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 .
This office action supersedes the previous office action because examiner discover a new reference during an updated search.
DETAILED ACTION
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:
“a positioning aid supporting a positioning of the underlay unit relative to the cooking zone” in claims 13 and 18.
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.
“a positioning aid” (claims 13 and 18) is interpreted as “the positioning aid could have a receiver and/or a transmitter, in particular an RFID chip and/or Bluetooth chip and/or IR chip, which in the predefined position of the underlay unit outputs an acoustic and/or optical signal to the user relative to the cooking zone. The positioning aid could be configured as a protruding edge of the underlay unit which is provided to engage in a corresponding depression of the worktop and/or hot plate. In order to simplify a correct positioning of the underlay unit; It is proposed that the positioning aid has at least one magnetic holding element, in particular a ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic holding element, which is provided for providing the holding force. For example, the holding element could be configured as a ferrite, in particular a strontium ferrite or a barium ferrite.” (para.0012, 0014, 0016 of instant publication application)
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14, 18 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Danze (WO 2020034011 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Danze discloses “an underlay apparatus” (Figs.3-4, 30) “for use with a hob” (12), “said underlay apparatus” (30) comprising:
“an underlay unit” (32c) positioned between “a cooking vessel” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 28) and “a cooking zone of the hob” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 14);
“a positioning aid” (32b) that facilitates a positioning of “the underlay unit” (32c) relative to “the cooking zone” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. fig.3, 14); and
“a shielding element” (32a) arranged between “the positioning aid” (32b) and “a cooking vessel” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 28) support “surface of the underlay unit” (32c) and “magnetically shielding the positioning aid” (the shielding element 32a. [0080], i.e., a. the upper layer 32a may comprise Glass, Porcelain, any type of wood and any type of metal such as cooper, aluminum, steel and stainless steel, plastic and polymers. Examiner noted that “steel” a type of ferromagnetic metal so that it is capable of providing magnetic shielding against induction coils by using its high magnetic permeability to redirect (shunt) magnetic field lines away from objects).
Regarding claim 14, Danze discloses “the positioning aid” (32b) is arranged in “a central region of the underlay unit” (32c. Examiner noted that at least a portion of 32b is arranged in a central region of the underlay unit 32c).
Regarding claim 18, Danze discloses “an underlay apparatus” (Figs.3-4, 30) “for use with a hob” (12), “said underlay apparatus” (30) comprising:
“an underlay unit” (32c) positioned between “a cooking vessel” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 28) and “a cooking zone of the hob” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 14);
“a positioning aid” (32b) that facilitates a positioning of “the underlay unit” (32c) relative to “the cooking zone” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. fig.3, 14); and
“a shielding element” (32a) arranged between “the positioning aid” (32b) and “a cooking vessel” (functional language. This is not part of the apparatus. Fig.3, 28) support “surface of the underlay unit” (32c) and “shielding the positioning aid electromagnetically.” (the shielding element 32a. [0080], i.e., a. the upper layer 32a may comprise Glass, Porcelain, any type of wood and any type of metal such as cooper, aluminum, steel and stainless steel, plastic and polymers. Examiner noted that “steel” a type of ferromagnetic metal so that it is capable of providing magnetic shielding against induction coils by using its high magnetic permeability to redirect (shunt) magnetic field lines away from objects).
Regarding claim 32, Danze discloses “the positioning aid” (32b) is arranged in “a central region of the underlay unit” (32c. Examiner noted that at least a portion of 32b is arranged in a central region of the underlay unit 32c).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 33-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The specification filed on 02/06/2026 overcome the specification objection and claim objections. Thus, specification objection and claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remark have been considered. The amendment to claims and specification overcome specification objection, the claim objection, 35 USC 112 rejections, 35 USC 102 rejections. Thus, the specification objection, the claim objection, 35 USC 112 rejections, 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn. With respect to 35 USC 112f, examiner maintained the claim interpretation because no specific argument present. See 35 USC 1.111 b. In this case, there is no specific structural meaning with respect to a positioning aid (Prong A of the 3-prong analysis) “that facilitates a positioning underlay unit” (Prong B of the 3-prong analysis) and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure (Prong C of the 3-prong analysis). Thus, it invokes 35 USC 112f.
However, examiner have discovered an additional reference for the amended independent claims during an updated search.
Examiner noted that previously cited Kim (KR 101597173) is a single pad with a magnet (positioning aid) embedded in the pad (underlay unit). However, Danze is three distinct layer structure and there is no reason modify Danze with Kim by modifying Danze’s positioning aid 32b embedded into underlay unit 32c based on Kim’s configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (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 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761