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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (EP-2931005-A1) in view of Rupp (EP-3606285-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roth teaches (Figures 1 & 2) a method for operating a cooking field device and cooking field device with a plurality of induction coils that generate heating energy and transfer the heating energy to the bottom of a pot positioned on the cooktop ([0001]). Specifically, Roth teaches a cooktop device (1) that comprises a hob (2), induction coils (3), display units (4-9), cooking surfaces (24-29), and a detection device (20) that recognizes the portion of the pot on the hob and identifies the induction coils covered by the pot, and determines a representative recognition point that allows the corresponding area of the cooktop to be determined; based on pot geometry, length, width, and diameter; for heating and defines the display nuit assigned to the section ([0008], [0030], [0036]). Roth further teaches that pots can be moved between different areas of the hob, where the set power level would be maintained when switching to different induction areas, such that the cooking device can adjust the currently operating coils as determined by the relocated pot ([0019]-[0025]). Additionally, Roth teaches that the display unit for the hob can automatically change the displays correlating to which areas of the hob are currently activated or deactivated based on the relocated pot, where free areas do not provide a signal of light up ([0034]-[0035], [0044], [0048]).
However, Roth does not specifically teach a first row or light representative of a first range of heat levels for the first portion, and a second row of lights representative of a second range of heat levels for the second portion.
With regards to Claim 1, Rupp teaches (Figures 1-6) a method for controlling induction heating coils of an induction cooking hob. Rupp further teaches an operating device (17) on the induction hob (11) with capacitive sensors and light indicators or LEDs, where heating coils (HE10-13, HE-20-23 ([0035]-[0036]). The operating device has four horizontally running sliders (19a-d), which are arranged in a special distribution (See Figs 1-3), where each slider has ten light segments (20) with sensor elements provided on each segment, and displays (21a-d) are also provided next to the sliders with two seven-segment displays for displaying corresponding numerals, letters, or symbols ([0035]).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth teaches a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of induction coils in combination with a detection device and displays to adjust power being sent to the heater coil in response to detection of cookware on the cooking zones. Roth also teaches that the cooktop display for the respective zone illuminates or emits a signal when a pot is detected, and does not illuminate or emit a signal when a pot is not detected. Rupp teaches the known technique of having displays, which use horizontal LEDs sliders that have individual light segments and sensors to receive power input level, along with segmented displays that correspond to numbers, letters, or symbols indicating a power of heat level. The horizontal sliders, corresponding the each of the cooking zones of the stove top, include a range, which starts at a minimum power level on the left end of the slider, and has a maximum power level on the right side of the slider. An ordinary skilled artisan, would have recognized that applying the known technique of having different cooking zones indicated by rows of lights representing the range of heat levels that can be selected or set and applied the technique to the cooktop device that uses multiple induction coils capable of detecting when a pot has been placed or removed, and adjust the power level for each individual cooking section as well as change the display to match the detection status would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved cooktop device that uses sliders to represent the range of heat levels currently being operated by the cooktop hob device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop hob device of Roth, with the display utilizing rows of lights to represent ranges of heat levels as taught by Rupp, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth and Rupp in view of Stella (US-20140076886-A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 20, Roth and Rupp teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claims that the first and second range of heat levels have a minimum and maximum heating capacity, and the second minimum is equal to or greater than the first maximum heating capacity.
Regarding Claim 3, Rupp teaches that each row of lights (19a-d) extends between a first end light corresponding to the first minimum heating capacity, and a second end light corresponding to the maximum heating capacity for that row of lights (Fig 2, 3, 4, and 6, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rupp teaches that the rows of lights are parallel to and noncolinear with the second row of lights (Figs 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Roth and Rupp teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the first range of heat levels is different than the second range of heat levels.
Stella teaches (Figs. 1 & 2) an induction hob with a plurality of electrically activatable coils underneath a solid plate, where the electrically activatable coils define the corresponding cooking zones of the induction hob, and a control unit to control the level of the cooking zones ([0013]). Stella further teaches that the control unit (135) allows adjustable and variable sized cooking zones, activating and deactivating the various cooking zones as needed, with the ability to change the power levels of the various cooking zones as needed ([0044]). Stella also teaches that the control unit is configured to automatically select power levels for a first and second cooking zone, where the second power level is higher than the first power level, and where the power levels for the cooking zones increase monotonically from the first to second power levels (0013]-[0014]). Additionally, Stella teaches that the cooking zones have minimum, medium and maximum power levels automatically set by the control unit, where the power level of first cooking zone is lower than that of the second power level ([0051]-[0052]).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware. Rupp also teaches the inclusion of lights that correspond to heating zones with lights at one end indicating a minimum heating capacity and the lights on the opposite end indicating the maximum heating capacity of the heating zone, where the lights are parallel but offset from one another. Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of having different maximum and minimum heating ranges for different heating zones adjustable by a controller, and applying the heat ranges to the cooktop hob device that uses induction coils, a detection device, and rows of lights that indicate each range of heat levels would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, and combined the adjustable range of heat levels for each cooking zone taught by Stella, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, Rupp, and Stella in view of Robert (DE-102018120740-A1) and Ortmann (US-9970663-B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Roth, Rupp, and Stella teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fail to specifically claims that the controller is configured to illuminate a target light of the set of rows of lights in a high illumination mode, where the target light corresponds to the position of the cookware on either the first or second portion.
Regarding Claim 6, Roth teaches that the detection device can determine the type, number, and known positions of the covered induction coils, and determine a new representative center point to heat the coils of the new location of the pots ([0046]-[0048]). When the pots are moved to new locations, the set power level can be maintained across different hob areas, where the respective power output of the induction coils currently covered by the pot is adjusted to correspond to the set power levels ([0019]-[0022])
Robert teaches a cooking appliance with a display element, heating device, and lighting elements ([0002]). The display elements taught by Robert can be designed as a matrix or segment display, in particular a graphic display, and includes LEDs which can emit lights of a certain color or brightness depending on status information from the cooking appliance, such as cooking temperature or set heating power ([0032], [0095], [0101]).
Ortmann teaches (Figs 1- 4) a stove top with cooking zones and a display unit that displays information about a position of the item of cookware on the cooking zone (Abstract). Roth further teaches that a control unit (17) is configured to detect alterations to the positions of a cookware item on a cooking zone (3a-f), and change the displays (6-11) to show an alternation to the position using the display regions ([Col 3, lines 27-43], [Col 7, lines 54-62]). Each of the display regions is made up of display fields (15) and symbol depictions (12), where the symbol depiction is able to be illuminated by respective lighting devices (14) indicating where cookware is placed ([Col 6, lines 6-28]). The light sources being arranged in a matrix allow the user to understand the information provided by the cookware more accurately and easily ([Col 2, lines 30-37]).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware; and Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. Robert teaches display elements designed as a matrix or segment display, such as LEDs, which can emit lights of a certain color or brightness depending on status information from the cooking appliance, such as cooking temperature or set heating power. Ortmann teaches a stove top with a control unit configured to detect alterations to the positions of a cookware item on a cooking zone (3a-f), and change the displays (6-11) to show an alternation to the position using the display regions. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known techniques of illuminating different lights with various colors or brightness along with using the position of the detected pot to display the location along the row of lights to the cooktop hob device that provides power to the induction coils covered by a detected cookware.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, the adjustable range of heat levels for each cooking zone taught by Stella, and the controller that illuminates different lights with various colors or brightnesses based on received input as taught by Robert, along with displaying the current location of the cooktop using LEDs as taught by Ortmann, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, Rupp, Stella, Robert, and Ortmann in view of Egenter’415 (EP-2141415-A2).
Regarding Claim 7, Roth, Rupp, Stella, Robert, and Ortmann teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the controller is configured to activate only the target light at the high illumination mode of all lights in the set of rows or lights.
Regarding Claim 8, Roth, Rupp, Stella, Robert, and Ortmann teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the controller is configured to determine a target row among the first row of lights and the second row of lights that includes the target light, and operate only the target light in the high illumination mode of all lights in the target row.
Regarding Claim 9, Roth, Rupp, Stella, Robert, and Ortmann teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the controller is configured to determine a target row among the first and second rows of lights that includes the target light, and activate only the lights in the target row that correspond to heating levels equal to or lower than the target heat level.
Egenter ‘415 teaches (Figs 1-4) a display device for a cooking hob, a cooking hob, and a method for operating the display of the hob. Egenter ‘415 teaches lighting rows (23, 24) that consist of LEDs (22a-b) that are divided into individual and equally spaced light segments that can be illuminated individually or as part of the entire strip, and the lights are capable of other lighting effects such as flashing, brightness, or color variation ([0026], [0027], [0032]). Egenter ‘415 further clarifies that because the entire length of the light bar does not have to be illuminated, allowing the length of the illuminated strip to vary ([0032]).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware; and Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. Robert teaches LEDs that can vary in color or brightness based on status received from the cooking applicant, and Ortmann teaches a stove top control unit configured display the location and alterations to the location of cookware detected on the stove top. Egenter ‘415 teaches lighting multiple rows that represent different cooking zones and consists of LEDs divided into individual and equally spaced light segments that can be illuminated individually or as part of the entire strip, where the lights are capable of other lighting effects such as flashing, brightness, or color variation. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of using rows of LED’s that are individually controllable to illuminate a color, a brightness, of flashing sequence as determined by the cooking device to the cooking hob device the heats different zones of induction coils when cookware is detected and displays the status in the display unit of the cooking device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, the adjustable range of heat levels for each cooking zone taught by Stella, and the controller than illuminates different lights various colors or brightnesses based on received input as taught by Robert along with displaying the current location of the cooktop using LEDs as taught by Ortmann, and incorporated the rows of lights with individually controlled light components as taught by Egenter ‘415, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth in view of Rupp, Ortmann, and Egenter ‘415.
Regarding Claim 10, Roth and Rupp teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the controller activates at least a portion of one of the first and second row of lights to indicate the position of the cookware and a target heat level for the cookware.
Ortmann teaches the illumination of certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone, and Egenter ‘415 teaches control of the different lighting strips, where the lighting strip components can be individually controlled to vary color, brightness, or sequence depending on the current condition of the cooktop.
Regarding Claim 12, Roth teaches a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of induction coils in combination with a detection device and displays to adjust power being sent to the heater coil in response to detection of cookware on the cooking zones. Roth also teaches that the cooktop display for the respective zone illuminates or emits a signal when a pot is detected, and does not illuminate or emit a signal when a pot is not detected. Rupp teaches the known technique of having displays, which use horizontal LEDs sliders that have individual light segments and sensors to receive power input level, along with segmented displays that correspond to numbers, letters, or symbols indicating a power of heat level. The horizontal sliders, corresponding the each of the cooking zones of the stove top, include a range, which starts at a minimum power level on the left end of the slider, and has a maximum power level on the right side of the slider. An ordinary skilled artisan, would have recognized that applying the known technique of having different cooking zones indicated by rows of lights representing the range of heat levels that can be selected or set and applied the technique to the cooktop device that uses multiple induction coils capable of detecting when a pot has been placed or removed, and adjust the power level for each individual cooking section as well as change the display to match the detection status would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved cooktop device that uses sliders to represent the range of heat levels currently being operated by the cooktop hob device. Ortmann teaches the illumination of certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone, and Egenter ‘415 teaches control of the different lighting strips, where the lighting strip components can be individually controlled to vary color, brightness, or sequence depending on the current condition of the cooktop.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware; and Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. Egenter ‘415 teaches rows of lights in a one-dimensional array with individual control over the color, brightness, and sequence of the lights; and Ortmann teaches illuminating certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of using rows of lights in a display with individually controllable color, brightness, and sequence to display status of the kitchen appliance and the location of cookware detected over the coils would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, and incorporated the illumination of certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone as taught by Ortmann, along with individually controllable lighting elements as taught by Egenter ‘415, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, in view of Rupp, Ortmann, Egenter ‘415, and Stella.
Regarding Claim 13, Roth and Rupp teach all the elements of the cooking device as previously mentioned, and Stella teaches the induction hob with a control unit that allows adjustable and variable sized cooking zones, where the control unit can activate and deactivate the various cooking zones as needed, with the ability to change the power levels of the various cooking zones as needed. Egenter ‘415 teaches rows of lights in a one-dimensional array with individual control over the color, brightness, and sequence of the lights; and Ortmann teaches illuminating certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone. Stella also teaches that the control unit is configured to automatically select power levels for a first and second cooking zone, where the second power level is higher than the first power level, and where the power levels for the cooking zones increase monotonically from the first to second power levels. Additionally, Stella teaches that the cooking zones have minimum, medium and maximum power levels automatically set by the control unit, where the power level of first cooking zone is lower than that of the second power level.
Regarding Claim 14, Roth, Rupp, and Stella teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, and Rupp further teaches that each row of lights extends between a first end light corresponding to the first minimum heating capacity, and a second end light corresponding to the maximum heating capacity for that row of lights.
Regarding Claim 15, Roth, Rupp, and Stella teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, and Rupp further teaches that the rows of lights are parallel to and noncolinear with the second row of lights.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware. Rupp also teaches the inclusion of lights that correspond to heating zones with lights at one end indicating a minimum heating capacity and the lights on the opposite end indicating the maximum heating capacity of the heating zone, where the lights are parallel but offset from one another. Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. Egenter ‘415 teaches rows of lights in a one-dimensional array with individual control over the color, brightness, and sequence of the lights; and Ortmann teaches illuminating certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of having cooking zones with different maximum and minimum heating capacities represented by the parallel and offset rows of lights in the display, and controlled by the control unit to the cooking device that detects cookware over certain induction coils and selectively heats the required coils as well as illuminating the location and heating level in the display because the result would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, the illumination of certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone as taught by Ortmann, the individually controllable lighting elements as taught by Egenter ‘415, along with various cooking zones with different minimum and maximum heating levels taught by Stella, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, in view of Rupp, Ortmann, Egenter ‘415, Stella, and Robert.
Regarding Claim 16, Roth, Rupp, Ortmann, Egenter ‘415, and Stella teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, and Robert teaches the cooking appliance with a display element, heating device, and lighting elements. The display elements can include LEDs, which can emit lights of a certain color or brightness depending on status information from the cooking appliance, such as cooking temperature or set heating power.
Regarding Claims 17, 18, and 19, Roth, Rupp, Ortmann, Egenter ‘415, Stella, and Robert teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, and Egenter ‘415 also teaches the display device for a cooking hob, that consist of rows of LEDs that are divided into individual and equally spaced light segments that can be illuminated individually or as part of the entire strip, and the lights are capable of other lighting effects such as flashing, brightness, or color variation. Egenter ‘415 further clarifies that because the entire length of the light bar does not have to be illuminated, allowing the length of the illuminated strip to vary.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Roth and Rupp teach a cooktop hob device that uses a plurality of coils, a detection device, a display that includes rows of lights to indicate the range of heat levels for each portion of the cooktop, and a controller that adjusts the power to the coils based on a detected cookware and outputs a respective signal to the rows of lights in response to the detection of the cookware. Rupp also teaches the inclusion of lights that correspond to heating zones with lights at one end indicating a minimum heating capacity and the lights on the opposite end indicating the maximum heating capacity of the heating zone, where the lights are parallel but offset from one another. Stella teaches the induction hob device with a controller capable of operating different cooking zones, where the heat level ranges for each cooking zone includes a minimum and maximum heating range, and the heating range of one zone is higher than the heating range of another zone. Egenter ‘415 teaches rows of lights in a one-dimensional array with individual control over the color, brightness, and sequence of the lights; and Ortmann teaches illuminating certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone. Robert teaches a cooking appliance with a display element that includes LEDs, which can emit lights of a certain color or brightness depending on status information from the cooking appliance, such as cooking temperature or set heating power. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooktop heating device taught by Roth and Rupp, the illumination of certain LED’s to indicate the position of the cookware in the heating zone as taught by Ortmann, the individually controllable lighting elements as taught by Egenter ‘415, along with the controller that illuminates different lights with various colors or brightnesses based on received input as taught by Robert because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Egenter ‘617 teaches (Figs 1-8) a hob and method for operating the hob. Egenter ‘617 teaches the cooktop plate with a heating and control area, where longitudinal strips are used to display the location of the cookware, as well as control the cooktop.
(DE-202018104880-U1) teaches a cooking surface that uses an operating device for automatic detection of the position and/or size of a cookware, and illuminates the control area related to the cooking surface.
Paolo (EP-2330355-A1) teaches a cooking top that comprises a control unit that detects the position of a pot and positions the user interface near the detected pot position.
Hartmut (EP-3705782-A1) teaches a method of operating a hob with a plurality of cooking zones with a segment display and digit display to display power levels of the hob.
Ito (JP-6227162-B2) teaches an induction cooker that heats a single object using multiple heating coils by using a display and operating area and detection unit and performs corrective operations to the detected objects.
Jochen (EP-3104664-A1) teaches a hob compromising multiple heating elements, and illumination means for providing light markings that indicate the heating zones associated with the heating elements.
Wolfgang (EP-3352529-A1) teaches a cooktop with a heating device that uses displays arranged at any point under the hob plate.
Leikam (US-11774107-B2) teaches a cooking hob with a cooking area and user interface, where the cooking area is divided into cooking zones, and a position indicator device sued for indicating a position of cooking vessels on the cooktop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights