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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1 directed to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive because:
Inventions of Group 1 (claims 1-15) and Group 2 (claims 16-20) are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the inventions of Group 1 (claims 1-15) and Group 2 (claims 16-20) are distinct because Group 1 (claims 1-15) and Group 2 (claims 16-20) are shown that either: (1) the process of Group 2 as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such that the cookware comprises lid to cover the cookware, or comprises utensil to stir the food items, or (2) the apparatus of Group 1 as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as inserting second food item that is different from the first food item.
Hence, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 14-15 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.
In this case, each of the claims 14 and 15 recites the limitation “the notification”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, claims 14 and 15 each is being dependent upon claim 1, however, the term “notification/notify” is not previously claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, abstract ideas are underlined and additional elements are bolded as follows:
An induction cooktop, comprising: at least one cooking zone configured to cause cookware to heat food items placed therein (additional element); a sensor configured to sense a temperature from which a cooking temperature of the cookware may at least be estimated (additional element); and control circuitry in communication with the sensor and configured to (additional element): determine at least an estimate of the cooking temperature of the cookware from the temperature sensed by the sensor (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); detect the insertion of a first food item into the cookware (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); determine a target temperature corresponding to the determined cooking temperature just prior to insertion of the first food item (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); detect when the first food item is removed from the cookware (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); after the first food item is removed, compare the determined cooking temperature to the target temperature (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); and determine a time of insertion for a second food item based on the determined cooking temperature stably reaching the target temperature after a removal of the first food item (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, it is directed to a machine (induction cooktop).
Step 2a, prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes
The limitations above recite the idea of determining, detecting and/or comparing. This is a mental process, and mathematical concept as described in MPEP 2601.04(a)(2)(I), and 2601.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A, prong 2: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim is not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the claim did not improve the technical controlling of a device (laser beam). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: do the limitations add elements amounting to more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial
exception. The “cooking zone”, “cookware”, “sensor” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d). The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 recites “the control circuitry is configured to detect the removal of the first food item based on a change in the estimated cooking temperature”. The limitation is direct to mathematical concept, which is analyzed under step 2A, prong 2. Furthermore, the limitation does not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. (See MEPE 2016.05(g))
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites “wherein the control circuitry is configured to communicate a signal indicating the estimated cooking temperature reaching the target temperature”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 recites “the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time from removal of the first food item until the time of insertion for the second food item”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 recites “wherein the control circuitry is configured to alert a user to the estimated cooking temperature becoming stable and reaching the target temperature”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 recites “wherein the alert is audible”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 recites “wherein the alert is visual”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one cooking zone includes at least one induction coil”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites “a power supply coupled to receive control signals from the control circuitry, the power supply responds to the control signals for selectively supplying variable power to the at least one induction coil”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 5 recites “a user interface coupled to the control circuitry for selecting power levels for the at least cooking zone”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14recites “wherein the alert is audible”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15recites “wherein the alert is visual”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, abstract ideas are underlined and additional elements are bolded as follows:
An induction cooktop, comprising: a plurality of induction coils configured to heat cookware (additional element); a power supply for supplying variable power levels to the plurality of induction coils in response to control signals such that the plurality of induction coils cause the cookware to heat food items on the cookware at a cooking temperature (additional element); a plurality of sensors configured to detect a temperature from which a cooking temperature on the cookware may at least be estimated (additional element); and control circuitry coupled to the power supply for generating the control signals identifying the induction coils to receive power, the control circuitry coupled to the plurality of sensors, the control circuitry configured to (additional element): (a) determine at least an estimate of the cooking temperature of the cookware from the temperature sensed by the sensors (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); (b) generate a notification to insert a food item when the cooking temperature is stable (additional element); (c) detect when the food item is inserted in the cookware (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); (d) detect when the food item is removed from the cookware (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process); and (e) repeat (a) through (d) for each subsequently inserted food item (a, c, and d are abstract, and b is a display or sending data).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, it is directed to a machine (induction cooktop).
Step 2a, prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes
The limitations above recite the idea of determining, detecting and/or comparing. This is a mental process, and mathematical concept as described in MPEP 2601.04(a)(2)(I), and 2601.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A, prong 2: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim is not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the claim did not improve the technical controlling of a device (laser beam). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: do the limitations add elements amounting to more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial
exception. The “cooking zone”, “cookware”, “sensor”, and/or “power supply”, “coils” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d). The limitations are specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f).).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 recites “wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer upon detection of removal of the food item and controls a user interface to display a remaining time until the time of insertion for a subsequent food item”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites “wherein the control circuitry estimates a time to insertion, wherein the control circuitry initiates the countdown timer from the estimated time to insertion”. The claim, which is analyzed under step 2B, is directed to a generic computer component, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer controlling functions, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapin (US 4503502 A) in view of Beverly (US 20120132647 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chapin discloses, a cooktop (see stove 8 in Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one cooking zone (see gas burner 10) configured to cause cookware (see woke 9) to heat food items placed therein (see Fig. 1 and disclosed in Col. 4 lines 7-10 “the food ingredients in each compartment to be dispensed into the wok in a predetermined sequence and in predetermined intervals by signals from the computer control system”);
a sensor (temperature sensor 43 and digital thermometer 44 in Fig. 5) configured to sense a temperature from which a cooking temperature of the cookware may at least be estimated (disclosed in Col. 5 lines 45-50 “The temperature measuring component, illustrated in FIG. 5, is comprised of a temperature sensor 43 for sensing the temperature of the wok, a digital thermometer 44 with BCD output for converting electrical signals from the temperature sensor to temperature measurements for input to the computer control system”); and
control circuitry (see digital microcomputer system 50) in communication with the sensor (see Fig. 1) and configured to:
determine at least an estimate of the cooking temperature of the cookware from the temperature sensed by the sensor (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”);
detect the insertion of a first food item into the cookware (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 50-57 “Next, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated third motor means which initiates the stirring action of the spatula. After a few seconds, to allow the cooking oil to heat, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated second motor means to rotate the rotatable divider of the food tray to add the first food ingredient and then deactivates the second motor means”);
determine a target temperature corresponding to the determined cooking temperature just prior to insertion of the first food item (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 43-50 “When the gas burner has heated the wok to the cooking temperature specified in the recipe the computer control system activates the normally deactivated first motor means which initiates rotation of the wok. The computer control system then activates the corresponding pinch valve to dispense cooking oil in the quantity specified for this recipe”);
detect when the first food item is removed from the cookware (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 23-36 “. The operator then removes the spatula and the wok and replaces them with a clean spatula and wok”);
after the first food item is removed, compare the determined cooking temperature to the target temperature (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 36-40 “When the cooking is complete, the operator scoops the food onto a serving dish, replaces the wok and spatula with clean utensils, and is ready to repeat the process for the next order”); and
determine a time of insertion for a second food item based on the determined cooking temperature stably reaching the target temperature after a removal of the first food item (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 36-40 “When the cooking is complete, the operator scoops the food onto a serving dish, replaces the wok and spatula with clean utensils, and is ready to repeat the process for the next order”, wherein the next order of the second food is repeating the same cooking process of the first food as disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”).
However, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, the cooktop is an induction cooktop.
Nonetheless, Beverly teaches, the cooktop is an induction cooktop (see induction cooking system 10 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to replace the gas burner of Chapin with the induction cooktop as taught/suggested by Beverly since induction cooktop can hold temperatures more consistently than gas, the induction cooktop allows precise temperature controls. Moreover, the induction cooktop can heat the cooking pan directly not the surrounding air, hence, the induction cooktop wastes less energy.
Regarding claim 2, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the removal of the first food item based on a change in the estimated cooking temperature (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 13-22 “The allowable temperature range is plus or minus 3% of the temperature specified in the recipe. For example, a cooking temperature of 350.degree. F. has an allowable range of 340.degree. F. to 360.degree. F. At the completion of the specified cooking time, the computer control system deactivates the first and third motor means which stops the wok rotation and the stirring action of the spatula, and deactivates the gas valve which turns off the gas burner”).
Regarding claim 3, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry is configured to communicate a signal indicating the estimated cooking temperature reaching the target temperature (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 13-22 “The allowable temperature range is plus or minus 3% of the temperature specified in the recipe. For example, a cooking temperature of 350.degree. F. has an allowable range of 340.degree. F. to 360.degree. F. At the completion of the specified cooking time, the computer control system deactivates the first and third motor means which stops the wok rotation and the stirring action of the spatula, and deactivates the gas valve which turns off the gas burner”).
Regarding claim 4, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry initiates when removal of the first food item and the time of insertion for the second food item (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 36-40 “When the cooking is complete, the operator scoops the food onto a serving dish, replaces the wok and spatula with clean utensils, and is ready to repeat the process for the next order”, wherein the next order of the second food is repeating the same cooking process of the first food as disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”).
Chapin does explicitly disclose, wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time from removal of the first food item until the time of insertion for the second food item.
Beverly teaches, wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time (disclosed in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the control circuity of Chapin wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time from removal of the first food item until the time of insertion for the second food item as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to see time pass visually creates a tangible sense of urgency, which can help operator stay on track and complete tasks more efficiently.
Regarding claim 5, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry is configured to alert a user to the estimated cooking temperature becoming stable and reaching the target temperature (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 13-23 “The allowable temperature range is plus or minus 3% of the temperature specified in the recipe. For example, a cooking temperature of 350.degree. F. has an allowable range of 340.degree. F. to 360.degree. F. At the completion of the specified cooking time, the computer control system deactivates the first and third motor means which stops the wok rotation and the stirring action of the spatula, and deactivates the gas valve which turns off the gas burner. This signals the operator that the food is done at which time the operator scoops the food onto a dish for serving.”).
Regarding claim 6, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 5, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the alert is audible.
Beverly teaches, the alert is audible (discloses in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the alert of Chapin so as the alert is audible as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to grab attention quickly so as prompting operators to take action without delay.
Regarding claim 7, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 5, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the alert is visual.
Beverly teaches, the alert is audible (discloses in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the alert of Chapin so as the alert is visual as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to ensure that operators with hearing impairments, or those in noisy environments, still receive critical information.
Regarding claim 8, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the at least one cooking zone includes at least one induction coil.
Beverly teaches, wherein the at least one cooking zone includes at least one induction coil (see induction coil 52 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to replace the gas burner of Chapin with the at least one cooking zone includes at least one induction coil as taught/suggested by Beverly since induction cooktop can hold temperatures more consistently than gas, the induction cooktop allows precise temperature controls. Moreover, the induction cooktop can heat the cooking pan directly not the surrounding air, hence, the induction cooktop wastes less energy.
Regarding claim 9, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 8, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, further comprising a power supply coupled to receive control signals from the control circuitry, the power supply responds to the control signals for selectively supplying variable power to the at least one induction coil.
Beverly teaches, further comprising a power supply (see Coil drive 54 in Fig. 1) coupled to receive control signals from the control circuitry (see system control/controller 56 in Fig. 1), the power supply responds to the control signals for selectively supplying variable power to the at least one induction coil (see Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0039 “other electrical parameters such as the voltage and/or current of the power provided by coil drive system 54 to primary coil 52 or secondary coil 58 also are inherently known as part of drive system 54. This information can be provided to controller 56 directly from coil drive system 54 rather than the information being detected by a separate sensor 64. Changes in directly provided coil drive current or voltage can be correlated to target temperature changes in the same manner”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to replace the gas burner of Chapin with the at least one cooking zone includes at least one induction coil, wherein a power supply coupled to receive control signals from the control circuitry, the power supply responds to the control signals for selectively supplying variable power to the at least one induction coil as taught/suggested by Beverly since induction cooktop can hold temperatures more consistently than gas, the induction cooktop allows precise temperature controls. Moreover, the induction cooktop can heat the cooking pan directly not the surrounding air, hence, the induction cooktop wastes less energy.
Regarding claim 10, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, Chapin further discloses, further comprising a user interface (see electronic interface 49 in Fig. 1) coupled to the control circuitry (50) for selecting power levels for the at least cooking zone (disclosed in Col. 6 lines 27-34 “an electronic interface 49 which by computer generated signals activates and deactivates the means to rotate the wok, the means to drive the spatula, the means to rotate the rotatable divider of the food tray, activates and deactivates the plurality of liquid dispensers, activates and deactivates the gas valve, and receives the temperature measurements from the digital thermometer”).
Regarding claim 14, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the notification is audible.
Beverly teaches, the notification is audible (discloses in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the notification of Chapin so as the notification is audible as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to grab attention quickly so as prompting operators to take action without delay.
Regarding claim 15, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 1, however, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the notification is visual.
Beverly teaches, the notification is audible (discloses in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the notification of Chapin so as the notification is visual as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to ensure that operators with hearing impairments, or those in noisy environments, still receive critical information.
Regarding independent claim 11, Chapin discloses, a cooktop (see stove 8 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a burner (see gas burner 10) configured to heat cookware (wok 9);
a gas supply for supplying variable gas levels to the burner in response to control signals such that the gas burner causes the cookware to heat food items on the cookware at a cooking temperature (see Fig. 6 and disclosed in Col. 6 lines 6-21 “The gas valve component is comprised of a gas valve 48 of FIG. 1, electrically operated, operably installed in the gas burner supply line of the Chinese stove downstream of the supply branch to the pilot light. The gas valve is activated (to open) and deactivated (to close) by signals from the computer control system. In the deactivated position only the pilot light is on. In the activated position a full flow of gas is supplied to the gas burner from the supply source. As a matter of safety, when the computer control system activates the gas valve the computer control system checks for an immediate increase in temperature of the wok. If this temperature increase does not occur within a few seconds the computer control system deactivates the gas valve and displays a message to the operator to check the pilot light”);
a plurality of sensors (temperature sensor 43 and digital thermometer 44 in Fig. 5) configured to detect a temperature from which a cooking temperature on the cookware may at least be estimated (disclosed in Col. 5 lines 45-50 “The temperature measuring component, illustrated in FIG. 5, is comprised of a temperature sensor 43 for sensing the temperature of the wok, a digital thermometer 44 with BCD output for converting electrical signals from the temperature sensor to temperature measurements for input to the computer control system”); and
control circuitry (see digital microcomputer system 50 and electronic interface 49) coupled to the gas supply for generating the control signals identifying the burner to receive gas to heat (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 13-22 “The allowable temperature range is plus or minus 3% of the temperature specified in the recipe. For example, a cooking temperature of 350.degree. F. has an allowable range of 340.degree. F. to 360.degree. F. At the completion of the specified cooking time, the computer control system deactivates the first and third motor means which stops the wok rotation and the stirring action of the spatula, and deactivates the gas valve which turns off the gas burner”), the control circuitry coupled to the plurality of sensors (see Fig. 5), the control circuitry (50) configured to:
(a) determine at least an estimate of the cooking temperature of the cookware from the temperature sensed by the sensors (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”);
(b) generate a notification to insert a food item when the cooking temperature is stable (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 43-50 “When the gas burner has heated the wok to the cooking temperature specified in the recipe the computer control system activates the normally deactivated first motor means which initiates rotation of the wok. The computer control system then activates the corresponding pinch valve to dispense cooking oil in the quantity specified for this recipe”);
(c) detect when the food item is inserted in the cookware (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 50-57 “Next, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated third motor means which initiates the stirring action of the spatula. After a few seconds, to allow the cooking oil to heat, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated second motor means to rotate the rotatable divider of the food tray to add the first food ingredient and then deactivates the second motor means”);
(d) detect when the food item is removed from the cookware (disclosed in Col. 20 lines 23-36 “. The operator then removes the spatula and the wok and replaces them with a clean spatula and wok”); and
(e) repeat (a) through (d) for each subsequently inserted food item(disclosed in Col. 2 lines 36-40 “When the cooking is complete, the operator scoops the food onto a serving dish, replaces the wok and spatula with clean utensils, and is ready to repeat the process for the next order”, wherein the next order of the second food is repeating the same cooking process of the first food as disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”).
However, Chapin does not explicitly disclose, the cooktop is an induction cooktop comprises a plurality of induction coils configured to heat cookware, a power supply for supplying variable power levels to the plurality of induction coils in response to control signals such that the plurality of induction coils cause the cookware to heat food items on the cookware at a cooking temperature, and wherein the control circuitry coupled to the powers supply for generating the control signals identifying the induction coils to receive power.
Nonetheless, Beverly teaches, the cooktop is an induction cooktop (see induction cooking system 10 in Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of induction coils (see induction coil 52 and secondary coil 58 in Fig. 1) configured to heat cookware (see cookware 20 in Fig. 1), further comprising a power supply (see Coil drive 54 in Fig. 1) coupled to receive control signals from the control circuitry (see system control/controller 56 in Fig. 1), the power supply responds to the control signals for selectively supplying variable power to the induction coils (see Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0039 “other electrical parameters such as the voltage and/or current of the power provided by coil drive system 54 to primary coil 52 or secondary coil 58 also are inherently known as part of drive system 54. This information can be provided to controller 56 directly from coil drive system 54 rather than the information being detected by a separate sensor 64. Changes in directly provided coil drive current or voltage can be correlated to target temperature changes in the same manner”) and wherein the control circuitry coupled to the powers supply for generating the control signals identifying the induction coils to receive power (discloses in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to replace the gas burner of Chapin with the induction cooktop, wherein the induction cooktop comprises a plurality of induction coils configured to heat cookware, a power supply for supplying variable power levels to the plurality of induction coils in response to control signals such that the plurality of induction coils cause the cookware to heat food items on the cookware at a cooking temperature, and wherein the control circuitry coupled to the powers supply for generating the control signals identifying the induction coils to receive power as taught/suggested by Beverly since induction cooktop can hold temperatures more consistently than gas, the induction cooktop allows precise temperature controls. Moreover, the induction cooktop can heat the cooking pan directly not the surrounding air, hence, the induction cooktop wastes less energy.
Regarding claim 12, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 11, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry initiates when removal of the food item and the time of insertion for the subsequent food item (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 36-40 “When the cooking is complete, the operator scoops the food onto a serving dish, replaces the wok and spatula with clean utensils, and is ready to repeat the process for the next order”, wherein the next order of the second food is repeating the same cooking process of the first food as disclosed in Col. 19 lines 41-43 “Temperature measurements of the wok are continually read from the digital thermometer by the computer control system”), and further comprising a user interface (see electronic interface 49 in Fig. 1) coupled to the control circuitry (50) for selecting power levels for the at least cooking zone (disclosed in Col. 6 lines 27-34 “an electronic interface 49 which by computer generated signals activates and deactivates the means to rotate the wok, the means to drive the spatula, the means to rotate the rotatable divider of the food tray, activates and deactivates the plurality of liquid dispensers, activates and deactivates the gas valve, and receives the temperature measurements from the digital thermometer”).
Chapin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer upon detection of removal of the food item and controls a user interface to display a remaining time until the time of insertion for a subsequent food item.
Beverly teaches, wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time (disclosed in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the control circuity of Chapin wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer upon detection of removal of the food item and controls a user interface to display a remaining time until the time of insertion for a subsequent food item as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to see time pass visually creates a tangible sense of urgency, which can help operator stay on track and complete tasks more efficiently.
Regarding claim 13, Chapin in view of Beverly discloses the induction cooktop of claim 12, Chapin further discloses, wherein the control circuitry estimates a time to insertion, and wherein the control circuitry initiates the time of insertion for the food item (disclosed in Col. 19 lines 50-57 “Next, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated third motor means which initiates the stirring action of the spatula. After a few seconds, to allow the cooking oil to heat, the computer control system activates the normally deactivated second motor means to rotate the rotatable divider of the food tray to add the first food ingredient and then deactivates the second motor means”).
Chapin does explicitly disclose, wherein the control circuitry initiates the countdown timer from the estimated time to insertion.
Beverly teaches, wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time (disclosed in para 0051 “the user could be notified with a visual or auditory alert after some amount of predetermined time (e.g., to account for the cookware being pre-heated)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the control circuity of Chapin wherein the control circuitry initiates a countdown timer that displays a remaining time from removal of the first food item until the time of insertion for the second food item as taught/suggested by Beverly in order to see time pass visually creates a tangible sense of urgency, which can help operator stay on track and complete tasks more efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights