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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “including over at least a potion of the at least one ignition channel” which should be - including over at least a portion of the at least one ignition channel-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caloca (US 20180238537 A1), hereinafter Caloca.
Regarding claim 1, Caloca discloses a burner for a cooktop, comprising:
a base (“a burner base 10 for a stack burner assembly 110, for use in a cooking appliance, such as cooking appliance 100” paragraph [0017]) defining a first side wall having an annular main portion (“In the illustrated embodiment, burner base 10 is configured as a substantially round disc that includes a perimeter edge structure 12 defining a portion of a perimeter of burner assembly 110. Perimeter edge structure 12 includes a top surface 14 as well as a barrier lip 13” paragraph [0024]) and an ignition portion extending inwardly with respect to the annular main portion (“Burner base 10 also includes an ignition barrier structure 70” paragraph [0025]), the first side wall including at least one ignition channel extending from an interior thereof to an exterior within the ignition portion (“an ignition passage 24” paragraph [0025]), an upper surface of the base extending inwardly from the side wall (Figure 9B); and
a spreader removably disposed over the base (“burner base 10 may be configured to receive a burner spreader 80” paragraph [0023]), the spreader defining a lower portion with a lower surface resting on the upper surface of the base to enclose a first distribution chamber within respective portions of the base and the spreader (“burner base 10 may be coupled with a burner spreader 80, and, when positioned together, define a gas mixture chamber 112 within burner assembly 110” paragraph [0021]), the lower surface being interrupted a first plurality of port channels defined in the lower portion of the spreader and being partially enclosed by the upper surface of the base to define a first set of flame ports from the first distribution chamber to an exterior of the burner (“Ridges 94 of burner spreader 80 may further align with perimeter top surface 14 of burner base 10, creating openings 96 for gas and a cooking flame to be distributed around burner assembly 110” paragraph [0039]), the lower surface further defining a continuous planar portion extending within the ignition portion of the first side wall, including over at least a potion of the at least one ignition channel in the side wall of the base to at least partially enclose at least one respective ignition port from the first distribution chamber to the exterior within the ignition portion (Figure 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
402
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
468
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
696
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 1, wherein the spreader further defines:
an interior wall enclosing the first distribution chamber within the lower portion of the spreader (Figures 5 and 10); and
a second side wall extending from the interior wall opposite the lower portion to partially enclose a second distribution chamber, a second set of flame ports extending through the second side wall from the second distribution chamber to the exterior of the burner (“Top surface 82 includes a plurality of projections 92 that coincide with, and may be offset from, plurality of ridges 94 on the bottom surface 84” paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 1, wherein the at least one ignition channel is defined as a rectangular section in the upper surface of the base (24 is a rectangular slot).
Regarding claim 6, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 5, wherein the rectangular section intersects an exterior surface of the first side wall within the ignition portion along an entire first side of the rectangular section defined between a second side and a third side (channel 24 is open along a first side to the exterior, a second side to the interior, and is surrounded on both sides by channel walls).
Regarding claim 7, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 5, wherein the rectangular section intersects an interior surface of the side wall at adjacent ends of adjacent first and second sides of the rectangular section (channel 24 is open along a first side to the exterior, a second side to the interior, and is surrounded on both sides by channel walls).
Regarding claim 15, Caloca discloses a burner for a cooktop, comprising:
a base (“a burner base 10 for a stack burner assembly 110, for use in a cooking appliance, such as cooking appliance 100” paragraph [0017]) defining a first side wall having an annular main portion (“In the illustrated embodiment, burner base 10 is configured as a substantially round disc that includes a perimeter edge structure 12 defining a portion of a perimeter of burner assembly 110. Perimeter edge structure 12 includes a top surface 14 as well as a barrier lip 13” paragraph [0024]) and an ignition portion extending inwardly with respect to the annular main portion (“Burner base 10 also includes an ignition barrier structure 70” paragraph [0025]), an upper surface of the base extending inwardly from the side wall (Figure 9B); and
a spreader removably disposed over the base (“burner base 10 may be configured to receive a burner spreader 80” paragraph [0023]), the spreader defining a lower portion with a lower surface resting on the upper surface of the base to enclose a first distribution chamber within respective portions of the base and the spreader (“burner base 10 may be coupled with a burner spreader 80, and, when positioned together, define a gas mixture chamber 112 within burner assembly 110” paragraph [0021]), a plurality of flame ports extending between the first distribution chamber and an exterior of the burner and being defined by a first plurality of channels extending through the lower portion of the spreader (“Ridges 94 of burner spreader 80 may further align with perimeter top surface 14 of burner base 10, creating openings 96 for gas and a cooking flame to be distributed around burner assembly 110” paragraph [0039]) and at least one adjacent first continuously planar portion of the upper surface of the base within the annular main portion (Figure 10), and at least one ignition port extending between the first distribution chamber and the exterior of the burner within the ignition portion and being defined by at least one second channel extending through the first side wall of the base (“an ignition passage 24” paragraph [0025]) and at least one adjacent second continuously planar portion of the spreader (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 16, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 15, wherein the spreader further defines:
an interior wall enclosing the first distribution chamber within the lower portion of the spreader (Figures 5 and 10); and
a second side wall extending from the interior wall opposite the lower portion to partially enclose a second distribution chamber, a second set of flame ports extending through the second side wall from the second distribution chamber to the exterior of the burner (“Top surface 82 includes a plurality of projections 92 that coincide with, and may be offset from, plurality of ridges 94 on the bottom surface 84” paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 15, wherein:
the at least one ignition channel is defined as a rectangular section in the upper surface of the base (24 is a rectangular slot);
the rectangular section intersects an exterior surface of the first side wall within the ignition portion along an entire first side of the rectangular section defined between a second side and a third side (channel 24 is open along a first side to the exterior, a second side to the interior, and is surrounded on both sides by channel walls); and
the rectangular section intersects an interior surface of the first side wall at adjacent ends of adjacent first and second sides of the rectangular section (channel 24 is open along a first side to the exterior, a second side to the interior, and is surrounded on both sides by channel walls).
Regarding claim 20, Caloca discloses a cooktop comprising:
a cooktop surface (Figure 2); and
a burner (“a stack burner assembly 110” paragraph [0017]) including:
a base supported over a portion of the cooktop surface (“a burner base 10 for a stack burner assembly 110, for use in a cooking appliance, such as cooking appliance 100” paragraph [0017]) and defining a first side wall having an annular main portion (“In the illustrated embodiment, burner base 10 is configured as a substantially round disc that includes a perimeter edge structure 12 defining a portion of a perimeter of burner assembly 110. Perimeter edge structure 12 includes a top surface 14 as well as a barrier lip 13” paragraph [0024]) and an ignition portion extending inwardly with respect to the annular main portion (“Burner base 10 also includes an ignition barrier structure 70” paragraph [0025]), the first side wall including at least one ignition channel extending from an interior thereof to an exterior within the ignition portion (“an ignition passage 24” paragraph [0025]), an upper surface of the base extending inwardly from the side wall (Figure 9B); and
a spreader removably disposed over the base (“burner base 10 may be configured to receive a burner spreader 80” paragraph [0023]), the spreader defining a lower portion with a lower surface resting on the upper surface of the base to enclose a first distribution chamber within respective portions of the base and the spreader (“burner base 10 may be coupled with a burner spreader 80, and, when positioned together, define a gas mixture chamber 112 within burner assembly 110” paragraph [0021]), the lower surface being interrupted a first plurality of port channels defined in the lower portion of the spreader and being partially enclosed by the upper surface of the base to define a first set of flame ports from the first distribution chamber to an exterior of the burner (“Ridges 94 of burner spreader 80 may further align with perimeter top surface 14 of burner base 10, creating openings 96 for gas and a cooking flame to be distributed around burner assembly 110” paragraph [0039]), the lower surface further defining a continuous planar portion extending over the ignition portion of the first side wall, including at least partially over the at least one channel in the first side wall of the base to at least partially enclose at least one respective ignition port from the first distribution chamber to the exterior within the ignition portion (Figure 10).
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.
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 3, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caloca, in view of Paller (US 20190120495 A1), hereinafter Paller.
Regarding claim 3, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 2.
Caloca does not explicitly disclose a cap removably disposed on an upper surface of the second side wall and enclosing the second distribution chamber with the interior wall and the second side wall (The examiner points out that Caloca would have a cap to enclose the top of the second distribution chamber, but such is not shown or described as it is not the focus of the reference).
However, Paller teaches a cap removably disposed on an upper surface of the second side wall and enclosing the second distribution chamber with the interior wall and the second side wall (“Second fuel chamber 146 may be defined by inner surfaces of cap 154, air duct 150, and first burner body 124” paragraph [0028]).
PNG
media_image6.png
734
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
358
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Paller's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a cap because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Caloca discloses partially enclosed secondary distribution chamber, but is silent on a cap. Paller teaches a cap. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Regarding claim 4, Caloca, as modified by Paller, discloses the burner of claim 3, wherein:
the second set of flame ports is defined by a second plurality of port channels open to the upper surface of the second side wall (Disclosed by both Caloca and Paller); and
the cap encloses the second plurality of channels to define the second plurality of flame ports (Taught by Paller).
Regarding claim 17, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 16.
Caloca does not explicitly disclose a cap removably disposed on an upper surface of the second side wall and enclosing the second distribution chamber with the interior wall and the second side wall (The examiner points out that Caloca would have a cap to enclose the top of the second distribution chamber, but such is not shown or described as it is not the focus of the reference).
However, Paller teaches a cap removably disposed on an upper surface of the second side wall and enclosing the second distribution chamber with the interior wall and the second side wall (“Second fuel chamber 146 may be defined by inner surfaces of cap 154, air duct 150, and first burner body 124” paragraph [0028]).
In view of Paller's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a cap because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Caloca discloses partially enclosed secondary distribution chamber, but is silent on a cap. Paller teaches a cap. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caloca, in view of Pistien (US 4518346 A), hereinafter Pistien.
Regarding claims 8-12, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 5, wherein:
the rectangular section defines a width in a direction away from the ignition portion and axially into the first side wall,
the rectangular section defines a length along the first side wall within the ignition portion and radially into the first side wall,
an intersection between the rectangular section and the first side wall defines an inlet between the at least one ignition channel and an interior surface of the first side wall having,
an intersection between the rectangular section and the first side wall defines an outlet between the at least one ignition channel and an exterior surface of the first side wall within the ignition portion,
wherein the at least one ignition channel has a depth in a direction away from the upper surface (the channel 24 has width, length, depth, as well as inlet and outlet widths).
the width being between 4 mm and 5 mm,
the length being between 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm,
the inlet having a width of about 2 mm,
the outlet having a width of about 5 mm,
the depth between 0.8 mm and 1.3 mm.
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Caloca discloses a channel 24 for conveying gas, but does not specifically recite the claimed dimensions. Achieving the claimed dimensions is a results-effective variable because Pistien states “In general, the grooves 41, 42 and orifices 43 to 46 provided in the upper part 104 of the burner head are designed to allow ignition by electrode and safety by thermocouple from inside the burner. The diameter of orifices 43 to 46, their situation and the dimensional characteristics of grooves 41, 42 are adapted to permit inter-igniting and safety throughout a predetermined range of utilization of the burner between full flow and reduced flow. The parameters of these elements may thus be adapted to different conditions of operation” (column 4, line 13). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dimensions of the ignition channel, because the selection of dimension to achieve ignition throughout a predetermined range of utilization of the burner between full and reduced flow constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caloca, in view of Isphording (DE 20205882 U1), hereinafter Isphording.
Regarding claim 13, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 1, wherein the base defines a lower wall defining an aperture configured to receive at least one ignitor electrode therethrough for generating an electronic arc between the ignitor electrode and a portion of the first side wall within the ignition portion (“Ignition passage 24 may be coupled to an ignition source for burner assembly 110. For example, a spark may be introduced through ignition passage 24 to ignite gas” paragraph [0025]).
Caloca does not disclose the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture.
However, Isphording teaches the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture (“Two vertical holes 12, 13 are made in the bottom 8 of the recess 7, with the upper end of a spark plug 14 in the hole 12” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image8.png
570
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
488
500
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
582
368
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Isphording’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture as is taught in Isphording, in the burner disclosed by Caloca because securing the ignitor in the base will provide for a more secure and stable arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 1.
Caloca does not disclose wherein the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion.
However, Isphording teaches wherein the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion (Figure 1).
In view of the teachings of Isphording, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion as is taught in Isphording, in the burner disclosed by Caloca because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the difference between Caloca and the claims is the provision of an additional ignition channel. Additional ignition channels would result in a more even distribution of gas to the ignition portion.
Regarding claim 19, Caloca discloses the burner of claim 15, wherein the base defines a lower wall defining an aperture configured to receive at least one ignitor electrode therethrough for generating an electronic arc between the ignitor electrode and a portion of the first side wall within the ignition portion (“Ignition passage 24 may be coupled to an ignition source for burner assembly 110. For example, a spark may be introduced through ignition passage 24 to ignite gas” paragraph [0025]).
Caloca does not disclose wherein:
the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture;
the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion.
However, Isphording teaches:
the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture (“Two vertical holes 12, 13 are made in the bottom 8 of the recess 7, with the upper end of a spark plug 14 in the hole 12” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion (Figure 1)
In view of Isphording’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the lower wall at least partially extending within the ignition portion and defining the aperture as is taught in Isphording, in the burner disclosed by Caloca because securing the ignitor in the base will provide for a more secure and stable arrangement. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the at least one ignition channel included in the first side wall includes two ignition channels symmetrically disposed about a centerline radially bisecting the ignition portion as is taught in Isphording, in the burner disclosed by Caloca because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the difference between Caloca and the claims is the provision of an additional ignition channel. Additional ignition channels would result in a more even distribution of gas to the ignition portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Collins (GB 2153988 A)
PNG
media_image11.png
254
482
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
440
398
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Eraktas (WO 2017097639 A1)
PNG
media_image13.png
480
628
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights