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
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 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 1-4, 8-9, 12-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9726371 B2 (hereinafter “LIN”).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
1216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, LIN discloses a component of a gas burner or an item to be placed over and/or in proximity of a gas burner, wherein said component and/or item comprises a core of glass (22) and at least one coating comprising an electric conductive material (24/26; see also Col. 3, Lns. 24-34: “The disc metal element 24 is illustrated in FIG. 1A as separated somewhat from the glass burner cap 22 for purposes of clarity, with the understanding that the disc metal element 24 may be placed in total intimate registry with the glass burner cap 22, as hereinafter described. Likewise, the ring metal element 26 is illustrated in FIG. 1B as separated somewhat from the circular peripheral edge 27 for purposes of clarity, with the understanding that the ring metal element 26 may be closely wrapped in total intimate registry around the circular peripheral edge 27, as hereinafter described.”).
LIN does not explicitly disclose a core of fused silica glass; wherein said fused silica glass is quartz. However, LIN discloses at Col. 2, Lns. 47-54: “The encapsulated burner cap assembly 12 may include a burner cap 22 having a burner cap body 23 fabricated of a glass-ceramic, a borosilicate glass, a metal, other non-metallic materials, and the like, exhibiting resistance to thermal shock and high contact temperature suitable for the purposes described herein. For exemplification, the burner cap 22 will be considered a circular glass-ceramic or borosilicate glass.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein said core of glass comprises a core of fused silica glass; wherein said fused silica glass is quartz, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, these claims are product-by-process claims, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP § 2113. 1.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, these claims are product-by-process claims, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP § 2113. 1.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, LIN does not specifically disclose wherein the coating has a thermal coefficient of expansion lower than 21*10^-6/K; wherein the coating has a thermal coefficient of expansion lower than 9*10^-6/K.
Nonetheless, LIN discloses at Col. 2, Lns. 57-63: “The glass burner cap 22 may have a coefficient of thermal expansion that, for all practicable purposes, is equal to, or approaches, zero. Alternatively, the glass burner cap 22 may be selected to have a coefficient of thermal expansion sufficiently lower than the disc/ring metal element 24/26, respectively, to minimize thermal expansion incompatibilities between the glass and the metal.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify LIN wherein the coating has a thermal coefficient of expansion lower than 21*10^-6/K; wherein the coating has a thermal coefficient of expansion lower than 9*10^-6/K, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 12, LIN further discloses comprising a first coating (the top portion of coating 24) configured to increase the breaking strength and/or to have a controlled breakage and a second coating (the side portion of coating 24) configured to provide a suitable electrical conductivity so as to generate/propagate a spark (i.e., an electrically conductive metal) to ignite a gas flame.
Regarding Claim 13, LIN further discloses comprising a colored additive (see at least Col. 5, Lns. 45-47: “The glass burner cap 92 may be non-opaque, opaque, colored, texturized, and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 15, LIN further discloses wherein said component is shaped as a cover (22) of a gas burner (10) wherein said cover is a component on top of said gas burner.
Regarding Claim 19, LIN further discloses a gas burner (10), configured to be mounted on a hob (see 170, Fig. 13), comprising at least one component according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, LIN further discloses wherein the gas burner (10) is configured to be mounted on a built-in hob (see 170, Fig. 13; in the alternative, built-in hobs are old and well known in the art thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein the gas burner 10 is configured to be mounted on a built-in hob, since said burner is usable in a traditional built-in hob).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9726371 B2 (hereinafter “LIN”) in view of ES 2442969 A1 (hereinafter “ACOSTA”).
Regarding Claim 14, LIN does not disclose further comprising a thermochromic material configured to change optical properties of the component or item according to its temperature.
ACOSTA teaches a cover plate for a gas cooking point further comprising a thermochromic material configured to change optical properties of the component or item according to its temperature (see the provided English translation: “In addition, the glass ceramic composition disclosed herein allows an indication relative to the integrated heat, the glass ceramic being able to modify the color in case of thermal influence.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN to further comprise a thermochromic material configured to change optical properties of the component or item according to its temperature as taught and/or suggested by ACOSTA, since such a modification would provide a user with a visual indication of the temperature of said component or item thus alerting a user that said component or item is being heated and thereby providing an added measure of safety for said user against being accidentally burned.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9726371 B2 (hereinafter “LIN”) in view of BR 102015010563 A2 (hereinafter “ETNEY”).
Regarding Claim 16, LIN does not disclose wherein said component is shaped as a base and/or as an injector holder of a gas burner, wherein: - the base is the component of the gas burner that is positioned on the injector(s) holder, and - said base is closed on its top by a cover that is positioned above said base.
ETNEY teaches components of a cooking burner assembly which is integrally made of glass ceramic material wherein said component is shaped as a base (2) and/or as an injector holder of a gas burner, wherein: - the base (2) is the component of the gas burner that is positioned on the injector(s) holder (see para. [035] of the provided English translation: “The burner described in the present invention can be used in new equipment or be produced with geometrical conformations that allow them to replace metal covers already in use.”), and - said base (2) is closed on its top by a cover (1) that is positioned above said base (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein said component is shaped as a base and/or as an injector holder of a gas burner, wherein: - the base is the component of the gas burner that is positioned on the injector(s) holder, and - said base is closed on its top by a cover that is positioned above said base as taught and/or suggested by ETNEY, since ETNEY states “[037] In addition to the benefits of the proposed specificities and design features, a glass ceramic burner set also has the following advantages over conventional ones made of metallic materials; [038] - is corrosion resistant; [039] - is resistant to higher temperatures than aluminum and its alloys; [040] - not affected by constant temperature variations, ie no discolouration as it does not require the application of coatings on other materials; [041] - presents a lower coefficient of thermal expansion, which avoids problems of differentiated expansion due to thermal variations and the consequent emergence of cracks; and [042] - may receive various paintings, inscriptions or ornaments for aesthetic finishing purposes. It is noted, therefore, that the object of the present invention solves the drawbacks of the current state of the art as regards providing greater versatility and durability for cooking equipment burner assemblies.”
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9726371 B2 (hereinafter “LIN”) in view of US 4810188 A (hereinafter “KWIATEK”).
Regarding Claims 5-7, LIN does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating has a sheet resistance lower than 10^8 Ohm with a thickness of 1 µm; wherein the coating has a sheet resistance lower than 10^6 Ohm with a thickness of 1 µm; wherein the coating has a specific resistivity lower than 100 Ohm·m.
KWIATEK teaches a component of a gas burner or an item to be placed over and/or in proximity of a gas burner, said component comprising a burner cap (22) which is electrically conductive (see at least the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein said metal coating is optimized for electrical conductivity as taught and/or suggested by KWIATEK, since such a modification would assist the generation of a spark for igniting said gas burner. It would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein the coating has a sheet resistance lower than 10^8 Ohm with a thickness of 1 µm; wherein the coating has a sheet resistance lower than 10^6 Ohm with a thickness of 1 µm; wherein the coating has a specific resistivity lower than 100 Ohm·m, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the present case, it would have been obvious to select a metallic coating exhibiting the desired sheet resistance, specific resistivity and thickness.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9726371 B2 (hereinafter “LIN”) in view of US 4603007 A (hereinafter “SHIBATA”).
Regarding Claims 10-11, LIN does not disclose wherein the electric conductive material of said at least one coating comprises: a glass coating, and/or transparent conductive oxides (TCO); wherein said glass coating is of borosilicate type.
SHIBATA teaches a paste for forming a thick electrically conductive film/material wherein the electric conductive material of said at least one coating comprises: a glass coating, and/or transparent conductive oxides (TCO); wherein said glass coating is of borosilicate type (see Col. 1, Lns. 61-68: “According to this invention, there is provided an electrically conductive paste comprising 40 to 55% by weight of lead borosilicate glass powder containing 1 to 5% by weight of titanium oxide, a total of 15 to 35% by weight of ruthenium oxide powder and at least one of silver and palladium powders, 1 to 5% by weight of bismuth oxide powder and 1 to 5% by weight of alumina powder.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LIN wherein the electric conductive material of said at least one coating comprises: a glass coating, and/or transparent conductive oxides (TCO); wherein said glass coating is of borosilicate type as taught and/or suggested by SHIBATA, since both references teach an electrically conductive coating for cooking appliances, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one electrically conductive coating for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing a desired electrical conductive coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights