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 .
The status of the 08/28/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-2 have been amended; Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn; and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khokle (US 20160295644) in view of Dehnert (US 20140374411)
Regarding Claim 1, Khokle discloses an electric range (cooking hob 10), comprising:
a case (metal tray or box 12; fig. 1) that defines an external appearance of the electric range (para. 0018. It is noted the outer surface of metal tray 12 defines the externa appearance of the cooking hob 10);
at least one heater (induction coils) that heats an item (para. 0029);
a support (intermediate frame 46; fig. 11) disposed under the at least one heater (induction coils) wherein the support comprises a first region on which an air blower fan (fan 26) is mounted (surface of the frame 46 on which fan 26 is mounted), and a second region on which a printed circuit board (electronic components 22) is mounted (surface of the frame 46 on which the electronic components 22 are mounted) (para. 0018), wherein a lower surface of the first region is separated upward from the case (“heat sink 24, used to cool down some of the electronic components 22 which generate more heat, can be mounted on a polymeric support element together with the fan 26 and with the electronic components 22. The polymeric support element is contained in the metal tray 12”, para. 0018 and also 0019-0020) (it is noted the lower surface of the first region as annotated in fig. 4 is separated the upward-downward direction from the metal tray 12 by the distance D), and wherein an intake space (predetermined distance D; fig. 4) having a predetermined width in an upward- downward direction is formed between a bottom surface of the case (metal tray 12) and the lower surface of the first region (para. 0018; annotated fig. 4) (it is noted according to para. 0018, the heat sink 24, electronic components 22, fan 26 can be mounted on support element 28. Because the fan 26 is mounted on the support element 28 of the frame 46, it is separated from the metal tray 12 by at least the distance D shown in fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Khokle 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 Khokle 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 (intermediate frame 46 of Khokle) disposed under the upper bracket (supporting structure 24 of Dehnert) (fig. 1 of Khokle).
Regarding Claim 2, Khokle discloses the electric range (cooking hob 10), further comprising:
an upper plate (top glass plate 20; fig. 1) disposed over the case (metal tray 12) and having an upper surface on which an item to be heated is disposed (para. 0018, it is noted the top glass plate 20 provides cooking surface such that a cooking pot can be heated), and
wherein the at least one heater (induction coil i.e. coil trays 16, 18) is disposed under the upper plate (top glass plate 20) (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Khokle discloses the electric range wherein:
the air blower fan (fan 26) comprises an inlet (inlet on the underside of the fan 26; annotated fig. 2) disposed at a lower portion thereof and through which air is drawn into the air blower fan (it is noted fan 26 has the inlet to draw air from the aperture 12a into the fan 26);
the support (frame 46) further comprises an intake hole (annotated fig. 11) formed in the first region at a location corresponding to the inlet of the air blower fan (it is noted the frame 46 comprises opening as shown to allow air through the opening into the fan);
the case (metal tray 12) comprises an intake portion (annotated fig. 2) that is formed at a location corresponding to the intake hole (annotated fig. 11) and provides a passage through which air is drawn into the air blower fan (fan 26); and
the intake portion (annotated fig. 2) and the intake hole (annotated fig. 11) are separated vertically from each other (para. 0018, it is noted frame 46 is disposed above the metal tray 12, therefore the opening of the frame 46 is vertically separated from the aperture 12a of the metal tray 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
504
850
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
540
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Khokle discloses the support (intermediate frame 46; fig. 11 of Khokle) further comprises at least one rib (annotated fig. below) that extends downward from the first region (top surface of the frame 46 on which fan 26 is mounted) and surrounds the intake hole (para. 0018, it is noted fan 26 is mounted on the frame 46, the surface of the frame on which fan is mounted defines the first region. The ribs have thickness that extends downward from the top surface of the frame 46 and surrounds the intake hole).
PNG
media_image5.png
550
962
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Khokle (US 20160295644) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Rehak (US 20220030742)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except 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_image6.png
632
582
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 Khokle in view of Dehnert 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 Khokle (US 20160295644) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Yen (US 20210090826)
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the intake portion (annotated fig. 2) has a porous structure including a plurality of holes (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
540
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 modify the intake portion of Khokle in view of Dehnert, i.e. modify the intake portion of Khokle (annotated fig. 2 below) 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 Khokle (para. 0050 of Yen).
PNG
media_image8.png
544
685
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Khokle (US 20160295644) and Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Egea’931 (EP 3628931, published on 04/01/2020)
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the upper surface of the first region (position on the frame 46 at which fan is mounted) is located at the same height as an upper surface of the second region (position on the frame 46 at which electronic components 22 are mounted) (para. 0018; figs. 2 and 11).
The modification does not disclose the upper surface of the first region is located higher than the upper surface of the second region.
However, Egea’931 discloses an upper surface of the first region (portion of support unit 22a at which blower unit 12a is mounted) is located higher than the upper surface of the second region (portion of the support unit 22a at which electronics are mounted) (para. 0056, 0060, and 0050).
PNG
media_image9.png
1046
1318
media_image9.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 upper surface of the first region of Khokle in view of Dehner to be located higher than the upper surface of the second region as taught by Egea’931, in order to supply cool air to the electronics from the elevated position via outlet 70a to improve the efficiency of air flow such that cool air is able to reach the electronics that are located further from the fan.
The modification would result in the fan is mounted on the elevated plane of the support than the electronics as shown in fig. 6 of Egea’931.
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses the air blower fan comprises an outlet (outlet 70a, annotated fig. 6 of Egea’931) 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 (para. 0050 of Egea’931; annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image10.png
1046
1225
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Khokle (US 20160295644), Dehnert (US 20140374411) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Takahasi (US 20110063799)
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Khokle discloses the air blower fan comprises a securing portion (annotated fig. below) and the support comprises a fan securing hole (annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image11.png
290
376
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
313
559
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose:
the securing portion through which a bolt passes;
the 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).
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 case of Khokle in view of Dehnert to include the bosses such that the bosses are inserted into the holes of the fan as taught by Takahasi, in order to secure the fan to the case by using the bolts/bosses as the fastening means.
The modification would result in the bolts pass through the fan securing hole of the support (member 46 of Khokle) to reach the holes of the fan because the support is disposed between the fan and the case (metal tray 12 of Khokle).
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objection: since amendment made to the claim 2, therefore the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections filed on 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 09-10 of the Remarks “Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, wherein an intake space having a predetermined
width in an upward-downward direction is formed between a bottom surface of the case and
the lower surface of the first region. Khokle and Dehnert, taken alone or in combination,
do not disclose or suggest at least such claimed features of independent claim 1, or the
respective claimed combination. That is, the claimed intake space having a predetermined width in upward-downward direction is formed between a bottom surface of the case and the lower surface of the first region. Therefore, an intake space with sufficient volume for air flow is formed between the bottom surface of the case and the first region of the support, allowing sufficient air to flow into an inlet of the air blower fan without being obstructed by the case. This structure increases the intake area and air intake of the air blower fan, thereby enhancing a cooling efficiency of the air blower fan.
Although Khokle discloses intermediate flat frame 46, corresponded by the Examiner to the claimed support, there is no intermediate flat frame 46 between metal tray 12, corresponded by the Examiner to the claimed case, and fan 26, corresponded by the Examiner to the air blower fan of independent claim 1, at a location where the fan 26 is positioned. Therefore, there is no intake space formed between the metal tray 12 and the intermediate flat frame 46 at this location. Dehnert fails to overcome the deficiencies of Khokle.
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Khokle discloses in para. 0018 that “heat sink 24, used to cool down some of the electronic components 22 which generate more heat, can be mounted on a polymeric support element together with the fan 26 and with the electronic components 22. The polymeric support element is contained in the metal tray 12.” In other words, the fan 26 together with the electronic components 22 and the heat sink 24 are mounted on the support element 28 of the frame 46 such that the fan 26, the electronic components 22, and the heat sink 24 are elevated by the distance D from the metal tray 12 as shown in figs. 3-4. Nowhere in the disclosure of Khokle that discloses the fan 26 is directly mounted to the metal tray 12 such that there is no gap therebetween as implied by the Applicant. Clearly, para. 0018 discloses the fan is mounted on the support element 28 such as shown in fig. 4 that there is the gap D between the fan 26 and the metal tray 12. The gap D is defined as the intake space as defined by the claim.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/SANG Y PAIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights