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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim 19 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 and 16-18 are amended.
Claims 1-18 are examined as follow:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “breakage portion” in claims 1, 16 and 18 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “portion" coupled with functional language “…configured to be broken…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is preceded by an insufficient structural modifier of “breakage” only. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “breakage portion" has been described in Paragraph 0147 cited: “…As illustrated in FIG. 15, the breakage part 551 may be formed in a thin bar shape to be easily broken and a plurality of the breakage part 551 may be provided. An operator may separate the first support structure 55 from the base bracket 50 by applying an external force to the breakage part 551 to break the breakage part 551…”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 3-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is indefinite, because the limitation “…the first support…” in line 10 is lack of antecedent basis in the claim, and it is unclear what such limitation is referring to, would it be “first support structure”, “first support portion” or “first support protrusion”? Clarification is required. For examination purposes, it is assumed that such “the first support” in the claim is referring the newly amended “first support portion” in the claim, because that was the original reference of “the first support” in the claim before the amendment. It is suggested to make correction and clarification accordingly, if such assumption is incorrect, please further amend and correct the antecedent basis issue according to the disclosed specification, such that would not raise new matter issue.
Claims 4-10 are dependent claims for Claim 3, and are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (US2008/0142512A1 newly cited) herein set forth as KIM, in view of Arnal Valero et al (US7274008B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Arnal.
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses an electric range (#1, fig.1), comprising:
a case (#10 and #40, fig.1);
at least one heater (#32, fig.1) disposed in the case (#10 and #40, fig.1) and configured to heat a heating target (#41 and the object placed on #41 “not shown”, fig.1); an upper bracket (#31, fig.1) that is disposed under the at least one heater (#32, fig.1) and supports the at least one heater (#32, fig.1);
a base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1) disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and on which a printed circuit board (#20, fig.1) is installed; and
a first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) that is disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1), supports weights of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and the at least one heater (#32, fig.1),
wherein the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) includes:
a first support protrusion (referring the circular structure of the annotated “first support protrusion” in ZOOM IN fig.1) that support a lower surface (referring to the bottom surface of #31 in fig.1) of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1); and
a breakage portion (refer to “breakage portion” annotated in fig.1) coupled to the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) and configured to be broken when the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) is separated from the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
513
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
711
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KIM does not explicitly discloses the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket.
In the similar field of electric range’s structure, Arnal discloses the first support structure (refer as “functional elements” in the citation) that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation), and provided to be detachable from the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation)(refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…additional expenditure functional elements, i.e. other elements for assembly of the induction hob and the hob assembly can be designed in a work surface section to yet further reduce assembly expenditure. An added advantage is that after the housing has taken shape the functional element can be separated from the housing in a simple manner, advantageously and without use of a tool. A further advantage is that both the housing and the additionally required functional elements, such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby.…” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s invention with Arnal’s teaching of the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket, in order to provide manufacturing advantages, such as reduce procedure, reduce material expenditure, reduce manufacturing expense and costs (refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby …”), such that the invention can be price competitive and/or increase profit margin.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KIM further discloses wherein the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) is disposed at a position (refer to the position of the annotated “first support structure” in fig.1) that overlaps the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) in a state in which the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) is coupled to the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KIM does not discloses wherein the first support structure further include: a first support portion coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward; a first coupling portion that protrudes upward from the first support and is formed at a position spaced apart from the first protrusion in a lateral direction, the first coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses wherein the first support structure further include:
a first support portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward;
a first coupling portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) that protrudes upward from the first support (refer to “first support” annotated in fig. 5) and is formed at a position (refer to the position of #45 in fig.5) spaced apart from the first support protrusion (refer to “first support protrusion” annotated in fig.5) in a lateral direction (refer to the lateral direction between the annotated “first support protrusion” and #45 on fig.5), the first coupling portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) being configured to couple to the first support (refer to “first support” annotated in fig.5).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
264
383
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding to the first coupling portion coupled to the first casing, since KIM already discloses the “first support annotated in KIM figs” is coupled to the “first casing annotated in KIM figs”. Therefore, when modified KIM with the first coupling portion configured to couple to the first support, it also mean the first coupling portion coupled to the first casing too.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s first support protrusion with wherein the first support structure further include: a first support portion coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward; a first coupling portion that protrudes upward from the first support and is formed at a position spaced apart from the first protrusion in a lateral direction, the first coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide wider coupling area and a more secure coupling, easier engaged coupling, and faster coupling processes, such that would increase manufacturing speed of the invention, and reduce overhead cost.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, KIM further discloses wherein the first support protrusion (refer to “first support protrusion” annotated in ZOOM IN fig.1) includes: a first shell (referring to the circular structure for the annotated “first support protrusion” in ZOOM IN fig.1) that protrudes upward from the first support portion (refer to the surface of annotated “base bracket” below and supporting the annotated “first support structure” in fig.1 and ZOOM IN fig.1). KIM does not disclose a plurality of second shells that protrudes from a side surface of the first shell and radially disposed about the first shell.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses a plurality of second shells (refer to #19 that formed by two piece in fig.5) that protrudes from a side surface of the first shell (refer to the top side of the annotated “first support protrusion” cylindrical structure in fig.5) and radially disposed (refer to the circular structure formed as #19 in fig.5) about the first shell (refer to the top side of the annotated “first support protrusion” cylindrical structure in fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s first support protrusion with a plurality of second shells that protrudes from a side surface of the first shell and radially disposed about the first shell, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide a more secure coupling, easier engaged coupling, and faster coupling processes, such that would increase manufacturing speed of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, KIM further disclose the breakage portion (refer to “breakage portion” annotated in fig.1) can be broken (Examiner note: in view with application’s specification of breaking by force, KIM’s “breakage portion” also can be broken by force) to separate the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) from the base bracket (refer to the remaining annotated “another support structure” in fig.1).
KIM does not discloses the actual breaking the breakage portion.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses the breakage portion (#37, fig.5) is broken to separate the first support structure (#35, fig.5) from the base bracket (refer to “first support” annotated in fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s invention with breaking the breakage portion, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide manufacturing advantages, such as reduce procedure, reduce material expenditure, reduce manufacturing expense and costs (refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby …”), such that the invention can be price competitive for marketability and/or increase profit margin.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, KIM further disclose further comprising a second support structure (refer to “another support structure” annotated in fig.1) that protrudes from an edge (refer to the edge where “breakage portion” annotated in fig.1) of the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1), is formed at a position (refer to the position of annotated “another support structure” in fig.1) spaced apart (refer to the space between annotated “first support structure” and “another support structure” in fig.1) from the first support (refer to the whole surface of annotated “base bracket” supporting the annotated “first support structure” in fig.1 and ZOOM IN fig.1), and supports weights of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and the at least one heater (#32, fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, KIM further disclose the second support structure (refer to “another support structure” annotated in fig.1) includes: a second support portion (refer to annotated “second support” in fig.1 and the similar structure as annotated “first support” in ZOOM IN fig.1 for reference to the “another support structure” in fig.1) that protrudes from one side of the base bracket (refer to the “base bracket” annotated in fig.1) and is supported by the first casing (refer to “first casing” annotated in ZOOM IN fig.1 and fig.1); a second support protrusion (refer to “second support protrusion” annotated in fig.1) that protrudes upward from the second support portion (refer to annotated “second support” in fig.1 and the similar structure as annotated “first support” in ZOOM IN fig.1 for reference to the “another support structure” in fig.1) and supports a lower surface of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1).
KIM does not specifically discloses a second coupling portion that protrudes upward from the second support portion and is formed at a position spaced apart from the second support protrusion in the lateral direction, the second coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses a second coupling portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) that protrudes upward from the second support portion (refer to “first support” annotated in fig. 5 and 6) and is formed at a position (refer to the position of #45 in fig.5) spaced apart from the second support protrusion (refer to “first support protrusion” annotated in fig.5) in a lateral direction (refer to the parallel direction of the annotated “first support” in fig.5 and 6), the second coupling unit (refer to “coupling unit” annotated in fig.6) coupled to the second support portion (refer to similar structure as annotated “first support” in fig.6).
Regarding to the coupling unit coupled to the first casing, since KIM already discloses the second support is coupled to the first casing. Therefore, when modified KIM coupling portion coupled to the second support portion, it also mean the coupling portion coupled to the first casing too.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s invention with a second coupling portion that protrudes upward from the second support portion and is formed at a position spaced apart from the second support protrusion in the lateral direction, the second coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide wider and different coupling area and a more secure coupling, easier engaged coupling, and faster coupling processes, such that would increase manufacturing speed of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, KIM further discloses wherein the second support protrusion (refer to “second support protrusion” annotated in fig.1 and similar structure in ZOOM in fig.1) includes: a first piece (referring to the circular structure for the annotated “second support protrusion” in fig.1) that protrudes upward from the second support (refer to the surface of annotated “base bracket” below and supporting the annotated “second support structure” in fig.1 and similar structure in ZOOM IN fig.1).
KIM does not disclose a plurality of second pieces that protrudes from a side surface of the second piece and radially disposed about the first piece.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses a plurality of second pieces (refer to #19 that formed by two piece in fig.5) that protrudes from a side surface of the first piece (refer to the top side of the annotated “second support protrusion” cylindrical structure in fig.5) and radially disposed (refer to the circular structure formed as #19 in fig.5) about the first piece (refer to the top side of the annotated “second support protrusion” cylindrical structure in fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s first support protrusion with a plurality of second pieces that protrudes from a side surface of the second piece and radially disposed about the first piece, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide a more secure coupling, easier engaged coupling, and faster coupling processes, such that would increase manufacturing speed of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, KIM further discloses a heat sink (#53, fig.2) installed on the printed circuit board (#21, fig.2); a blower fan (#51, fig.1) that is installed on the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1) and discharges air toward the heat sink (#53, fig.2); and an air guide (#60, fig.1) that communicates with the blower fan (#51, fig.1) and surrounds (refer to fig.2) the heat sink (#53, fig.2) to form a flow path of air which cools the heat sink (#53, fig.2).
PNG
media_image6.png
417
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, KIM discloses an electric range (#1, fig.1), comprising:
a case (#10, fig.1);
a cover plate (#40, fig.1) coupled to an upper end of the case (#10, fig.1) and having an upper surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) on which a heating target (#41, fig.1) is disposed;
at least one heater (#32, fig.1) disposed under the cover plate (#40, fig.1) and configured to heat the heating target (#41, fig.1);
an upper bracket (#31, fig.1) that is disposed under the at least one heater (#32, fig.1) and supports the at least one heater (#32, fig.1);
a base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1) disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and on which a printed circuit board (#20, fig.1) is installed; and
a first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) that is disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1), supports weights of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and the at least one heater (#32, fig.1),
wherein the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) includes:
a first support protrusion (referring the circular structure of the annotated “first support protrusion” in ZOOM IN fig.1) that support a lower surface (referring to the bottom surface of #31 in fig.1) of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1); and
a breakage portion (refer to “breakage portion” annotated in fig.1) coupled to the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) and configured to be broken when the first support structure (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1) is separated from the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1).
PNG
media_image7.png
617
623
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
711
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KIM does not explicitly discloses the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket.
In the similar field of electric range, Arnal discloses the first support structure (refer as “functional elements” in the citation) that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation), and provided to be detachable from the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation)(refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…additional expenditure functional elements, i.e. other elements for assembly of the induction hob and the hob assembly can be designed in a work surface section to yet further reduce assembly expenditure. An added advantage is that after the housing has taken shape the functional element can be separated from the housing in a simple manner, advantageously and without use of a tool. A further advantage is that both the housing and the additionally required functional elements, such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby.…” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s invention with Arnal’s teaching of the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket, in order to provide manufacturing advantages, such as reduce procedure, reduce material expenditure, reduce manufacturing expense and costs (refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby …”), such that the invention can be price competitive and/or increase profit margin.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 16, KIM does not discloses wherein the first support structure further include: a first support portion coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward; a first coupling portion that protrudes upward from the first support portion and is formed at a position spaced apart from the first protrusion in a lateral direction, the first coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing.
In the similar field of electric range’s support structure, Arnal further discloses wherein the first support structure further include:
a first support portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward;
a first coupling portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) that protrudes upward from the first support (refer to “first support” annotated in fig. 5) and is formed at a position (refer to the position of #45 in fig.5) spaced apart from the first support protrusion (refer to “first support protrusion” annotated in fig.5) in a lateral direction (refer to the lateral direction between the annotated “first support protrusion” and #45 on fig.5), the first coupling portion (#45, fig.5 and 6) being configured to couple to the first support (refer to “first support” annotated in fig.5).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
264
383
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding to the first coupling portion coupled to the first casing, since KIM already discloses the “first support annotated in KIM figs” is coupled to the “first casing annotated in KIM figs”. Therefore, when modified KIM with the first coupling portion configured to coupled to the first support, it also mean the first coupling portion coupled to the first casing too.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s first support protrusion with wherein the first support structure further include: a first support portion coupled to the breakage portion and supported by a first casing form a bottom surface of the case, from which the first support protrusion protrudes upward; a first coupling portion that protrudes upward from the first support and is formed at a position spaced apart from the first protrusion in a lateral direction, the first coupling portion being configured to couple to the first casing, as taught by Arnal, in order to provide wider coupling area and a more secure coupling, easier engaged coupling, and faster coupling processes, such that would increase manufacturing speed of the invention, and reduce overhead cost.
Regarding claim 18, KIM discloses KIM discloses an electric range (#1, fig.1), comprising:
a case (#10, fig.1);
a cover plate (#40, fig.1) coupled to an upper end of the case (#10, fig.1) and having an upper surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) on which a heating target (#41, fig.1) is disposed;
at least one heater (#32, fig.1) disposed under the cover plate (#40, fig.1) and configured to heat the heating target (#41, fig.1);
an upper bracket (#31, fig.1) that is disposed under the at least one heater (#32, fig.1) and supports the at least one heater (#32, fig.1);
a base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1) disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and on which a printed circuit board (#20, fig.1) is installed; and
a plurality of supports (refer to “plurality of supports” annotated in fig.1) that is disposed under the upper bracket (#31, fig.1), supports weights of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1) and the at least one heater (#32, fig.1),
wherein each of the plurality of supports (refer to “plurality of supports” annotated in fig.1) includes:
a support protrusion (refer to one of the “plurality of supports” annotated in fig.1) that supports a lower surface of the upper bracket (#31, fig.1); and a breakage portion (refer to the annotated “breakage portion” in the ZOOM IN fig.1-3 below) coupled to the respective support (refer to “plurality of supports” annotated in fig.1) and configured to be broken when the respective support (refer to “first support structure” annotated in fig.1 and ZOOM IN fig.1-3 below) (refer to “plurality of supports” annotated in fig.1) is separated from the base bracket (#31, fig.1).
PNG
media_image8.png
714
591
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
427
508
media_image9.png
Greyscale
KIM does not explicitly discloses the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket.
In the similar field of electric range, Arnal discloses the first support structure (refer as “functional elements” in the citation) that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation), and provided to be detachable from the base bracket (refer as “work surface section” and “housing” in the citation)(refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…additional expenditure functional elements, i.e. other elements for assembly of the induction hob and the hob assembly can be designed in a work surface section to yet further reduce assembly expenditure. An added advantage is that after the housing has taken shape the functional element can be separated from the housing in a simple manner, advantageously and without use of a tool. A further advantage is that both the housing and the additionally required functional elements, such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby.…” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s invention with Arnal’s teaching of the first support structure that is integrally manufactured with the base bracket, and provided to be detachable from the base bracket, in order to provide manufacturing advantages, such as reduce procedure, reduce material expenditure, reduce manufacturing expense and costs (refer to Col 2 line 47-59 cited: “…such as fastening elements for mounting current cables, can be made by a single working procedure. Material expenditure, manufacturing expense and manufacturing costs can be reduced thereby …”), such that the invention can be price competitive and/or increase profit margin.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KIM et al (US2008/0142512A1 newly cited) herein set forth as KIM, in view of Arnal Valero et al (US7274008B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Arnal, and further in view of McCracken (US5816554 newly cited) herein set forth as McCracken.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 4, KIM does not discloses wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell and the second shell are provided in contact with the lower surface of the upper bracket and support the upper bracket.
In the similar field of support structure, McCracken discloses wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell (#27, fig.2) and the second shell (#22, fig.1) are provided in contact with the lower surface of what it (#10, fig.1) supported.
PNG
media_image10.png
648
490
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified KIM’s support protrusion with wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell and the second shell are provided in contact with the lower surface of the upper bracket and support the upper bracket, as taught by McCracken, in order to provide a stronger support protrusion and more stable support to the bracket.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 9, KIM does not discloses wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell and the second shell are provided in contact with the lower surface of the upper bracket and support the upper bracket.
In the similar field of support structure, McCracken discloses wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell (#27, fig.2) and the second shell (#22, fig.1) are provided in contact with the lower surface of what it (#10, fig.1) supported.
PNG
media_image10.png
648
490
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified KIM’s support protrusion with wherein upper end surfaces of the first shell and the second shell are provided in contact with the lower surface of the upper bracket and support the upper bracket, as taught by McCracken, in order to provide a stronger support protrusion and more stable support to the bracket.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KIM et al (US2008/0142512A1 newly cited) herein set forth as KIM, in view of Arnal Valero et al (US7274008B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Arnal, further in view of CHEN et al (US2012/0162917A1 newly cited) herein set forth as CHEN, and further in view of Cauchy et al (US8291866B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Cauchy.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of KIM and Arnal discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, KIM further discloses wherein the air guide (#60, fig.1 and 3) includes: a first region (refer to “first region” annotated in fig.3) that communicates with the blower fan (#51, fig.1) and guides air (#60, fig.1 and 3) to flow in a lateral direction (refer to the parallel surface to “base bracket” of #67 in fig.3) of the base bracket (refer to “base bracket” annotated in fig.1); and a second region (refer to “second region” annotated in fig.3) that guides air to be discharged outward.
PNG
media_image11.png
470
613
media_image11.png
Greyscale
KIM does not discloses a second region that is bent in a vertical direction of the base bracket and guides air to be discharged outward; a third region that extends from the first region and changes a flow direction of air passing through the first region; and a fourth region that extends from the third region, communicates with the second region, and changes a flow direction of air passing through the third region.
In the similar field of air guide and air duct, CHEN discloses an air guide (refer to fig. 1), comprise a second region (refer to “second region” annotated in fig. 1); a third region (refer to “third region” annotated in fig.1) that extends from the first region (refer to “first region” annotated in fig.1) and changes a flow direction of air passing through the first region (refer to “first region” annotated in fig.1); and a fourth region (refer to “fourth region” annotated in fig.1) that extends from the third region (refer to “third region” annotated in fig.1), communicates with the second region (refer to “second region” annotated in fig.1), and changes a flow direction of air passing through the third region (refer to “third region” annotated in fig.1).
PNG
media_image12.png
518
477
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KIM’s air guide with a third region that extends from the first region and changes a flow direction of air passing through the first region; and a fourth region that extends from the third region, communicates with the second region, and changes a flow direction of air passing through the third region, as taught by CHEN, in order to provide better air turbulent to assist in cooling the heat sink and further provide direction changes flow to different location.
However, CHEN does not disclose a second region that is bent in a vertical direction and guides air to be discharged outward.
In the similar field of air guide and air duct, Cauchy discloses a second region (refer to “second region/vertical direction” annotated in fig.5) that is bent (refer to “bent” annotated in fig.5) in a vertical direction (refer to “second region/vertical direction” annotated in fig.5) and guides air to be discharged outward (refer to the opening at “second region/vertical direction” opening in fig.5).
PNG
media_image13.png
467
429
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified KIM’s air guide with a second region that is bent in a vertical direction and guides air to be discharged outward, as taught by Cauchy, in order to provide the capability to direct discharge air flow in a vertical direction, such that allow the air to discharge in a desired direction for certain direction or for design purposes.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of KIM, Arnal, CHEN and Cauchy discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 12, KIM further discloses wherein the air guide (#60, fig.3) includes: a pair of first sidewalls (refer to the two “side wall” annotated in fig.3) disposed at two sides of the heat sink (#53, fig.1); and an upper wall (refer to “upper wall” annotated in fig.3) provided to be coupled to upper ends of the pair of first sidewalls (refer to the two “side wall” annotated in fig.3) to cover the heat sink (#53, fig.1), wherein the third region (refer to “third region” annotated in fig.3) is formed so that the first sidewall (refer to the annotated “side wall” with annotated “inclined” in fig.3) is bent to be inclined at an end portion of the first region (refer to “first region” annotated in fig.3), and the fourth region (refer to “fourth region” annotated in fig.3) is formed so that the first sidewall (refer to the annotated “side wall” with annotated “inclined” in fig.3) is bent to be inclined at an end portion of the third region (refer to “third region” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of KIM, Arnal, CHEN and Cauchy discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 12, KIM further discloses a first ventilation portion (#11, fig.1) formed in a portion corresponding to the blower fan (#51, fig.1); and a second ventilation portion (#13, fig.1) formed in a portion corresponding to the fourth region (refer to “fourth region” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of KIM, Arnal, CHEN and Cauchy discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 14, KIM further discloses a plurality of first through ports (refer to the openings of #11 in fig.1) formed in a portion corresponding to the first ventilation portion (#11, fig.1); and a plurality of second through ports formed (refer to the openings of #13 in fig.1) in a portion corresponding to the second ventilation portion (#13, fig.1).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment/clarification filed on December 4th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on December 4th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on December 4th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised new issue of 112b Rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed December 4th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
Applicant’s argument: Regarding to the argument on 103 rejection claim 1, 16 and 18 “…i) the claimed first support structure includes a first support protrusion that supports a lower surface of the upper bracket, and a breakage portion coupled to the first support structure and configured to be broken when the first support structure is separated from the base bracket; ii) the first support structure is manufactured in a state of being coupled to the base bracket through the breakage portion; iii) when the breakage portion is not broken, the first support structure remains coupled to the breakage portion, and the first support protrusion supports the upper bracket at a first position; and iv) when the breakage portion is broken, the first support structure is separated from the breakage portion, and the first support protrusion supports the upper bracket at a second position…”(summarized), Remark Page 2-3.
Examiner’s response:
It is noted that, regarding to the “breakage”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term of “breakage portion” can be break by external force (refer to the 112f above), with such broadest reasonable interpretation, virtually anything or section can be considered as “breakage portion” since external force would include cutting with tools.
Secondly, regarding argument of “separated components”, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the KIM’s reference is only used to disclose the needed components cited in the rejected claim, the limitation about “manufactured integrally and actual motive to break” disclosed by Arnal. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field of electrical range as mentioned above, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them.
Thirdly, it is expressed that the concept of “breakage” is more related to method claims as of current claim languages in the rejected claims, however, present claim sets are apparatus and device claims, since the broadest reasonable interpretation of breakage include the usage of external force, thus there would be no structural difference between present rejected claim languages then the prior art of records.
Fourthly, method of using, make or operating involve procedure, just as cited for the “breakage”, the claim languages of the “breakage” is describing a procedure instead of structural physical limitation and the cited procedure does not structurally or materially distinct the present rejected claims from the prior art of records.
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 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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Feb 3rd 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761