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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (EP 3136004 A1), hereinafter Adam, in view of Yeung (US 20030051861 A1), hereinafter Yeung, and further in view of Kaiser (DE 102011015487 A1), hereinafter Kaiser.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Adam discloses a cooktop system, comprising:
a cooktop including a food carrier for heating food (“Under the cover plate 103 heating elements 101 of the hob 10 are arranged” All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference); and
a fume extraction device for downward extraction of cooking fumes (“The combination device according to the invention comprises a hob and a fume extraction device”), the fume extraction device comprising:
at least one inflow opening for entering of the cooking fumes into the fume extraction device (“air is hereby sucked from above the hob 10 through the recesses 104”);
a negative-pressure duct portion (Figure 3 shows arrows illustrating airflow within the duct);
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion (“Liquids, such as water and grease, which are deposited on the filter element 120 from the air may run down the filter element 120”) and connected to the food carrier by way of a filter receptacle (“The filter unit 12 further has a filter holder 121, via which the filter element 120 is held on the recess 104”); and
a fan for suctioning the cooking fumes through the at least one inflow opening (“In the fan 110, a fan 112 is driven by the motor 111. As a result, air is sucked into the blower housing 113”), wherein an overall installation height of the cooktop system is at most 250 mm, and wherein the cooktop system is configured as an assembly unit (“the required height is reduced by the integration of the two components in a combination device, since the components of the components aligned with each other can be provided in the combination device. The overall height of the combination device according to the invention may be, for example, 15 to 30 cm and preferably 20 cm. Thus, the combination device can be easily integrated into a kitchen”);
a flat region (The bottom as seen in figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
428
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
288
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Adam does not disclose:
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separable from the grease filter, wherein the grease filter and the activated carbon filter are formed as a combination filter; and
wherein a front installation height of the cooktop system in a horizontal region between a front edge and a geometric center of area of the cooktop system is at most 100 mm;
the flat region in which an installation height of the cooktop system is at most 75mm, wherein the flat region, proceeding from the front edge, extends across at least 25%of an overall installation depth of the cooktop system.
However, Yeung teaches an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separable from the grease filter, wherein the grease filter and the activated carbon filter are formed as a combination filter (“The preferred air filter (40) used in this embodiment and as shown in FIG. 5 includes a multi-layer filter element which comprises a first layer of mesh or grid filter (41), a second layer (42) of an activated carbon filter and a third layer (43) of HEPA filter. The first filter layer (41) is for filtering larger particulate pollutants. The second layer (42) of activated carbon provides means to absorb odors and can also include other chemical absorptive agents or biostats such as potassium permanganate. To provide for easy cleaning, maintenance and replacement of the individual constituting filter elements, it is preferred that the filter (40) is made or assembled in a modular form so that each individual constituting filter elements as well as the complete filter assembly can be removed or replaced as and when necessary. The use of a modular design enables filters having differing operating life to be cleaned and/or replaced at different time intervals to attain optimal air filtering” paragraph [0047]).
PNG
media_image4.png
276
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
460
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Yeung’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 an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separable from the grease filter, wherein the grease filter and the activated carbon filter are formed as a combination filter as is taught in Yeung, in the cooktop system disclosed by Adam because including a filter with numerous functions will expand the usefulness of the filter by filtering more pollutants (i.e. grease, particulates, and odor). Additionally, making the filter elements individually separable facilitates maintenance and replacement.
Adam, as modified by Yeung, does not disclose:
wherein a front installation height of the cooktop system in a horizontal region between a front edge and a geometric center of area of the cooktop system is at most 100 mm;
the flat region in which an installation height of the cooktop system is at most 75mm, wherein the flat region, proceeding from the front edge, extends across at least 25%of an overall installation depth of the cooktop system 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, Adam discloses “the required height is reduced by the integration of the two components in a combination device, since the components of the components aligned with each other can be provided in the combination device. The overall height of the combination device according to the invention may be, for example, 15 to 30 cm and preferably 20 cm. Thus, the combination device can be easily integrated into a kitchen.” Likewise, Kaiser teaches wherein a front installation height of the cooktop system in a horizontal region between a front edge and a geometric center of area of the cooktop system is reduced as compared to the total height and a flat region which has a further reduced height and states “As a result, below the front area of the extractor device 1 still usable storage spaces in the extractor device 1 Kitchen cabinets are provided” (All citations are from the machine translation appended to foreign reference). Achieving the claimed dimensions is a results-effective variable because decreased height will lead to a thinner and more compact cooking apparatus for easy integration into a kitchen and the expansion of usable storage space. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the installation height, because the selection of installation height to achieve thinness and compactness constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
PNG
media_image6.png
502
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1.
Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one inflow opening has a cross-sectional area of at most 100 square 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, Adam teaches an inflow opening, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed area. If the area were too large, the opening would occupy an undesirable portion of the cooking area. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inflow opening cross-sectional area, because the selection of inflow opening cross-sectional area to maximize cooking area constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, further comprising two additional fans (“it is possible to provide one or more auxiliary fans”).
Regarding claim 20, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1 wherein the activated carbon filter is removable through the at least one inflow opening (“filter unit is releasably secured in the recess of the cover plate”).
Regarding claim 21, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, wherein the grease filter is disposed adjacent to the at least one inflow opening (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, wherein the fan has a rotation axis oriented so as to be radial in relation to a vertical axis (The rotational axis of the fan of Adam is radial to the vertical axis).
Regarding claim 23, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one inflow opening, when viewed in plan view, is disposed in a central region of the cooktop (The embodiment of figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, wherein the grease filter is connected to the food carrier by way of a filter receptacle in a formfitting manner (“The filter unit 12 further has a filter holder 121, via which the filter element 120 is held on the recess 104”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, in view of Yeung, in view of Kaiser, and further in view of Gould (US 3719137 A), hereinafter Gould.
Regarding claim 2, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one fan has a fan propeller (112).
Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, does not disclose the fan propeller having a diameter of at most 150 mm.
However, Gould teaches the fan propeller having a diameter of at most 150 mm (“two relatively inexpensive constant speed propeller fans may be used with the composite housing 70 to achieve an exhaust to outside air range venting system within a limited space providing both high and low exhaust speeds. In the preferred embodiment the fan propellers 47 and 48 have a diameter of 5.0 in” column 4, line 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
429
760
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Gould’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 fan propeller having a diameter of at most 150 mm as is taught in Gould, in the cooktop disclosed by Arai because Gould states that that the fans fit within a limited space. Therefore, including the size propeller taught by Gould will provide a compact design. Gould additionally states that these smaller fans are relatively inexpensive.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, in view of Yeung, in view of Kaiser, and further in view of Flesch (WO 2019081271 A1), hereinafter Flesch.
Regarding claim 5, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1, further comprising another fan to provide a plurality of fans (“In FIG. 2 a further embodiment of a combination device 1 according to the invention is shown. This second embodiment differs from the first embodiment in that instead of a central fan 110, two blowers 110 are provided”).
Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, does not disclose the plurality of fans have rotation axes that are oriented so as to be mutually oblique.
However, Flesch teaches the plurality of fans have rotation axes that are oriented so as to be mutually oblique (Elements 110).
PNG
media_image8.png
466
560
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
408
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Flesch’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 plurality of fans have rotation axes that are oriented so as to be mutually oblique as is taught in Flesch, in the cooktop system disclosed by Adam because Flesch states “the combination device according to the invention has a compact design, since the individual components of the extractor device, in particular the grease filter, the odor filter and the fan can be arranged in close proximity to each other.” Therefore, relying on the close arrangement of fan and filter taught by Flesch will create an even more compact arrangement.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam, in view of Yeung, in view of Kaiser, and further in view of Bruckbauer (DE 202009008286 U1), hereinafter Bruckbauer286.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, discloses the cooktop system according to claim 1.
Adam, as modified by Yeung and Kaiser, does not disclose:
at least one baffle element which for masking one side of an upper space lying upstream of the at least one inflow opening, wherein the at least on baffle element is adjacent to the at least one inflow opening and able to be repositioned along a vertical direction; and
wherein an upper side of the at least one baffle element in a restoring position is able to be disposed below or flush with the at least one inflow opening adjacent to said at least one baffle element.
However, Bruckbauer286 teaches:
at least one baffle element which for masking one side of an upper space lying upstream of the at least one inflow opening, wherein the at least on baffle element is adjacent to the at least one inflow opening and able to be repositioned along a vertical direction (Figures 14 and 25); and
wherein an upper side of the at least one baffle element in a restoring position is able to be disposed below or flush with the at least one inflow opening adjacent to said at least one baffle element (Figure 14).
PNG
media_image10.png
408
619
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
458
541
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of Bruckbauer286’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 baffles as is taught in Bruckbauer286, in the cooktop disclosed by Adam because Bruckbauer286 states “the recess (7) of the cover frame (6) can be designed in the form of an oblique fold for the exact positioning of the lid-shaped closing device (5) and for the tight fitting of the lid-shaped closing device (5). The advantage of such a slanted fold can be seen in particular in its excellent cleanability” (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]). Therefore, including the baffles of Bruckbauer286 will improve cleanability in Arai.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 4899028 A), hereinafter Arai, in view of Bruckbauer (US 20140048057 A1), hereinafter Bruckbauer057 in view of Yeung, and further in view of Adam.
Regarding claim 19, Arai discloses a cooktop system, comprising:
a cooktop for heating food (“electromagnetic induction heat cooking apparatus” column 2, line 23); and
a fume extraction device for downward extraction of cooking fumes, (“A down exhaust device 40” column 3, line 33) comprising:
at least one inflow opening for entering of the cooking fumes into the fume extraction device, the at least one inflow opening being arranged in a plane of the cooktop (“an upper exhaust intake 40a” column 3, line 33);
a negative-pressure duct portion (Upstream of 24); and
a fan for suctioning the cooking fumes through the at least one inflow opening (“A fan member 40c” column 3, line 35), wherein the cooktop system is configured as an assembly unit (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image12.png
478
642
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Arai does not disclose:
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion;
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separate and distinct from the grease filter;
wherein a front installation height of the cooktop system in a horizontal region between a front edge and a geometric center of area of the cooktop system is at most 100 mm and an overall installation height of the cooktop system is at most 250 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, Arai discloses “a thin and compact structure of the electromagnetic cooking apparatus itself” (column 1, line 54), but does not specifically recite 100 mm. Achieving 100 mm is a results-effective variable because decreased height will lead to a thinner and more compact cooking apparatus. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the front installation height, because the selection of front installation height to achieve thinness and compactness constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Arai does not disclose:
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion and including a collection tray for receiving overflowing liquids, wherein the grease filter is disposed adjacent to the at least one inflow opening;
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separate and distinct from the grease filter;
an overall installation height of the cooktop system is at most 250 mm.
However, Bruckbauer057 teaches an overall installation height of the cooktop system is at most 250 mm (“One special advantage to this hob (1) designed according to the invention is that the distance (40) between the bottom side (35) of the hob (1) on the one hand and the bottom side of the floor (42) of the cooking vapour aspiration chambers (39) on the other only measures between 110 mm and 260 mm, preferably between 140 mm and 230 mm, in particular between 150 mm and 200 mm” paragraph [0052]).
In view of Bruckbauer057’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 an overall installation height of the cooktop system is at most 250 mm as is taught in Bruckbauer057, in the cooktop system disclosed by Arai because Bruckbauer057 states “With respect to the hob (1) according to the invention designed as an assembly unit with a device (36), let it be noted in summation that its design height is particularly low, so that extensive space is available for unimpeded use in the kitchen structure” (paragraph [0074]). Therefore, reducing overall height will provide more available space for unimpeded use.
Arai, as modified by Bruckbauer057, does not disclose:
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion and including a collection tray for receiving overflowing liquids;
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separate and distinct from the grease filter.
However, Yeung teaches:
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion;
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separate and distinct from the grease filter (“The preferred air filter (40) used in this embodiment and as shown in FIG. 5 includes a multi-layer filter element which comprises a first layer of mesh or grid filter (41), a second layer (42) of an activated carbon filter and a third layer (43) of HEPA filter. The first filter layer (41) is for filtering larger particulate pollutants. The second layer (42) of activated carbon provides means to absorb odors and can also include other chemical absorptive agents or biostats such as potassium permanganate. To provide for easy cleaning, maintenance and replacement of the individual constituting filter elements, it is preferred that the filter (40) is made or assembled in a modular form so that each individual constituting filter elements as well as the complete filter assembly can be removed or replaced as and when necessary. The use of a modular design enables filters having differing operating life to be cleaned and/or replaced at different time intervals to attain optimal air filtering” paragraph [0047]).
In view of Yeung’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:
a grease filter disposed in the negative-pressure duct portion;
an activated carbon filter disposed within the negative-pressure duct portion, the activated carbon filter being separate and distinct from the grease filter as is taught in Yeung, in the cooktop system disclosed by Arai because including a filter with numerous functions will expand the usefulness of the filter by filtering more pollutants (i.e. grease, particulates, and odor). Additionally, making the filter elements individually separable facilitates maintenance and replacement.
Arai, as modified by Bruckbauer057 and Yeung, does not disclose the grease filter including a collection tray for receiving overflowing liquids.
However, Adam teaches the grease filter including a collection tray for receiving overflowing liquids (“bottom 123 has a trough or pot shape. As a result, a collection area 122 for liquids is created in the bottom 123”).
In view of Adam’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 grease filter including a collection tray for receiving overflowing liquids as is taught in Adam, in the cooktop system as presently modified because Adam states “a bottom 123 of the filter unit 12, which forms a collection area 122, the liquid can be collected there and does not enter the blower 110.” Therefore, including the collection tray will prevent liquid from entering the blower of Arai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meyer (US 3109358 A) “Another object is to provide a novel arrangement of ventilating fans or blowers which tends to reduce vibration and having a minimum overall height, thereby enabling the provision of a ventilating unit of low profile or silhouette” (column 1, line 18)
PNG
media_image13.png
207
421
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Roth (DE 102015111337 A1) “The duct system according to the invention can be designed such that it is only a few centimeters or decimeters high”
PNG
media_image14.png
434
536
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
448
426
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights