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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claims 2-14 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 04, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection to the Specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the curved surfaces of the first and second glasses and the column and newly found prior art regarding those features.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0040728, filed on 03/29/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a cooking apparatus (Abstract, “A cooking apparatus”) comprising:
a main body provided to accommodate an induction heating coil (Para. 0003, “an induction heating coil disposed below the glass and generating a magnetic field when a current is applied.”, where the main body that holds the induction coil is shown in Fig. 1 as the rectangular structure with the vents facing the viewer); and
a glass assembly provided above the main body to allow a cooking container to be placed thereon (Para. 0003, “The induction heating cooking apparatus may include a glass on which the cooking container is placed, and an induction heating coil disposed below the glass”), wherein the glass assembly comprises:
a first glass forming a first area on which the cooking container is to be placed (Para. 0028, “a first glass having a first color and forming a first region on which a cooking container is placed”);
a second glass forming a second area separated from the first area (Para. 0028, “a second glass having a second color different from the first color and forming a second region receiving a control instruction of a user”, and where the two glasses are separated, Para. 0024, “a gap between a lower surface of the upper flange and the upper surface of the first glass or the upper surface of the second glass.”); and
a coupling member coupleable to each of the first glass and the second glass (Para. 0014, “The coupling member may further include an insertion groove formed by the upper flange, the lower flange and the column and into which the first glass or the second glass is inserted.”), the coupling member comprising:
a base disposed below the first glass and the second glass to support the first glass and the second glass while the first glass and the second glass are coupled to the coupling member (Para. 0097, “a coupling member 200c may include a column 270c having both side surfaces 271c and 272c, a first lower flange 250c having an upper surface 251c, a second lower flange 260c”, where the second lower flange 260c is the base that is below the glasses 121 and 111), and
a column formed to extend upward from the base (Para. 0097, “a coupling member 200c may include a column 270c”), where the side surface of the first glass and side surface of the second glass are curved (Modified Fig. 8, where the first and second glasses, 121 and 111, have sides near the coupling member that are curved).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8, Park
Park does not disclose:
the column including a first surface of the column that is curved corresponding a first side of the first glass, the first glass being curved, and a second surface of the column that is curved corresponding to a second side of the second glass, the second glass being curved, such that a distance between the first glass and the second glass is minimized.
However, Inaoka discloses, in the similar field of glass assemblies with columns inserted between glass panels (Abstract, “a glass panel with which it is possible to effectively seal a suction hole”), where there is a column that includes a first surface curved to correspond to a first side of a first glass that is curved and a second surface curved to correspond to a second side of the second glass that is curved (Page 8, Para. 1, “As shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, the chamfered portion 19aor the curved portion 19b may be formed not only on the edge 19 on the gap side of the suction hole 4but also on the edge 19 on the front side. Further, in such a case, it is also possible to form the chamfered portion 19 a and the curved surface portion 19 b in combination at the edge portion on the surface side and the gap portion side of the suction hole 4.”), where the distance between the first and second glasses are minimized (Modified Fig. 14, where the distance between the first and second glasses is shown to be minimized due to the curved surfaces). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the column with curved first and second glasses in Park to include the column having curved surfaces as well to correspond to the first and second glasses in order to minimize the distance between the glasses as taught by Inaoka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of using a curved surface to improve the long-term durability of the entire glass panel, as stated by Inaoka, Page 8, Para. 1, “Furthermore, if at least the edge 19 on the gap side of the suction hole 4 is formed or chamfered in a curved shape, the tension due to the external force is greater than when the edge 19 on the gap side is perpendicular as shown in FIG. Since stress is considered to be dispersed, the long-term durability of the entire glass panel P can be improved.”.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 14, Inaoka
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the glass assembly further comprises an adhesive member provided to couple the first glass and the second glass to the coupling member (Park, Para. 0099, “The adhesive member 22 may be inserted into the third upper groove 222c, and the adhesive member 22 inserted into the third upper groove 222c may come into contact with the lower surface 112 of the first glass 110.”), and the base comprises a first portion spaced apart from a lower surface of the first glass and spaced apart a lower surface of the second glass to accommodate the adhesive member (Park, Para. 0097, “coupling member… 232c having an open side as well as
lower grooves 252c and 262c.”, where the lower grooves accommodate the adhesive 22 at a surface lower than the lower surface of the first and second glasses); and
a second portion formed to protrude upward from one end of the first portion to support the first glass and the second glass (Park, Modified Fig. 8.1, where the second portion feature is shown).
PNG
media_image3.png
230
521
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8.1, Park
Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above, discloses wherein the coupling member further comprises a groove depressed downward from an upper surface of the first portion to accommodate the adhesive member and formed adjacent to the column (Park, modified Fig. 8.1, where the downward groove located at the first portion is shown, where the groove is adjacent to the central column, and where the groove holds the adhesive member 22).
Claims 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Nawa et al. (JP 2000240179 A, hereinafter Nawa).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein an upper surface of the column is formed to be lower than an upper surface of the first glass and lower than an upper surface of the second glass, and the glass assembly further comprises a sealing member provided above the upper surface of the column to seal a coupling space between the first glass and the second glass and the coupling member.
However, Nawa discloses, in the similar field of coupling members that fit within gaps between two panels (Page 3, last Para., “gasket 9 is formed on the panel mounting frame 4”), where the coupling member column is lower than the upper surface of the panels and includes a sealing member above the column to seal the coupling space (Modified Fig. 3, where the coupling member column being lower feature is shown, where the sealing member above the column is shown; Page 5, Para. 5, “Rainwater or the like that has entered from the joint sealing material 31 flows into the upward recess 14 of the gasket 9 and is drained to the outside through a drain pipe 33 attached at an arbitrary position.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling member column for the two glass panels in modified Park to include the features as taught by Nawa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to prevent any water from entering the gap between the two panels, where the sealing member can direct water flow elsewhere, as stated by Nawa, Page 5, Para. 5, “Rainwater or the like that has entered from the joint sealing material 31 flows into the upward recess 14 of the gasket 9 and is drained to the outside through a drain pipe 33 attached at an arbitrary position.”, where the gasket or coupling member is prevented from getting wet at the location within the gap between the panels.
PNG
media_image4.png
487
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Nawa
Regarding claim 5, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, as set forth above, discloses wherein a height of an upper surface of the sealing member is provided to be lower than or equal to a height of the upper surface of the first glass and a height of the upper surface of the second glass (Teaching from Nawa, modified Fig. 3, where the upper surface sealing member 31 is shown to be at the same or equal height of the upper surface of the two panels).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first glass and the second glass to a thickness of the sealing member is 3:1.
However, Nawa discloses where the glass panel can be a combined lower and upper panel (Page 4, Para. 7, “As shown in FIG. 3, the laminated glass 5 has a lower glass 17 and an upper glass 18 laminated via a film 19.”), where ratio of the thickness of the first and second glass to the thickness of the sealing member appears to be close to 3:1 (Modified Fig. 3, where the sealing member thickness is shown, where 32 appears to be the same thickness, and where 12 appears to be around half the thickness of the sealing member; meaning that the ratio is close to 3:1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing member thickness in modified Park to include the ratio as taught by Nawa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to prevent any water from entering the gap between the two panels, where the sealing member can direct water flow elsewhere, as stated by Nawa, Page 5, Para. 5, “Rainwater or the like that has entered from the joint sealing material 31 flows into the upward recess 14 of the gasket 9 and is drained to the outside through a drain pipe 33 attached at an arbitrary position.”, where the gasket or coupling member is prevented from getting wet at the location within the gap between the panels.
Regarding the specific ratio values, it has been held that mere changes in size/proportion are obvious modifications to make. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). It is the Examiner’s position that the ratio presented in Nawa is close to 3:1, where adjustments to the proportion would still allow the sealing member to prevent water from entering the gap between the two glass panels. As a result, altering the ratio to be a specific proportion would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Claims 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Lee (KR 20130090568 A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the first glass and the second glass are formed of different materials (Park, Para. 0061, “cooking apparatus 1 includes a main body 10, a first glass 110 of a heat-resistant material positioned above the main body 10”, and Para. 0120, “glass 100 may be made of a transparent material.”, where the second glass can be included within glass 100, Para. 0062, “A glass 100 may include the first glass 110 and the second glass 120.”, where the first glass is made from a heat resistant material, where the second glass is made from a transparent material that does not have a heat resistant requirement; it is the Examiner’s position that there are materials like ordinary glass used with windows or drinking glasses that are transparent but not heat resistant, where these materials would be different from a heat resistant glass).
Modified Park does not disclose:
the glass assembly further comprises an outer frame provided to cover circumferences of the first glass and the second glass to fix the first glass and the second glass.
However, Lee discloses, in the similar field of glass panels used for cooking (Page 3, Para. 2, “glass ceramic 105 of the induction body 107”), where there is an outer frame to cover the circumference of the entire glass surface to fix the glass surface in place (Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass panels in modified Park to be surrounded by a glass ceramic frame as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the frame being able to protect the glass panels within, as stated by Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
further comprising: an outer frame provided to cover circumferences of the first glass and the second glass to fix the first glass and the second glass.
However, Lee discloses, in the similar field of glass panels used for cooking (Page 3, Para. 2, “glass ceramic 105 of the induction body 107”), where there is an outer frame to cover the circumference of the entire glass surface to fix the glass surface in place (Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass panels in modified Park to be surrounded by a glass ceramic frame as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the frame being able to protect the glass panels within, as stated by Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Lee (KR 20130090568 A) and Schultheis et al. (DE 19703269 A1, hereinafter Schultheis) and Majer (EP 2508377 A2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein the glass assembly further comprises an adhesive member disposed between the first glass and the second glass and the outer frame, and the outer frame comprises:
a first portion spaced apart from a lower surface of the first glass or spaced apart a lower surface of the second glass to accommodate the adhesive member;
a second portion formed to protrude upward from one end of the first portion to support the first glass or the second glass; and
a third portion formed to protrude upward from another end of the first portion to cover a circumference of the glass assembly.
However, Schultheis discloses, in the similar field of frames to support panels (Page 3, Para. 5, “On the worktop, the holding tion 20 is supported with a support portion 21.”), where there is an adhesive member disposed between the panel and the outer frame (Page 3, Para. 6, “The sealing element 30 comes to rest in the groove 26 of the support section 24 . The sealing element 30 consists of an elastic material. It is conceivable that a polyurethane bead is foamed into the groove 26.”, and modified Fig. 4, where the adhesive member is shown and where polyurethane is an adhesive), where a first portion is spaced apart from the lower surface of the panel to accommodate the adhesive member (Modified Fig. 4, where the first portion is shown to hold the adhesive member), where a second portion protrudes upwards on one end (Modified Fig. 4, where the second portion is shown), where a third portion protrudes upwards on the other end to cover the circumference of the panel (Modified Fig. 4, where the third portion is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer frame in modified Park to include the features of the frame or support as taught by Schultheis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to ensure that the outer frame and the glass within are secured through seals, which can prevent detachment, as stated by Schultheis, Page 3, Para. 6, “The bracket 20 can be made from a closed, circumferential frame. The frame serves to accommodate the cooking surface 10 . Here, the cooking surface 10 is placed with its underside 12 on a sealing element 30”.
PNG
media_image5.png
297
837
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Schultheis
Further, Majer discloses, in the similar field of support frames for panels (Page 4, last Para., “The secondary part 54 surrounds the primary part 52 in the shape that anyway the secondary part 54 bears directly against an outer side 32 of the pane 12”), where there is one end of a lower section in the frame that goes upwards to support the panel (Page 5, Para. 3, “overmolding of the secondary part 54 the edge termination 25”, where Fig. 3 shows that the edge termination 25 goes to support the pane 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion in modified Park to include being able to support the pane as taught by Majer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to ensure that there is no leakage of the adhesive and that the structure looks visually appealing, as stated by Majer, Page 5, Para. 3, “This ensures that a visually appealing shape takes place and the primer 17 does not protrude with respect to the outermost edge of the edge region 25.”.
Claims 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Lee (KR 20130090568 A) and Bae (KR 20070103244 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above, discloses wherein the outer frame comprises a first frame formed to extend along a first direction to cover one side of the glass assembly (Teaching from Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105); and a second frame extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to cover another side of the glass assembly (Teaching from Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105; where since the frame surrounds the entire glass ceramic, there is a first and second frame for both sides of the rectangular glass ceramic shape).
Modified Park does not disclose:
the second frame coupleable to the first frame, the first frame comprises a coupling protrusion formed to protrude from one end thereof along the first direction to be coupled to the second frame, and the second frame comprises a coupling groove recessed from one end thereof along the second direction to accommodate the coupling protrusion.
However, Bae discloses, in the similar field of frames and their connections (Abstract, “rotating frames”), where sections of a frame can be coupled together (Page 5, Para. 1, “reinforcement member 8 is installed as well as the form and wrap the respective insertion pieces 71 that the front portion pivoted inserted and fixed to the inner diameter of the frame 7”), where the first frame includes a coupling protrusion to be coupled to a second part (Modified Fig. 7, where the coupling protrusion of the first part is shown), where the second part includes a coupling groove in the same direction to accommodate the coupling protrusion (Modified Fig. 7, where the coupling groove of the second part is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer frame in modified Park to include multiple frame sections that include the first and second coupling parts as taught by Bae.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage allowing for a solid frame connection that provides for minimal friction when rotating, where rotation can assist a user with assembling the outer frame onto the glass ceramic, as stated by Bae, Page 5, Para. 1, “groove 72 has the two-point connection with intervening rigid reinforcing member 8 that the pivoting frame (7) as the coupling pins on the support piece 41 of the member 4 is to minimize friction that can occur when the rotation is to minimize the deformation due to friction as well.”.
PNG
media_image6.png
387
605
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 7, Bae
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein the coupling protrusion comprises: a neck formed to extend along the second direction; and a head provided at one end of the neck along the second direction and having a length longer along the first direction than a length of the neck along the first direction.
However, Bae discloses where there is a neck formed along a second direction (Modified Fig. 7, where the neck is shown with an extension in the X axis or second direction), and a head provided at the end of the neck in the second direction with a length longer along the first direction compared to that of the neck (Modified Fig. 7, where the head is shown with an extension in the Y axis, where the X axis extension of the head is greater than that of the neck). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer frame in modified Park to include multiple frame sections that include the first and second coupling parts as taught by Bae.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage allowing for a solid frame connection that provides for minimal friction when rotating, where rotation can assist a user with assembling the outer frame onto the glass ceramic, as stated by Bae, Page 5, Para. 1, “groove 72 has the two-point connection with intervening rigid reinforcing member 8 that the pivoting frame (7) as the coupling pins on the support piece 41 of the member 4 is to minimize friction that can occur when the rotation is to minimize the deformation due to friction as well.”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses wherein the outer frame comprises a first frame formed to extend along a first direction to cover one side of sides of the first glass and the second glass (Teaching from Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105); and a second frame formed to extend along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to cover an other side of the first glass or the second glass (Teaching from Lee, Abstract, “A glass ceramic (105), a glass ceramic frame (106) for protecting the glass ceramic”, where the frame is shown in Fig. 1 to surround the glass ceramic 105; where since the frame surrounds the entire glass ceramic, there is a first and second frame for both sides of the rectangular glass ceramic shape).
Modified Park does not disclose:
a second frame coupled to the first frame, the first frame comprises a coupling protrusion formed to protrude from one end thereof along the first direction to be coupled to the second frame, and the second frame comprises a coupling groove recessed from one end hereof along the second direction to accommodate the coupling protrusion.
However, Bae discloses, in the similar field of frames and their connections (Abstract, “rotating frames”), where sections of a frame can be coupled together (Page 5, Para. 1, “reinforcement member 8 is installed as well as the form and wrap the respective insertion pieces 71 that the front portion pivoted inserted and fixed to the inner diameter of the frame 7”), where the first frame includes a coupling protrusion to be coupled to a second part (Modified Fig. 7, where the coupling protrusion of the first part is shown), where the second part includes a coupling groove in the same direction to accommodate the coupling protrusion (Modified Fig. 7, where the coupling groove of the second part is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer frame in modified Park to include multiple frame sections that include the first and second coupling parts as taught by Bae.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage allowing for a solid frame connection that provides for minimal friction when rotating, where rotation can assist a user with assembling the outer frame onto the glass ceramic, as stated by Bae, Page 5, Para. 1, “groove 72 has the two-point connection with intervening rigid reinforcing member 8 that the pivoting frame (7) as the coupling pins on the support piece 41 of the member 4 is to minimize friction that can occur when the rotation is to minimize the deformation due to friction as well.”.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Cadima (US 20130068214 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein the glass assembly further comprises a bracket provided on edge portions of the first glass and the second glass to be coupled to the main body.
However, Cadima discloses, in the similar field of glass cooktops (Para. 0001, “glass cooktop.”), where the glass assembly includes a bracket on the edge of the glass to be coupled with the main body (Modified Fig. 2, where the first bracket or bracket is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass assembly in modified Park to include the bracket as taught by Cadima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to mount other objects to the cooktop through the use of brackets, as stated by Cadima, Para. 0004, “FIG. 2, describes an arrangement where a burner is mechanically fastened to the cooktop itself.”.
PNG
media_image7.png
434
418
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Cadima
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above, discloses further comprising: a circuit board provided below the second glass in the main body to receive an input from the second glass (Park, Para. 0061, “a second glass 120 including an input unit to receive a control instruction from a user and a display unit to display various kinds of information about the cooking apparatus 1,”, where the input unit that control the system are stated to be hardware, firmware or software or combinations of those, Para. 0035, “"controller" means any device, system or part thereof that controls at least one operation, such a device may be implemented in hardware”, where a circuit board would fall under hardware, where Fig. 1 shows that such a hardware device is covered by the glass panel), wherein an input part electrically connected to the circuit board is provided in the second area to control a current flowing through the induction heating coil (Park, Para. 0065, “The second region 102 may also be provided with the input unit to receive a control instruction from a user to turn on/off the cooking apparatus 1 or to control the temperature of the cooking container 2.”, where in order for the input unit under the second glass to control the cooking apparatus’ induction hob, there must be an electrical connection between the two devices).
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210071872 A1, hereinafter Park) in view of Inaoka et al. (WO 2019093319 A1, hereinafter Inaoka) in further view of Cadima (US 20130068214 A1) and Jung (KR 0126521 Y1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Park does not disclose:
wherein the bracket is a first bracket, and the main body further comprises: a second bracket in contact with the first bracket to support the first glass and the second glass; and
a ground portion provided on the first bracket.
However, Cadima discloses, in the similar field of glass cooktops (Para. 0001, “glass cooktop.”), where the glass assembly includes a first bracket on the edge of the glass to be coupled with the main body and a second bracket in contact with the first bracket to support the glass panel (Modified Fig. 2, where the first bracket and second bracket are shown, where the second bracket supports the panel through holding the first bracket up in its connection with the main body). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass assembly in modified Park to include the brackets as taught by Cadima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to mount other objects to the cooktop through the use of brackets, as stated by Cadima, Para. 0004, “FIG. 2, describes an arrangement where a burner is mechanically fastened to the cooktop itself.”.
Further, Jung discloses, in the similar field of brackets for cooktops (Page 3, Para. 3, “support bracket 50 of the ceramic glass plate 40.”), where the bracket can be a source of grounding, meaning that it has a ground portion (Page 3, Para. 3, “tail 32 extending one end of the shielding means 30 to a predetermined length is grounded to the support bracket 50 of the ceramic glass plate 40.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified any of the brackets, like the first bracket, in modified Park to include being grounded as taught by Jung.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to protect electrical control devices within a cooktop through having the bracket be a convenient pathway for grounding, where the bracket’s proximity to control systems allows the cooktop to be more efficient as there is no need to drag control device wires to another grounding location, as stated by Jung, Page 3, Para. 2-3, “The shielding means 30 is formed as large as a predetermined size to cover the FPC film 10 by using an aluminum foil. In addition, the tail 32 extending one end of the shielding means 30 to a predetermined length is grounded to the support bracket 50 of the ceramic glass plate 40.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bae (KR 102155128 B1) discloses a similar frame with a protruding part to couple multiple parts of the frame, however the neck feature is not disclosed. Lee et al. (KR 20100124957 A) discloses a similar bracket to connect the glass panel to a main body, however a grounding feature is not disclosed.
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
01/23/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761