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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
The status of the 02/02/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1 and 5 have been amended; Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn; Claim 7 has been canceled; and claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 8:
The limitation "The electric range according to claim 7" in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because claim 7 has been canceled.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read “The electric range according to claim 1".
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 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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egea (EP 3628931A1, published on 04/01/2020) in view of Dehnert (US 20140374411)
Regarding Claim 1, Egea discloses an electric range (induction hob 10a; figs. 1-3), comprising:
a case (housing unit 34a; figs. 2-3) that defines an external appearance of the electric range (hob 10a) (para. 0045);
at least one heater (heating unit) that heats an item (para. 0034-0035); and
a support (support unit 22a and support section 28a; fig. 4) disposed under the heater (heating unit) (para. 0056, 0060, and 0035), wherein the support (support unit 22a and support section 28a) comprises a first region (support unit 22a) on which an air blower fan (blower unit 12a) is mounted (para. 0056), and a second region (support section 28a) on which a printed circuit board (electronic unit 30a) is mounted (para. 0060), wherein an upper surface of the first region is located higher than an upper surface of the second region (annotated fig. 4), wherein a lower surface of the first region is separated upward from the case (housing unit 34a) and the second region by a rib (annotated fig. 4) that extends along a periphery of the first region, and wherein an intake space (air duct unit 18a, para. 0055) having a predetermined width (annotated fig. 4) in an upward-downward direction is formed between a bottom surface of the case and the lower surface of the first region.
PNG
media_image1.png
990
1435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Egea does not disclose an upper bracket that is disposed under the at least one heater to support the at least one heater.
However, Dehnert discloses an electric range (induction cooking hob 10) comprising:
an upper bracket (supporting structure 24; figs. 1-2) that is disposed under the at least one heater (coil 20) to support the at least one heater (para. 0028) (it is the supporting structure 24 is the “upper” bracket with respect to the position of the printed circuit board 28),
wherein the printed circuit board 28 disposed under the upper bracket (supporting structure 24) (para. 0027).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least heater of Egea to include the upper bracket (i.e. supporting structure 24 of Dehnert) that is disposed under the at least one heater as taught by Dehnert, in order to provide supporting means to the at least on heater to ensure that the heater is securely mounted at desired position within the casing.
The modification would result in the structure in which the support (support unit 22a and support section 28a; fig. 4 of Egea) disposed under the upper bracket (supporting structure 24 of Dehnert).
Regarding Claim 2, Egea discloses the electric range (induction hob 10a; fig. 1), further comprising:
an upper plate (support plate 44a; fig. 1) disposed over the case (housing unit 34a) and having an upper surface on which an item (cooking utensil) to be heated is disposed (para. 0033 and 0045), and wherein the at least one heater (heating unit) is disposed under the upper plate (para. 0035).
Regarding Claim 3, Egea discloses the electric range (induction hob 10a; fig. 1), wherein:
the air blower fan (blower unit 12a) comprises an inlet (intake opening 14a; fig. 7) disposed at a lower portion thereof and through which air is drawn into the air blower fan (para. 0049);
the support further comprises an intake hole (annotated fig. 6) formed in the first region at a location corresponding to the inlet of the air blower fan (intake opening 14a of blower unit 12a) (it is noted the intake hole of the support is fluidly connected to the intake opening 14a to direct outside air to the blower unit 12a);
the case (housing unit 34a) comprises an intake portion (inlet opening 20a) that is formed at a location corresponding to the intake hole (annotated fig. 6) and provides a passage through which air is drawn into the air blower fan (it is noted the inlet opening 20a is fluidly connected to the intake hole of the support 22a to direct outside air to the blower unit 12a); and
the intake portion and the intake hole are separated vertically from each other (annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
1056
1249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Egea discloses the electric range (induction hob 10a; fig. 1), wherein the rib extends downward from the first region (support unit 22a) and surrounds the intake hole (annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
1056
1050
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Egea discloses the electric range (induction hob 10a; fig. 1), wherein the air blower fan (blower unit 12a) comprises an outlet (exhaust opening 70a; fig. 6) through which air is discharged from the air blower fan, the outlet having a lower surface located higher than a lower surface of the printed circuit board (electronic unit 30a) (para. 0050; fig. 6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Egea (EP 3628931A1, published on 04/01/2020) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Rehak (US 20220030742)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification does not disclose the intake portion has an area larger than an area of the inlet of the air blower fan.
However, Rehak discloses the intake portion (air inlet 602 of top portion 616; figs. 1 and 2A) has an area larger than an area of the inlet of the air blower fan (para. 0244).
PNG
media_image5.png
632
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intake portion of Egea to have the area larger than the area of the inlet of the fan as taught by Rehak, in order to effectively introduce cool air into the fan through the intake portion to cool the electronics (para. 0244 of Rehak).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Egea (EP 3628931A1, published on 04/01/2020) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Rehak (US 20220030742) and Yen (US 20210090826)
Regarding Claim 6, the modification does not disclose the intake portion has a porous structure including a plurality of holes and comprises a vertically bent portion therein.
However, Rehak discloses the intake portion (air inlet 602; figs. 1 and 6) has a porous structure including a plurality of holes (openings as shown in fig. 6 to let air through) (para. 0243).
PNG
media_image6.png
512
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intake portion of Egea to comprise porous structure including a plurality of holes as taught by Rehak, in order to effectively to allow outside air to be pulled through the plurality of holes to cool the electronics while preventing foreign object from being sucked in through the intake portion.
The modification does not disclose the intake portion comprises a vertically bent portion therein.
However, Yen discloses a baseplate 2 comprises a vertically bent portion (recess groove 22 in the form of a blind hole by stamping) therein (para. 0050) (it is noted the recess groove 22 is formed by stamping that results in the curved surface to some degrees within the groove 22).
PNG
media_image7.png
252
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the intake portion of Egea in view of Dehnert and Rehak (i.e. air inlet 602 of Rehak) to include the vertically bent portion therein by stamping the intake portion to form the recess groove in the form of the blind hole that would result the curved surface to some degrees in the recess groove, as taught by Yen. Doing so would increase the rigidity of the intake portion of Rehak (para. 0050 of Yen).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Egea (EP 3628931A1, published on 04/01/2020) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Takahasi (US 20110063799)
Regarding Claim 9, Egea discloses the air blower fan (blower unit 12a) comprises a securing portion (annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image8.png
1076
1096
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose:
the securing portion through which a bolt passes;
the support comprises a fan securing hole through which the bolt passes; and
the bolt is fastened to the case through the securing portion and the fan securing hole.
However, Takahasi discloses an air blower fan (fan 101) comprises a securing portion (mounting holes 150a to 150d; figs. 25A-25B) through which a bolt (bosses) passes (para. 0011; figs. 26A to 26C);
the bolt (bosses) is fastened to the case (chassis 126) through the securing portion (mounting holes 150a to 150d) (para. 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the c8laimed invention to modify the electric range of Egea to include the bosses such that the bosses are inserted into the holes of the fan and the support unit 22a as taught by Takahasi, in order to secure the fan to the case by using the bolts/bosses as the fastening means.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully considered moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights