thermal conductivity, acts as a thermal buffer and allows the heat to become more uniform along a radial direction in the aluminum layer (6) and then permits the heat to transfer by conduction uniformly through the aluminum layer (6’) to the cooking surface.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to add at least two or more middle layers to a multi-layer cooking surface wherein the layers are different metals for the express purpose of supporting improved heat transfer and heat retention between layers.
Regarding claim 21, Fuchs teaches: The cooking system according to claim 9. But Fuchs does not teach the layers of the multi-layer cooking system being held together by chemical bonding or cladding. Groll teaches a multi-layer cooking surface wherein the composite structure’s layers are interconnected by roll bonding, which is a form of cladding (para [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the multiple layers of the cooking surface of Fuchs by means of roll bonding as taught by Groll. Groll also teaches that roll bonding further provides uniform distribution of heat due to the elimination of air gaps between the members (para [0024]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Corda (US 20160050721 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Fuchs teaches the cooking system as described in claim 9. But Fuchs does not teach a middle layer that is comprised of carbon-based materials or a top layer and a lower layer made of glass and metal in either combination.
Corda teaches (Figure 1), a composite cooking plate where one of the middle layers is an induction layer (20) that can be made of a carbon-based material, such as graphite (20) (para [0013]). Corda also teaches of a lower insulation layer (30) that is made of fiberglass (para [0019]) while the surface layer (10) is made of a food-safe material, such as stainless steel (para [0017]).
Because both Fuchs and Corda teach a multi-layer heating plate with the goal of transferring heat to the top surface, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the aluminum middle layer described in Fuchs with the graphite, or other carbon-based layer, of Corda. As for the middle layer, Corda also teaches that graphite or carbon-based materials are chosen for the induction layer material because of their low thermal capacity, allowing the heat of the plate to quickly dissipate when the device is powered off, preventing the top cooking surface from staying hot. Furthermore, Corda teaches the benefit of said carbon-based materials being that they can be heated directly by an induction heater, as opposed to requiring a stainless-steel layer, which in turn heats an aluminum layer, which in turn heats the steel cooking surface. Thus, there is only one heating interface to monitor, as opposed to the two (steel-aluminum-steel). Corda teaches that the purpose for using a layer of insulative material in a multi-layer induction cooking device helps prevent energy from traveling or leaking in the wrong direction, away from the surface layer. A suitable material for the insulation layer is described as any material that has high temperature stability, for example up to four hundred degrees Celsius, which fiberglass does. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use metal and fiberglass, as described in Corda, for the top and lower layers respectively of the multi-layer composite cooking plate to effectively transfer heat to the intended top surface.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Eberhard (US 20100075173 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Fuchs teaches the cooking system as described in claim 9. But Fuchs does not teach at least two of the top middle and lower layers being held together by nesting.
Eberhard teaches, a multi-layered heating plate where the lower cover layer (14) has a plurality of holes (18) which are each filled at least partly with material of the inner layer (12) (Fig 2).
Because both Fuchs and Eberhard teach a multi-layer heating plate wherein the layers are combined by rolling the layers together, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the process of rolling uniform flat plate together as described in Fuchs, with the rolling of nested layers together as described in Eberhard. Due to the fact that nesting layers together increases the surface area in contact with the adjacent layer and in turn increases the amount of heat transferred between said layers, one skilled in the art would have determined the results of this solution to be predictable as of the effective filing date.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Corda, and further in view of Eberhard.
Regarding claim 23, Fuchs teaches the cooking system as described in claim 9. But Fuchs does not teach the cooking system having a top layer and lower layer that are non-ferritic, and that said lower layer is nested in a ferritic base.
Corda teaches (Figure 1), a composite cooking plate with a surface layer (10) that can be made of a food-safe material, such as stainless steel, Inox, ceramic, graphene, or plastic (para [0017]). Corda also teaches, that a suitable material for a lower insulation layer (30) is fiberglass and that other materials are contemplated (para [0019]). As such, non-ferritic materials have been disclosed as viable options for both the surface layer (10) and the lower insulation layer (30).
Eberhard teaches (Figure 2), a multi-layered heating plate which has two upper and lower (14) cover layers of stainless steel, of which at least one is made of ferritic steel (para [0002]). Eberhard further teaches, of the lower cover layer (14), which can be made of ferritic steel, having a plurality of holes (18) which are each filled at least partly with material of the inner layer (12).
Fuchs, Corda, and Eberhard all teach of multi-layered cooking plates. The only difference is how these layers are combined or oriented. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the layers of Fuchs using alternate viable non-ferritic materials as disclosed by Corda, through the nesting means disclosed by Eberhard. Corda discloses that the non-ferritic insulation layer of fiberglass being below the induction layer prevents heat from traveling away from the coking surface (para [0017] - [0019]). Eberhard discloses the application of the known technique of nesting layers in order to increase the surface area in contact with the adjacent layer and in turn increase the amount of heat transferred between said layers. Therefore, the outcome of their combination would have been predictable prior to the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitrik et al. (US 11464358 B1) teaches, a multi-layer induction cooking pan, where said pan can be shaped into any suitable cooking shape, (frying pan, pot, griddle)
For the purposes of compact prosecution applicant should note that Groll (US 20050271894 A1) could also serve as a 102(a)(1) reference for claims 9, 15, 16, and 21, since it discloses its use as a griddle plate (para [0003]), includes the required layers, combines the layers through roll bonding, and would inherently be placed next to an induction coil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J. MCCORMICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights