DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on December 5, 2023 with the national stage application. As directed by the amendment claims 1-13 have been cancelled and claims 14-26 have been added. Claims 14-26 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that claim 18 be amended as follows:
The cooktop of claim 17, further comprising a determining unit connected to the controller and configured to determine a presence of a person around the cooktop, wherein if the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is equal to a quantity of temperature measurement points of the panel assembly, said controller is configured to send out an indication information to control the gas valve not to act[[,]] when the determining unit determines the presence of a person around the cooktop, and to send out an indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve[[,]] when the determining unit determines an absence of a person around the cooktop.
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.
Claim 17, and 18-26 by dependency, 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “said controller configured to receive temperature values of the temperature measurement points of the panel assembly and to calculate a temperature difference of a temperature change of each of the temperature measurement points”. It is not clear what calculation is intended by “a temperature difference of a temperature change.” It is not clear if this is intended to calculate, for example, a value of the change in temperature over a given amount of time, or a rate of change of the temperature, or an amount of deviation of the temperature from a predetermined or previously measured temperature value. For the purposes of this Office Action, “a temperature difference of a temperature change” is being interpreted as “a temperature difference, wherein the temperature difference is a value of a change in temperature”.
Claims 18-26 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 17.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106969387 by Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a cooktop with overflow detection (Fig 1, paragraph [0019]), the cooktop comprising:
a burner (Fig 1 burner 11);
a gas valve configured to adjust a flow rate of gas supplied to the burner (Fig 1 gas valve assembly 12); and
a quantity of overflow sensors disposed around the burner and configured to detect an overflow state of a cooking utensil (Fig 1 overflow sensor 17).
Please note that 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 (MPEP 2173.01 I). Accordingly, where claim 14 recites “a quantity of overflow sensors,” “a quantity” is being interpreted to mean “one or more.”
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.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of EP 3502568 by Yusuf et al (hereinafter “Yusuf”).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the cooktop with overflow detection of claim 14. But Lee does not teach that the quantity of overflow sensors disposed around the burner is N, with N being greater than or equal to 3.
However, Yusuf teaches a cooktop with overflow detection (Abstract, Fig 1), having a quantity of overflow sensors disposed around the heating element, wherein the number of overflow sensors is greater than 3 (Fig 1 overflow sensing elements 22/24//26/28 surround each respective heating region 12/14/16/18, shown with 16 sensors around surrounding each element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by increasing the number of overflow sensors around the burner to three or more, in a manner similar to that taught by Yusuf, in order to provide more sensing locations for more accurate overflow detection. It is also noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of CN 108278638 by Lou et al (hereinafter “Lou”).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the cooktop with overflow detection of claim 14. Lee teaches that the cooktop further comprises a panel assembly configured to include a panel main body and/or a fluid pan (Fig 3 upper shell 212 of gas stove housing). Lee teaches that the overflow sensor is assembled with the burner and set in the fluid pan of the burner (Fig 1, paragraph [0049]). But Lee does not teach that the overflow sensors are concealed below the panel assembly.
However, Lou teaches a cooktop with a gas burner (Fig 1, paragraph [0002]) including a panel assembly comprising a panel main body and a fluid pan (Fig 1 panel 1 and liquid tray 3), and having temperature sensors concealed below the panel assembly and configured to measure the temperature of the fluid pan (Fig 2 temperature sensor 4, paragraph [0072]). Lou teaches that positioning the sensor to be concealed below the panel assembly avoids exposure to harsh environmental factors, such as oil, thus extending the lifespan of the sensor (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by positioning the overflow sensors (embodied as temperature sensors) such that they are concealed below the panel assembly, as taught by Lou, in order to protect the sensors from environmental factors, such as dirt and oil, that may shorten the lifespan of the sensors.
Claims 17, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of KR 101183930 (hereinafter “KR ‘930”) and in further view of EP 3462812 by Yusuf (hereinafter “Yusuf ‘812”).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the cooktop with overflow detection of claim 14. Lee teaches that the cooktop further comprises a panel assembly (Fig 3 including at least upper shell 212), wherein the overflow sensor comprises a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature information of a temperature measurement point of the panel assembly (paragraph [0049]), the cooktop further comprising a controller electrically connected to the gas valve and the temperature sensor (Fig 5 controller 19; paragraph [0050]), said controller configured to receive temperature values of the temperature measurement point of the panel assembly and to detect an overflow condition based on a rapid rise or fall of a temperature measurement at a temperature measurement point (paragraph [0049]), to calculate a quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature measurements indicate an overflow condition (in this case the quantity would be 0 or 1) and to send out different indication information according to a value of the quantity to adjust gas output of the burner (paragraph [0049], if quantity=1, controller sends signal to reduce gas flow to burner).
But Lee does not teach that the controller is configured to calculate a temperature change of each of the temperature measurement points, to pre-store a temperature difference threshold, to compare a received temperature difference of the temperature measurement point with the temperature difference threshold, to calculate a quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold.
However, KR ‘930 teaches stovetop comprising at least one burner, an overflow sensor configured to detect a temperature information of temperature measuring points, and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to calculate a temperature difference which is a value of the change in temperature of the temperature measurement points, to pre-store a temperature difference threshold, to compare a received temperature difference of the temperature measurement point with the temperature difference threshold, to calculate whether temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold, and to determine the overflow condition based on the difference (page 7 line 10-17; controller subtracts earlier detected temperature, T2, from a later detected temperature, T1, and compares calculated temperature change value, N, to reference temperature change value, n, to determine overflow condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee by using the known controller method of determining an overflow condition by calculating a temperature change taught by KR ‘930 in order to determine the overflow condition at each temperature measurement point, namely that the controller is configured to calculate a temperature difference, wherein the temperature difference is a value of a temperature change of the temperature measurement points, to pre-store a temperature difference threshold, to compare a received temperature difference of the temperature measurement point with the temperature difference threshold, to calculate whether temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold.
Although Lee/KR ‘930 teaches that the cooktop comprises multiple temperature detection sensors (Lee teaches an overflow sensor 17 adjacent to each of two burners 11, paragraph [0053]), Lee/KR ‘930 does not teach an overflow sensor at each burner wherein the overflow sensor comprises a sensor configured to detect information from a plurality of measurement points and controls the gas valve of the associated burner based on the detected information from the plurality of measurement points.
However, Yusuf ‘812 teaches a cooktop (Fig 1, Abstract) comprising a burner (Fig 1 heating regions 12/14/16/18), overflow sensors (Fig 1 overflow sensing elements 22/24/26/28), and a controller (Fig 2 cooker controller 42), wherein the overflow sensor at each burner is configured to detect a measurement at each of a plurality of measurement points (Fig 1; paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/KR 930 by configuring the overflow sensor to detect information from a plurality of measurement points, as taught by Yusuf ‘812, in order to provide more sensing locations for more accurate overflow detection. It is also noted that duplication of parts no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Regarding claim 23, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 teaches the cooktop of claim 17. (see above). Lee further teaches that the controller is configured to send out indication information to control the gas valve not to act, when the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is 0 (Lee paragraph [0049], valve is only controlled to act when temperature measurement indicates an overflow). Yusuf ‘812 also teaches that the controller is configured to send out indication information to control the heating element not to act, when the quantity of measurement points whose measurement differences exceed the difference threshold is 0 (paragraph [0033], no action is performed by the heating element when none of the measurements from the multiple sensing elements differ from the reference value by more than the predetermined threshold amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee with ‘KR 930 and Yusuf ‘812 that the controller is configured to send out the indication information to control the gas valve not to act, when the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is 0.
Regarding claim 24, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 teaches the cooktop of claim 17. (see above). Yusuf ‘812 further teaches that the controller is configured to determine an overflow condition and to decrease or switch off the power to the burner when N>n>0, wherein N is the quantity of temperature measurement points of the panel assembly, and n is the quantity of measurement points whose measurements exceed a predetermined threshold (paragraph [0033], controller may recognize an overflow event when one of the group of sensing elements differs by more than a predetermined threshold amount and deactivates heating element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee with KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812, to configure the controller to send out the indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve, when N>n>0, wherein N is the quantity of temperature measurement points of the panel assembly, and n is the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold. Since the modified cooktop includes a plurality of temperature measurement points surrounding the burner, it would be advantageous to configure the controller to determine an overflow condition when one or two of the temperature measurement points indicate measurements such a condition, even when all N of the temperature measurement points do not indicate temperature differences exceeding the temperature difference threshold, in order to detect an overflow in any of the measurement areas.
Claims 18-20 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 and in further view of CN 108679658 by Zhang (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 18, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 teaches the cooktop of claim 17. See details in parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify.
But Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 does not teach that the cooktop further comprises a determining unit connected to the controller and configured to determine a presence of a person around the cooktop, wherein if the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is equal to a quantity of temperature measurement points of the panel assembly, said controller is configured to send out an indication information to control the gas valve not to act when the determining unit determines the presence of a person around the cooktop, and to send out an indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve when the determining unit determines an absence of a person around the cooktop.
However, Zhang teaches a home appliance, such as a gas stove (paragraph [0004]), with overflow detection (paragraph [0006]), the cooktop comprising a determining unit connected to a controller and configured to detect the presence of a person around the cooktop (infrared distance sensor, paragraph [0050]). Zhang further teaches that the controller is configured to send out an indication information to the appliance not to act when the determining unit determines the presence of a person around the cooktop, and to send out an indication information to control the appliance to send out an indication information to reduce or shutdown firepower to a burner when an overflow detection unit determines that an overflow event has occurred and the determining unit determines an absence of a person around the cooktop (paragraph [0050]; paragraph [0067]). Zhang teaches that if users are present, they can determine an overflow situation themselves, but if no users are present the controller can determine the overflow condition and control the appliance based on the overflow condition (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 by including a determining unit, such as that taught by Zhang, and configuring the controller to send out an indication information to control the gas valve not to act, when the determining unit determines the presence of a person around the cooktop, and to send out an indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve, when the determining unit determines an absence of a person around the cooktop. This would be advantageous in order to ensure that dangerous conditions from overflow events are minimized when a user is not present to manage the cooktop, but the user’s operations are not hindered when the user is present.
Regarding claim 19, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 18. Zhang further teaches that the determining unit comprises a human body detection unit configured to detect the presence of a person around the appliance (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 with the determining unit of Zhang, that the determining unit comprises a human body detection unit configured to detect the presence of a person around the appliance.
Regarding claim 20, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 19. Zhang further teaches that the human body detection unit comprises an infrared temperature sensor (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 with the determining unit of Zhang, that the human body detection unit comprises an infrared temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 25, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 teaches the cooktop of claim 17. See details in parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Lee further teaches a user interface electrically connected to the controller (Lee, touch screen and keyboard, paragraph [0050]). KR ‘930 teaches a user interface that is on the panel assembly of the cooktop (KR ‘930, Fig 2 touch key controls 110).
But Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 does not teach that the cooktop further comprises an overflow trigger switch disposed on the panel assembly and electrically connected to the controller, said controller configured to send out the indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve, when the overflow trigger switch is triggered and the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is >0.
However, Zhang teaches a home appliance, such as a gas stove (paragraph [0004]), with overflow detection (paragraph [0006]), comprising an overflow trigger switch disposed at a user interface and electrically connected to a controller (paragraph [0049] user initiates overflow detection operation from a user interface), said controller configured to send out the indication information to control the appliance to reduce or shutdown firepower to the burner, when the overflow trigger switch is triggered and an overflow event is detected. (overflow trigger switch is triggered and overflow detection command provided paragraph [0049]; after detecting an overflow detection command, overflow alarm operation is triggered when overflow is detected, paragraph [0010]-[0012]; overflow alarm operation can include reduction or shutdown of firepower, paragraph [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/KR ‘930/ Yusuf ‘812 by including an overflow trigger switch on the user interface, the user interface being disposed on the panel assembly, and to configure the controller to send out the indication information to control the gas valve to decrease power or switch off the gas valve, when the overflow trigger switch is triggered and the quantity of temperature measurement points whose temperature differences exceed the temperature difference threshold is >0. This would be advantageous in order allow operation of the overflow detection when indicated by the user, thus ensuring that dangerous conditions from overflow events are minimized when a user indicates that they are not actively monitoring the cooktop.
Regarding claim 26, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 , Yusuf ‘812, and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 25. Lee further teaches that the user interface is a touch screen configured to control operations of the cooktop.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee with KR ‘930 , Yusuf ‘812, and Zhang, including the overflow trigger switch, as taught by Zhang, that the overflow trigger switch on the user interface would be a touch key.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 and Zhang and in further view of US 2016/0051078 by Jenkins et al (hereinafter “Jenkins”).
Regarding claim 21, Lee, as modified by KR ‘930 and Yusuf ‘812 and Zhang, teaches the cooktop of claim 18, including a detection unit configured to determine the presence of a person around the cooktop. See details in parent claim 18 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/KR’930/Yusuf ‘812/Zhang does not teach that the determining unit comprises a position sensor disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect whether a position of the knob of the gas valve changes so as to determine whether there is a person around the cooktop.
However, Jenkins teaches a determining unit comprising a position sensor disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect whether a position of the knob of the gas valve changes so as to determine whether there is a person around the cooktop (Fig 14 position sensor, such as encoder 1257, on control knob 1240, which may be used on a gas cooking appliance; paragraph [0102], control system detects physical interaction by user and may disable automatic control of the control knob based on the detected interaction of a user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooktop of Lee/KR’930/Yusuf ‘812/Zhang by including a position sensor in the determining unit, the sensor being disposed on a knob of the gas valve and configured to detect whether a position of the knob of the gas valve changes so as to determine whether there is a person around the cooktop, as taught by Jenkins. Such sensor could be used either in place of, or in addition to, the infrared sensor taught by Zhang to determine if a person is present to monitor or control the cooktop. A position sensor on the knob could be advantageous for reliably detecting the presence of an active user through interaction with the knob, particularly in conditions where an infrared sensor does not reliably detect a human presence, such as when the infrared sensor becomes dirty, or when a person is nearby but is not actively using or monitoring the cooktop.
Regarding claim 22, Jenkins further teaches that the position sensor comprises a resistor or an encoder (paragraph [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooktop of Lee/KR’930/Yusuf ‘812/Zhang with the position sensor of Jenkins, that the position sensor would comprise a resistor or encoder, as taught by Jenkins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 105716125 by Chen et al discloses a gas cooktop with multiple overflow sensors in a fluid pan surrounding a burner that sense the presence of liquids in the fluid pan and closes the gas valve.
US 2019/0380525 by Daneluzzo discloses a cooking appliance with a spill-over area for overflow from boil-over events, an overflow sensor in the spillover area which comprises a temperature sensor, and a controller which calculates a change in temperature over a predetermined time interval.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. 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, Steven B 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762