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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 16-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the user” and “the environment” in lines 4 and 9, these should read “a user” and “an environment”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the position" in line 3, this should read “a position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 7: “heat protection means” is being interpreted to mean a heat or position sensor or a thermal insulation device.
Claim 12: “adhesive means” is being interpreted to mean a silicone layer.
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 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the base body" and “the input” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as if this claim is intended to depend from claim 8 as claim 8 is the claim that recites “a base body”.
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 7, 13, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US-Pub 2017/0163437).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses a portable operating device (200, fig 2) for controlling a kitchen appliance (100b, fig 2) from different operating positions (S300, fig 25, the controller needs to be close to operate, not just coupled), the portable operating device comprising, a user interface (210, fig 3) for the user to input control information, a communication unit (203, fig 6) which is connected to the user interface in a signal-transmitting manner to wirelessly transmit the control information to the kitchen appliance, and at least one heat protecting means (par. 0224, the position sensor is included as a heat protecting means as based on the position sensor reading the appliance can shut off if the position reading is determined to be unsafe, applicants functions the same way (page 20 lines 5-25 of applicants specification)).
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses the at least one heat protection means comprises a position sensor (par. 0221, the operating device using strength of signal from its signal detection system to detect its position relative to the device which it operates with) to determine the position of the operating device relative to the kitchen appliance.
Regarding claim 15, Yang discloses the user interface comprises at least one control element (210b, fig 3) which is displaceable relative to the base body for the input of the control information.
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.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zarcone (10890332).
Regarding claim 8, Yang does not disclose wherein the at least one heat protection means has at least one heat protection body to thermally decouple a base body from the environment
Zarcone teaches a knob (211, fig 1) for a kitchen appliance (col 1, lines 15-19, a hob is a cooktop kitchen appliance) which has at least one heat protection means (col 11, lines 42-55) comprising a heat protection body (the layer of silicone attached to the base of 213, col 11, lines 42-55) to thermally decouple a base body (213, fig 4) from the environment (Col 4, lines 57-67).
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 portable operating device disclosed by Yang by having a protecting silicone layer located at the base of the controller based on the teachings of Zarcone. Doing so would protect the knob from temperature damage (Col 4, lines 57-67), as suggested by Zarcone.
Regarding claim 11, Yang as modified by Zarcone discloses the claimed invention except for the heat protection body being replaceably attached to the base body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the protection body be replaceable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 12, Yang as modified by Zarcone discloses wherein the at least one heat protection means (the layer of silicone attached to the base of 213, col 11, lines 42-55, Zarcone) comprises an adhesive means (page 18, lines 3-10, applicants specification states a silicone layer can be the adhesive means, so the face of the heat protection means) for reversible, non-slip arrangement on a glass surface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Barritt (5648008).
Regarding claim 14, Yang does not disclose the at least one heat protection means comprises a temperature sensor.
Barritt teaches an induction cooktop comprising a temperature sensor (79, fig 2) connected to the controller to detect whether the glass top is overheating (col 15, lines 3-17).
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 heat protection means disclosed by Yang by having a temperature sensor located in the controller to detect the temperature of the glass top of the cookware to detect overheating based on the teachings of Barritt. This would allow the controller to generate an alarm signal to notify the user of potential damage (col 15, lines 5-17).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Zarcone as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Has (DE102008044236A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yang as modified by Zarcone does not disclose explicitly the at least one heat protection body comprises a material which is resistant up to at least 250°C.
Has teaches using silicone in a kitchen device (1, fig 1), wherein the silicon is resistant up to 300°C (page 8, par 10).
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 heat protection body disclosed by Yang as modified by Zarcone by having the plastic be resistant up to at least 250C based on the teachings of Has. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any part associated with a cooking device risks being exposed to high temperatures and thus would need to be made to resist damage from melting.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as modified by Zarcone as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Franco Gutierrez (US-Pub 2021/0259065).
Regarding claim 10, Yang as modified by Zarcone discloses does not explicitly disclose the at least one heat protection body comprises a material having a thermal conductivity of at most 5 W/mK.
Franco Gutierrez teaches using a Hob communication unit (20a, fig 2) which communicates information to an induction cooker in the same manner as Yang (par. 0072), which uses silicon with a thermal conductivity of below 5 W/mK (par. 0027, the conductivity maximum is preferably 0.1).
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 heat protection body disclosed by Yang as modified by Zarcone by having a thermal conductivity below 5w/mk based on the teachings of Franco Gutierrez. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a low thermal conductivity would protect the electronics inside from the heat of appliance operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights