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 .
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(s) 1, 7-10, 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaz et. al (US 2009/0241935 A1) in view of Pearson (Pearson, M. (2021, April 1). Rotary, encoder and coded switch - difference? - live electronics. Live Electronics. https://www.liveelectronicsgroup.com/news-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-a-rotary-switch-encoder-and-coded-switch/).
With respect to claim 1 Jaaz discloses a cooking appliance, comprising: a gas burner [reference character 103]; a mechanical gas valve [reference character 102] coupling the gas burner to a gas supply, the mechanical gas valve including a valve actuator [reference character 105] rotatable between a closed position and an open position to regulate an output level of the gas burner, wherein when in the closed position the valve actuator shuts off a supply of gas to the gas burner [paragraphs 0171-0173]; a stepper motor [paragraphs 0100] mechanically coupled to the valve actuator and configured to controllably rotate the valve actuator between the closed and open positions; a home position switch [see “limit switch” in paragraphs 0183-0184] configured to be mechanically engaged to indicate when the valve actuator is rotated to the closed position; a position sensor [see “rotary encoder” in paragraph 0162] rotatable between a plurality of discrete rotational positions and configured to output a signal indicating a current discrete rotational position among the plurality of discrete rotational positions, the plurality of discrete rotational positions including an off discrete rotational position; and a control circuit [reference character 101] coupled to the stepper motor, the home position switch, and the position sensor and configured to control the stepper motor to rotate the valve actuator to a first predetermined position in response to selection of a first discrete rotational position among the plurality of discrete rotational positions of the position sensor to control the output level of the gas burner [paragraph 0162 and Fig. 2], to control the stepper motor to rotate the valve actuator to the closed position in response to selection of the off discrete rotational position of the position sensor [paragraphs 0183-0184 and Fig. 2], and to access the home position switch after controlling the stepper motor to rotate the valve actuator to the closed position to verify closure of the mechanical gas valve [paragraphs 0183-0184 and Fig. 2].
Jaaz does not disclose that the position sensor is a rotary coded switch.
Pearson discloses the pros and cons of using encoders versus rotary coded switches in situations where it is necessary to determine a rotational position. In this regard Pearson states that rotary coded switches provide several advantages including “…mechanical life, number of positions, they can rotate 360 degrees or stop at pre-set positions as they rotate…” [see pp. 3 of Pearson, attached].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Jaaz by replacing the rotary encoder with a rotary coded switch, as taught by Pearson because the rotary coded switch provides several advantages including “…mechanical life, number of positions, they can rotate 360 degrees or stop at pre-set positions as they rotate…” [see pp. 3 of Pearson, attached]. Note that Jaaz discloses that the rotary encoder is only one possible option for determining angular position [see paragraph 0162 of Jaaz].
With respect to claim 7 Jaaz discloses that the home position switch is a normally open switch that is closed when the valve actuator is rotated to the closed position [see paragraph 0185, where motion of the cam closes the switch].
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson, as applied to claim 1, does not disclose that the rotary coded switch outputs a Gray code when rotating between the plurality of discrete rotational positions.
Pearson discloses that “Gray Code is widely used to prevent false output from electromechanical switches and to facilitate error correction in digital communications…” [see pp. 5 of Pearson].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Jaazy and Pearson by outputting Gray Code from the rotary coded switch in order to “…prevent false output from electromechanical switches and to facilitate error correction in digital communications…” [see pp. 5 of Pearson].
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson, as applied to claim 1, do not disclose that the rotary coded switch includes a plurality of detents, each configured to maintain the rotary coded switch at a respective discrete rotational position of the plurality of discrete rotational positions.
Pearson disclose that rotary switches “…can also be designed with a detent mechanism so they “click” and hold from one active position to another rather than stalling in an intermediate position” [pp. 1 of Pearson].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Jaazy and Pearson by including a plurality of detents, each configured to maintain the rotary coded switch at a respective discrete rotational position of the plurality of discrete rotational positions, as taught by Pearson, so that the detents “… ‘click’ and hold from one active position to another rather than stalling in an intermediate position” [pp. 1 of Pearson].
With respect to claim 10 Jaaz and Pearson discloses a rotary burner control [a “user interface”, see paragraph 0157], the rotary burner control including a rotary control actuator [“rotating control knob”, see paragraph 0158] coupled to the rotary coded switch [electronically through controller 101] to rotate the rotary coded switch (in combination with Pearson) in response to user input.
With respect to claim 14 Jaaz discloses an ignition module [see reference character 107 and paragraph 0176] configured to ignite the gas burner while gas is supplied to the gas burner through the mechanical gas valve.
With respect to claim 17 Jaaz discloses the control circuit includes a programmable controller [reference character 101] configured to operate the stepper motor to controllably rotate the valve actuator between at least two rotational positions during a cooking operation while the rotary coded switch is maintained in a first discrete rotational position [see paragraph 0162].
With respect to claim 18 Jaaz discloses that the at least two rotational positions include a first rotational position suitable for igniting the gas burner, and a second rotational position corresponding to a desired output level of the gas burner during the cooking operation [see paragraph 0176, where the low flame position is interpreted as the desired output level].
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaz et. al (US 2009/0241935 A1) in view of Pearson (Pearson, M. (2021, April 1). Rotary, encoder and coded switch - difference? - live electronics. Live Electronics. https://www.liveelectronicsgroup.com/news-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-a-rotary-switch-encoder-and-coded-switch/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of French et. al (US 2016/0348916 A1).
With respect to claim 15 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson do not disclose that the ignition module is a reignition module and is configured to attempt to automatically reignite the gas burner in response to detecting a flame loss.
French discloses a gas safety shutoff system that includes an automatic re ignition process [see reference character 228] if the flame is not detected on an initial ignition attempt [see Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Jaaz and Pearson by including an automatic reignition sequence in the ignition module as taught by French in order to automatically reignite in the event of incidental flame failure.
With respect to claim 19 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson do not disclose that the programmable controller is further configured to control the stepper motor to automatically close the mechanical gas valve after a predetermined time.
French discloses a gas safety shutoff system that includes an automatic re ignition process [see reference character 228] if the flame is not detected on an initial ignition attempt [see Fig. 2] and an automatic shutoff process if the flame is not detected within a predetermined amount of time [see reference character 230 “NO (for 10 sec.)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Jaaz and Pearson by including an automatic valve shutoff process as taught by French in order to automatically clos the valve in the event of flame failure and unsuccessful reignition.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaz et. al (US 2009/0241935 A1) in view of Pearson (Pearson, M. (2021, April 1). Rotary, encoder and coded switch - difference? - live electronics. Live Electronics. https://www.liveelectronicsgroup.com/news-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-a-rotary-switch-encoder-and-coded-switch/) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yang et. al (US 2022/0146102 A1).
With respect to claim 20 Jaaz discloses that the programmable controller is further configured to control the stepper motor to automatically close the mechanical gas valve in response to user input [paragraph 0162].
Jaaz does not disclose that control circuit further includes a network interface configured to communicate with an external device.
Yang discloses a hob [reference character 21] where the hob can be controlled by an application of a mobile phone [see paragraph 0069] which implies the presence of a network interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Jaaz and Pearson by including a network interface so that the hob can be controlled by a cell phone app, as taught by Yang, in order to allow the user to change temperature or shut off the stove without having to be physically next to the stove.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaz et. al (US 2009/0241935 A1) in view of Pearson (Pearson, M. (2021, April 1). Rotary, encoder and coded switch - difference? - live electronics. Live Electronics. https://www.liveelectronicsgroup.com/news-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-a-rotary-switch-encoder-and-coded-switch/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babin et. al (US 6,375,086 B1).
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson do not disclose that the stepper motor includes a shaft that is coaxial with and mechanically couples with the valve actuator.
Babin discloses a valve assembly [reference character 12] that includes a valve actuator [reference character 40] and a stepper motor [reference character 16] that is coaxial and mechanically couples with the valve actuator [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the valve taught by the combination of Jaaz and Pearson by attaching the stepper directly to the valve actuator so that it is coaxial, as taught by Babin, in order to eliminate the need for gearboxes or indirect coupling, thereby reducing weight and cost.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaz et. al (US 2009/0241935 A1) in view of Pearson (Pearson, M. (2021, April 1). Rotary, encoder and coded switch - difference? - live electronics. Live Electronics. https://www.liveelectronicsgroup.com/news-blog/what-is-the-difference-between-a-rotary-switch-encoder-and-coded-switch/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johncock et. al (US 10,634,347 B2).
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Jaaz and Pearson do not disclose a main gas valve coupled in series with the mechanical gas valve and configured to regulate a flow of gas from a gas supply to the mechanical gas valve, wherein the control circuit is further coupled to the main gas valve and is configured to, during a cooking operation, maintain the main gas valve in an open position while controlling the stepper motor to control the output level of the gas burner.
Johncock discloses a range with automatically controlled gas burners that includes a main gas valve [reference character 36] coupled in series with the mechanical gas valve and configured to regulate a flow of gas from a gas supply to the mechanical gas valve, wherein the control circuit is further coupled to the main gas valve and is configured to, during a cooking operation, maintain the main gas valve in an open position while controlling the stepper motor to control the output level of the gas burner [see column 3 lines 52-62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Jaaz and Pearson by including an electronically controlled lockout valve, as taught by Johncock, in order to ensure closure of gas flow in the event of flame or stepper motor failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11-12 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights