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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The scope of Schoof’s teaching as a primary reference requires the use of multiple embodiments across the reference. Schoof arrays its teaching around the well-established heat transfer equation outlined in paragraph 0109 where the relationship of heat transfer rate is related to the heat transfer coefficient of the material of the container, the surface area across which the heat is transferred (accounting for interior and exterior surface areas) and the difference in heat between the bottom of the kettle and the liquid contained therein.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a one side inclined surface extending from inside to outside so that the distal end shape of the heat transfer protrusion is substantially a wedge shape.” The specification does not describe a wedge shape for the protrusion (Wedge appears Zero times in the specification) nor does the specification offer a compelling explanation of the unexpected result of this shape. Note that the Specification, paragraph 0023 states that “…the present invention is not limited to the shape and configuration described in the drawings and can be modified with the scope of optioning the effect exhibited as the creation of the technical idea of the present invention.” The Shape of the individual protrusions is not covered in Paragraphs 0031-0036.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoof et al. (US 20160007791 – hereafter referred to as Schoof) in view of further in view of Mandil (US D669730 – hereafter referred to as Mandil). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Schoof follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
852
1550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”), the cooking device (100) being capable of efficiently transferring heat obtained from a heat source (Paragraph 0062 describes the “…thermal energy heat source (e.g. fire, heating element…(including)…electric, ceramic, halogen, gas, hydrocarbons or induction heating elements.”) to an object to be cooked (Inside of Kettle -100 – Consisting of a Side wall – 104 and a bottom wall – 202 including a bottom edge – 208 that encapsulates the base - 202)
and comprising a substantially pot shaped container (Figure 1 of Schoof – not pictured – is a Kettle), (NOT EXPLICILTY TAUGHT) {
a plurality of heat transfer protrusions (Rounded Protrusions – 1602 and Annotated Diagram A – Figure 16A) vertically protruding outward from the bottom surface portion (Annotated Diagram A, Item A, Figures 15A-15E describe protrusion/indentation configurations, covered in Paragraphs 0136 through 0139) are circumferentially provided at predetermined intervals to be annular (See Schoof – Figure 12 where this configuration is shown) in bottom view on the bottom surface portion (A) of the container (100), each of the plurality of heat transfer protrusions (1602) being formed with a one-side inclined surface (See Figure 15B or 15D the protrusions are inclined on both sides) where extending from inside to outside (Since the protrusions are inclined on all sides, they would be inclined from the inside to the outside) so that a distal end shape (Figure 15D) of the heat transfer protrusion (1602) is substantially a wedge shape (See Annotated Diagram A, Figures 15A, 15B and 15D where the exterior protrusions are shaped in a variety of ways to improve heat transfer), and
a relationship between the heat transfer protrusion (1602) circumferentially provided outside (Annotated Diagram A, Item B) and the heat transfer protrusion (1602) circumferentially provided inside (Annotated Diagram A, Item C) gradually increases in a surface area from the inside to the outside (See Figures 16A and 16B where the surface area of the protrusions increase from the inside to the outside of the container.), and
a plurality of rows (Ridges – 602-1 through 602-n and Paragraph 0102) of the heat transfer protrusions (1602) linearly aligned from a center of the bottom surface portion (C in Annotated Diagram A and Figure 6 in Diagram A) (NOT EXPLICILTY TAUGHT) { in a radial direction are provided at equal angular intervals (Note Figure 6 in Diagram A – where the ridges appear to be at regular intervals.), with which a flow of heat from the heat source (Paragraph 0062) is linearly formed in the radial direction (The arrangement of Figure 6 shows the flow of hot gases flows along the bottom of the container. It should be noted that the flow if heat transfer would be perpendicular to the application of the heat source – it is interpreted that the flow in this limitation is the flow of the burned gas from the heat source.).
Schoof does not teach an air inflow/outflow adjustment portion.
Mandil – in a design patent for a cooking utensil – does teach the missing airflow structure. See Annotated Diagram B for Mandil that follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
678
1202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
Mandil teaches: wherein a side wall portion (Mandil, Side Wall Portion – M of Annotated Diagram B) of the container has an air inflow/outflow adjustment portion (Annotated Diagram B, Item N – a pattern of enclosed ports around the periphery of the previously taught bottom wall) circumferentially provided with an air inflow/outflow port (Singular port in the Assembly Level – N shown from Diagram B, Item O) protruding downward from a bottom surface portion (Previously taught by Schoof – Item 208)}, where (The heating element gases travel) toward the air inflow/outflow adjustment portion (Diagram B, Item N – where the heated air will travel from the interior – along the fins to the exterior through Item N) (MOTIVATION: Maximizing the heat transfer by increasing the surface area of heat transmission – From the Application of Schoof’s teachings of heat transfer per paragraph 0109.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the range of heat transfer fin structures of Schoof, providing the air inflow outflow ports and portion depending form the bottom of the vessel as taught by Mandil, motivated by the benefit of maximizing the heat transfer from a heat source by increasing the surface area of heat transmission (MOTIVATION: – From the Application of Schoof’s teachings of heat transfer per paragraph 0109.). Moreover, simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods (Increasing heat transfer by increasing surface area of heated surface) to yield predictable results (Improved efficiency of heat transfer) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the embodiments taught by Schoof (Including various protrusion configurations (Paragraph 0086), protrusion patterns (Paragraph 0103), and protrusion shapes (Figures 15A-15E)) because Applicant has not disclosed that a “…one side inclined surface extending from the inside to the outside…” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that is not already solved by Schoof’s approach that accounts for the mathematical relationship between the heat transfer – Q and the Area that the heat is transferred to – per paragraph 0109). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with Schoof’s range of embodiments because the clear teaching of the relationship between both outer and inner surface areas with respect to the rate of heat transfer (and its resulting efficiency.)Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of the protrusion geometry to modify Schoof to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 2, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”) the cooking device (100) being capable of efficiently transferring heat obtained from a heat source (Paragraph 0062 describes the “…thermal energy heat source (e.g. fire, heating element…(including)…electric, ceramic, halogen, gas, hydrocarbons or induction heating elements.”) to an object to be cooked (Inside of Kettle -100 – Consisting of a Side wall – 104 and a bottom wall – 202 including a bottom edge – 208 that encapsulates the base - 202) and
comprising a substantially pot shaped container (Figure 1 of Schoof – not pictured in Annotated Diagram, is a kettle), (NOT EXPLICILTY TAUGHT) {
a plurality of heat transfer protrusions (Rounded Protrusions – 1602 and Annotated Diagram A, Figure 16A) vertically protruding outward from the bottom surface portion (Annotated Diagram A, Item A, Figures 15A-15E describe protrusion/indentation configurations, covered in Paragraphs 0136-0139) are circumferentially provided at predetermined intervals to be annular (See Schoof – Figure 12 where this configuration is shown) in bottom view on the bottom surface portion (A) of the container (100), each of the plurality of heat transfer protrusions (1602) being formed with a one-side inclined surface (See Figure 15B or 15D where the protrusions are inclined on both sides of the protrusion.) extending from inside to outside (Both types of protrusions have slopes the slope from the inside to the outside.) so that a distal end shape of the heat transfer protrusion (1602) is substantially a wedge shape(See Annotated Diagram A, Figures 15A, 15B and 15D where the exterior protrusions are shaped in a variety of ways to improve heat transfer),
a relationship between the heat transfer protrusion (1602) circumferentially provided outside and the heat transfer protrusion (1602) circumferentially provided inside gradually increases in a surface area from the inside to the outside (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 16A where the area of the fins increases from the inside to the outside.), and a plurality of rows of the heat transfer protrusions (1602) arranged so as to draw an arc from a center of the bottom surface portion (C in Annotated Diagram A and Figure 6 in Diagram A) (NOT EXPLICITLY TUAGHT) {in a radial direction are provided at equal angular intervals (NOTES Figure 6 in Diagram A – where the ridges appear to be a regular intervals), with which a flow of heat from the heat source (Paragraph 0062) is formed to draw the arc in the radial direction (Schoof, Figure 19 – Not on Annotated Diagram A teaches an arc shaped spiral pattern.)
Schoof does not teach an air inflow/outflow adjustment portion.
Mandil teaches: wherein a side wall portion (Mandil, Side Wall Portion – M of Annotated Diagram B) of the container has an air inflow/outflow adjustment portion (Annotated Diagram B, Item N – a pattern of enclosed ports around the periphery of the previously taught bottom wall) circumferentially provided with an air inflow/outflow port (Singular port in the Assembly Level – N shown from Diagram B, Item O) protruding downward from a bottom surface portion (Previously taught by Schoof – Item 208)}, where (The heating element gases travel) toward the air inflow/outflow adjustment portion (Diagram B, Item N – where the heated air will travel from the interior – along the fins to the exterior through Item N) in an arc shaped spiral pattern (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 1.) (MOTIVATION: Maximizing the heat transfer by increasing the surface area of heat transmission – From the Application of Schoof’s teachings of heat transfer per paragraph 0109.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the range of heat transfer fin structures of Schoof, providing the air inflow outflow ports (O) and portion depending form the bottom of the vessel (N and M) where the fins are in in arc shaped pattern per Figure 1 as taught by Mandil, motivated by the benefit of maximizing the heat transfer from a heat source by increasing the surface area of heat transmission (MOTIVATION: – From the Application of Schoof’s teachings of heat transfer per paragraph 0109.). Moreover, simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods (Increasing heat transfer by increasing surface area of heated surface including the length of travel along an arc shaped fin) to yield predictable results (Improved efficiency of heat transfer) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the embodiments taught by Schoof (Including various protrusion configurations (Paragraph 0086), protrusion patterns (Paragraph 0103), and protrusion shapes (Figures 15A-15E)) because Applicant has not disclosed that a “…one side inclined surface extending from the inside to the outside…” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that is not already solved by Schoof’s approach that accounts for the mathematical relationship between the heat transfer – Q and the Area that the heat is transferred to – per paragraph 0109). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with Schoof’s range of embodiments because the clear teaching of the relationship between both outer and inner surface areas with respect to the rate of heat transfer (and its resulting efficiency.)Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of the protrusion geometry to modify Schoof to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 4, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”): further comprising a heat transfer step (Figures 15A-15E) including a plurality of steps (Annotated Diagram A, Item A, Figures 15A-15E describe protrusion/indentation configurations, covered in Paragraphs 0136-0139 describes the different configurations of surface treatments, and Paragraph 00158 teaches: “…different protrusions and/or indentations depicted in figures 15A-G may be on the outer base of the vessel, on the inner base of the vessel, on the inner wall of a vessel or an outer wall of a vessel.”) protruding toward an inside of the bottom surface portion (A) of the container (100).
In regards to Claim 5, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”): wherein the side wall portion (104) of the container (100) includes a heat transfer side surface vertical step (Figures 15A-15E) including a plurality of steps (Figure 15A shows rows of protrusions that would provide a series of steps in a vertical direction.) in a vertical direction (Paragraph 00158 teaches: “…different protrusions and/or indentations depicted in figures 15A-G may be on the outer base of the vessel, on the inner base of the vessel, on the inner wall of a vessel or an outer wall of a vessel.”).
In regards to Claim 6, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”): wherein the side wall portion (104) of the container (100) includes a heat transfer side surface horizontal step (Figure 15A shows rows of protrusions that would provide a series of steps in a vertical direction.) including a plurality of steps (Figure 15A shows rows of protrusions that would provide a series of steps in a vertical direction.) in a horizontal direction (Paragraph 00158 teaches: “…different protrusions and/or indentations depicted in figures 15A-G may be on the outer base of the vessel, on the inner base of the vessel, on the inner wall of a vessel or an outer wall of a vessel.”).
In regards to Claim 7, Schoof teaches a cooking device (Schoof, Kettle - 100) with enhanced thermal conductivity (Paragraph 0059 describes improving the “…transferring of thermal energy from the outside of the kettle – 100 to the inside…”): wherein a material is aluminum (A) (IN AN APPARENT CHOICE OF LIMITATIONS, THE EXAMINER CHOOSES ALUMINUM) (Paragraph 0066 describes the prior art has having bases made of aluminum – so it is common in the art.) or an alloy (G) obtained by adding any one or a combination of magnesium, manganese, copper, silicon, and zinc to aluminum (Paragraph 0144 describes the use of different metals – including aluminum – and “…other non-reactive metals or alloys.”).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schoof because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific alloy or combination of metals provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the range of materials taught by Schoof because Schoof’s teaching specifically match the material combinations used in creating a more efficient transfer of heat to the object being heated (see Paragraph 0144 for the range of considerations taught by Schoof.)Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Schoof to obtain the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Genovar (US 2014931) discloses Figures 1-6 and fin bottom and side structures as well as a spiral protrusion configuration in Figure 5 as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Li (US 20100282457) discloses Figures 1-9 and different fin and protuberance configurations in the pursuit of increased heat transfer efficiency in cookware as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Liu (CN 216454557) discloses Figures 1-12 with horizontal and vertical fins on sidewalls as a method of improving heat transfer to a cooking vessel as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 01 December 2025