In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 02/25/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14-21, 23-26, 28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiset et al. (US 20170241635 A1), in view of Fujinami et al. (US 8378274 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Guiset discloses
A hob apparatus (article 1, figs.1-3), comprising:
a hob plate (glass ceramic plate 2, bumps 5, figs.1-3) comprising a cooking region (heating zones 19, fig.3);
a light source unit (light source 10, figs.1-2) comprising a light source (LEDs 11, figs.1-2) for providing light; and
an unit (light guide 6, figs.1-2) comprising a guide (light guide 6) for transmitting the light into at least one region that surrounds the cooking region (heating zones 19), said guide fiber (light guide 6) including an end region (top surface of light guide 6) which contacts the hob plate (glass ceramic plate 2, bump 5).
However, Guiset does not disclose a fiber optic unit comprising an optical fiber.
Fujinami disclose a hob apparatus (induction heating device, fig.3) comprising a fiber optic unit (light guide section 10, fig.3) comprising an optical fiber (light guide section 10) [Col.7, lines 23-24 cited: “…Light guide section 10 can be made of metal, resin, or optical fiber …”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify material of a guide of Guiset, by using an optical fiber, as taught by Fujinami, in order to provide a thermal conductivity low enough to prevent heat transfer from hop plate to the other electrical component.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Guiset discloses
the hob (article 1, figs.1-3) constructed in the form of an induction hob apparatus [Par.0005 cited: “…To be able to be used as a range, a glass-ceramic plate must generally have a transmission in the wavelengths in the visible range that is both low enough to mask at least some of the underlying heating elements when not in use and high enough so that, depending on the circumstances (radiant heating, induction heating, etc.) the user can, for the sake of safety, visually detect the heating elements that are in operation and/or can, if required, read displays…”].
Regarding claim 16, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) is designed as at least essentially dimensionally stable and elastic [Par.0019 cited: “…guide may be organic and/or plastic (for example made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate PMMA), or mineral and is preferably mineral…”].
Regarding claim 17, Guiset discloses
a fastening unit [Par.0028 cited: “…light guide is generally connected to the substrate by adhesive bonding and/or clip-fastening, but may also be joined by encapsulation, etc…”] designed to fasten the fiber optic unit (light guide 6, figs.1-2) below the hob plate (glass ceramic plate 2, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) is arranged in a self-supporting manner starting from a fastening region on the fastening unit [Par.0028 cited: “…light guide is generally connected to the substrate by adhesive bonding and/or clip-fastening, but may also be joined by encapsulation, etc…”].
Regarding claim 19, Guiset discloses
the end region of the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) has a purely convex shape [edges 15, fig.2, has a convex shape].
Regarding claim 20, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) comprises a collimator (strip 12, figs.1-2) to collimate the light provided by the light source (light source 10, figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 21, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) includes a surface (planar light guides 6a, 6b, fig.2) which is opaque outside the end region.
Regarding claim 23, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) includes a transparent [Par.0020 cited: “…guide is advantageously clear or transparent …”] and flexible thermoplastic material [Par.0019 cited: “…guide may be organic and/or plastic (for example made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate PMMA), or mineral and is preferably mineral…”].
Regarding claim 24, Guiset discloses
the transparent [Par.0020 cited: “…guide is advantageously clear or transparent …”] and flexible thermoplastic material is a plastic from the material group of methyl methacrylate polymers [Par.0019 cited: “…guide may be organic and/or plastic (for example made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate PMMA), or mineral and is preferably mineral…”].
Regarding claim 25, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) is made of a transparent [Par.0020 cited: “…guide is advantageously clear or transparent …”] and flexible thermoplastic material [Par.0019 cited: “…guide may be organic and/or plastic (for example made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate PMMA), or mineral and is preferably mineral…”].
Regarding claim 26, Guiset discloses
the transparent and flexible thermoplastic material is a plastic from the material group of methyl methacrylate polymers [Par.0019 cited: “…guide may be organic and/or plastic (for example made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate PMMA), or mineral and is preferably mineral…”].
Regarding claim 28, Guiset discloses
the light source (LEDs 11, figs.1-2) is designed as an RGB LED.
Regarding claim 31, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) comprises an elastic bending region (space/gap between light source 10 and edge face 9, fig.1) between the light source (light source 10, figs.1-2) and the end region (edge 9, fig.1) of the optical fiber (light guide 6).
Regarding claim 32, Guiset discloses
the guide (light guide 6, figs.1-2) exerts a pressing force in the direction of the hob plate (glass ceramic plate 2, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 33, Guiset discloses
the pressing force is a result of elastic bending of the optical fiber (light guide 6, figs.1-2) in the bending region (space/gap between light source 10 and edge face 9, fig.1).
Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiset et al. (US 20170241635 A1), in view of Fujinami et al. (US 8378274 B2), and further in view of Stration et al. (US 20150268433 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the modification of Guiset and Fujinami discloses substantially all the features as set forth in the claim above, such as an optical fiber, but does not explicitly disclose a core and an outer layer, said outer layer having a refractive index which is lower than a refractive index of the core of the optical fiber.
Stration discloses an optical fiber (cable 10, fig.1) comprises a core (metallic center wire 6, fig.1) and an outer layer (outer tube 7, fig.1),
However, Stration does not discloses said outer layer having a refractive index which is lower than a refractive index of the core of the optical fiber.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify an optical fiber of Guiset, by including a core and an outer layer, as taught by Stration, in order to provide higher fatigue resistance for longer service life (Par.0016, Stration).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify an optical fiber of Guiset, with an outer layer having a refractive index which is lower than a refractive index of the core of the optical fiber, in order to improve a heat conductivity.
PNG
media_image2.png
493
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Guiset discloses substantially all the features as set forth in the claim above, such as an optical fiber, but does not explicitly disclose a temperature resistance of at least 230° C.
Stration discloses an optical fiber (cable 10, fig.1) has a temperature resistance of at least 230° C [Par.0010 cited: “…temperature capability--zero fiber strain up to at least 600 degrees C…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify an optical fiber of Guiset, has a temperature resistance of at least 230° C, as taught by Stration, in order to improve a higher heat conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, in Appeal Brief, filed on 02/25/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/18/2026