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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection on 12/2/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-17 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14-15 and 26 of copending Application No. US20230225020 in view of Scheibe (US12590476).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, claim 14 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 teaches a hob apparatus, comprising:
a sensor region, comprising a sensor ([0103] Claim 14 Line 3 a sensor unit) configured to detect a sensor signal ([0103] Claim 14 Line 5 to detect a signal)
a signal processing region, comprising a signal processor ([0103] Claim 14 line 6 a control unit) configured to further process and/or analyze the sensor signal ([0103] Claim 14 line 6-7 control unit configured to control the sensor unit and to analyze the sensor signal);
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 does not teach a printed circuit board, a portion of the printed circuit board is bent to define a bending region, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are disposed on the same printed circuit board, and wherein the signal processing region is separated from the sensor region by the bending region.
Schiebe teaches a printed circuit board (1), wherein a portion of the printed circuit board (1) is bent to define a bending region (12), wherein the sensor region (11) and the signal processing region (13) are disposed on the same printed circuit board (1), and wherein the signal processing region (13) is separated from the sensor region (11) by the bending region (12).
It would have been obvious to have modified claim 14 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 with the teachings of Schiebe to have the printed circuit board have a bending region that separates and sensor region and signal processing region, where both regions are on the same circuit board so that the circuit board may be formed in a such a way that it conforms with the shape of other exterior components that may be bent or curved while also being able to connect relevant electronic components (Schiebe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
Regarding claim 17, claim 15 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 teaches the hob apparatus of claim 16, embodied as an induction hob apparatus (Claim 15 lines 1-2 induction hob).
Regarding claim 32, Claim 26 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 teaches a hob (Claim 26 line 1 a hob), comprising a hob apparatus (Claim 26 line 1 a hob apparatus),
said hob apparatus (Claim 26 line 1 a hob apparatus) comprising a sensor region, comprising a sensor ([0103] Claim 26 Line 2a sensor unit)
a signal processing region, comprising a signal processor ([0103] Claim 26 line 4 a control unit) configured to further process and/or analyze the sensor signal ([0103] Claim 26 lines 4-6 control unit configured to control the sensor unit and to analyze the sensor signal).
Claim 26 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 does not teach a printed circuit board, on which the sensor unit and the signal processing unit are arranged together.
a portion of the printed circuit board is bent to define a bending region, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are disposed on the same printed circuit board, and wherein the signal processing region is separated from the sensor region by the bending region.
Schiebe teaches a printed circuit board (1), wherein a portion of the printed circuit board (1) is bent to define a bending region (12), wherein the sensor region (11) and the signal processing region (13) are disposed on the same printed circuit board (1), and wherein the signal processing region (13) is separated from the sensor region (11) by the bending region (12).
It would have been obvious to have modified claim 14 of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US20230225020 with the teachings of Schiebe to have the printed circuit board have a bending region that separates and sensor region and signal processing region, where both regions are on the same circuit board so that the circuit board may be formed in a such a way that it conforms with the shape of other exterior components that may be bent or curved while also being able to connect relevant electronic components (Schiebe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
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 16-17 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US20230137254) having priority to (EP3889558) in view of Scheibe (US12590476) having priority to (DE102018113946A).
Regarding claim 16, Klein teaches a hob apparatus, comprising:
a sensor region (35), comprising a sensor ([0053] sensor receiving light signal)
a signal processing region, comprising a signal processor ([0054] electronic unit and associated software) configured to further process and/or analyze a sensor signal ([0054] output analogue signal, of which the electronic unit and associated software identify properties of); and
a printed circuit board ([0054] printed circuit board).
Klein is silent on wherein a portion of the printed circuit board is bent to define a bending region, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are disposed on the same printed circuit board, and wherein the signal processing region is separated from the sensor region by the bending region.
Schiebe teaches wherein a portion of the printed circuit board (1) is bent to define a bending region (12), wherein the sensor region (11) and the signal processing region (13) are disposed on the same printed circuit board (1), and wherein the signal processing region (13) is separated from the sensor region (11) by the bending region (12).
Klein and Schiebe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of printed circuit boards. It would have been obvious to have modified Klein to incorporate the teachings of Schiebe to have the printed circuit board have a bending region that separates and sensor region and signal processing region, where both regions are on the same circuit board so that the circuit board may be formed in a such a way that it conforms with the shape of other exterior components that may be bent or curved while also being able to connect relevant electronic components (Schiebe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
Regarding claim 17, Klein and Scheibe teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, and Klein teaches embodied as an induction hob apparatus ([0006] induction hob).
Regarding claim 32, Klein teaches a hob ([0006] hob), comprising:
a hob apparatus comprising:
a sensor region (35), comprising a sensor ([0053] sensor receiving light signal)
a signal processing unit, comprising a signal processor ([0054] electronic unit and associated software) configured to further process and/or analyze a sensor signal ([0054] output analogue signal, of which the electronic unit and associated software identify properties of); and
a printed circuit board ([0054] printed circuit board).
Klein is silent on wherein a portion of the printed circuit board is bent to define a bending region, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are disposed on the same printed circuit board, and wherein the signal processing region is separated from the sensor region by the bending region.
Schiebe teaches wherein a portion of the printed circuit board (1) is bent to define a bending region (12), wherein the sensor region (11) and the signal processing region (13) are disposed on the same printed circuit board (1), and wherein the signal processing region (13) is separated from the sensor region (11) by the bending region (12).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein to incorporate the teachings of Schiebe to have the printed circuit board have a bending region that separates and sensor region and signal processing region, where both regions are on the same circuit board so that the circuit board may be formed in a such a way that it conforms with the shape of other exterior components that may be bent or curved while also being able to connect relevant electronic components (Schiebe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
Regarding claim 33, Klein and Schiebe teaches the hob of claim 32, and Klein teaches embodied as an induction hob apparatus ([0006] induction hob).
Claims 18, 19, 22-25, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US20230137254) and Scheibe (US12590476) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hunt (US7299148B2).
Regarding claim 19, Klein and Schiebe teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the printed circuit board includes a flexible part.
Hunt teaches wherein the printed circuit board (162) includes a flexible part (Col. 7 lines 30-40 support structure 164 comprises a flexible circuit board such as commercially available flexible integrated circuit boards).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have the printed circuit board have a flexible part so that the circuit board has a physical support for electronic components and allow for sensors to have physical connections at a space apart position (Hunt Col. 7 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 23, Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are aligned at an angle to each in other.
Hunt teaches wherein the sensor region (112) and the signal processing region (157) are aligned at an angle to one another in an assembled state (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have the signal processing region at an angle to the sensor region so that the electronic components may be suspended away from the sensors while maintaining electrical connection to the sensors, preventing thermal distortion of the sensors and other components (Hunt Col. 6 lines 50-60, Col. 8 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 24, Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt teach the hob apparatus of claim 22, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are aligned substantially perpendicular to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Hunt
Hunt teaches wherein the sensor region (112) and the signal processing region (157) are aligned substantially perpendicular to one another in an assembled state (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have the signal processing region perpendicular to the sensor region so that the electronic components may be suspended away from the sensors while maintaining electrical connection to the sensors, preventing thermal distortion of the sensors and other components (Hunt Col. 6 lines 50-60, Col. 8 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 25, Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt teach the hob apparatus of claim 22, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are aligned substantially parallel to each other.
Hunt teaches wherein the sensor region (112) and the signal processing region (157) are aligned substantially parallel to one another in an assembled state (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have the signal processing region parallel to the sensor region so that the electronic components may be suspended away from the sensors while maintaining electrical connection to the sensors, preventing thermal distortion of the sensors and other components (Hunt Col. 6 lines 50-60, Col. 8 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 28, Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt teach the hob apparatus of claim 22, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on wherein the signal processing region is at least substantially rigid.
Hunt teaches wherein the signal processing region is at least substantially rigid (Col. 12 lines 40-46 remote section may comprise a rigid circuit board instead of a flexible circuit board).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have a signal processing region be rigid in order to support the electronic components (Hunt Col. 12 lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 29, Klein and Schiebe teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on wherein the sensor region is rigid.
Hunt teaches wherein the sensor region is at least substantially rigid (Col. 12 lines 40-46 remote section may comprise a rigid circuit board instead of a flexible circuit board).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have a sensor region be rigid in order to support the electronic components (Hunt Col. 12 lines 40-45).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US20140083993A1) and Scheibe (US12590476) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dillig (DE102010001573A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 20, Klein and Schiebe teaches the hob apparatus of claim 16, but are silent on wherein the printed circuit board is configured as a rigid-flexible printed circuit board.
Dillig teaches wherein the printed circuit board (2)is configured as a rigid-flexible printed circuit board ([0004] rigid-flex printed circuit board).
Klein, Schiebe, and Dillig are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of printed circuit boards. It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Dillig to have the printed circuit board have been configured as a rigid-flexible printed circuit board as they offer high reliability in installation of a printed circuit board that requires three-dimensional assembly (Dillig [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Klein and Schiebe teaches the hob apparatus of claim 16, but are silent on wherein the printed circuit board is configured as a semi-flexible printed circuit board.
Dillig teaches wherein the printed circuit board (2) is configured as a semi-flexible printed circuit board ([0007] semi-flex printed circuit board).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Dillig to have the printed circuit board have been configured as a semi-flexible printed circuit board as they offer high reliability in installation of a printed circuit board that requires three-dimensional assembly when only a few bends are necessary during the assembly and mounting of the circuit board (Dillig [0004-0007]).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US20230137254) and Scheibe (US12590476) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hunt (US7299148B2) and Dillig (DE102010001573A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 26, Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt teach the hob apparatus of claim 22, but Klein and Schiebe are silent on further comprising a shielding element, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are arranged on different sides of the shielding element.
Hunt teaches sensor region (120) and the signal processing region (157).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Hunt to have a sensor region and a signal processing region so that the sensor components and signal processing components may be positioned in so that the electronic components may be suspended away from the sensors while maintaining electrical connection to the sensors, preventing thermal distortion of the sensors and other components (Hunt Col. 6 lines 50-60, Col. 8 lines 1-15).
Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt are silent on a shielding element, wherein the sensor region and the signal processing region are arranged on different sides of the shielding element in an assembled state.
PNG
media_image2.png
710
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Dillig
Dillig teaches further comprising a shielding element (32), wherein the first region (4) and the second processing region (6) are arranged on different sides of the shielding element (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to have modified the sensor region and signal processing region as taught by Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Dillig to have a shielding element such that the circuit board regions may be secured while preventing a break in the flexible portion of the circuit board (Dillig [0027]).
Regarding claim 27, Klein, Schiebe, Hunt, and Dillig teach the hob apparatus of claim 26, but Klein and Hunt are silent on wherein the shielding element has an opening, and wherein the opening receives the bending region in the assembled state.
Dillig teaches wherein the shielding element (32) has an opening, and wherein the opening receives the bending region (8) in the assembled state (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein, Schiebe, and Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Dillig to have a shielding element with a passage for the bending region such that the circuit board regions may be secured while preventing a break in the flexible portion of the circuit board (Dillig [0027]).
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US20230137254) and Scheibe (US12590476) as applied to claims 16 and 32 above, and further in view of Aranda (DE 102018219969) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 30, Klein and Scheibe teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, but are silent on further comprising a protection element arranged above the signal processing unit for protecting the signal processing unit against thermal influence.
Aranda teaches further comprising a protection element (56a) arranged above the signal processing unit (14a) for protecting the signal processing unit against thermal influence.
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein to incorporate the teachings of Aranda to have a protection element in order to shield the processing unit from the heating elements (Aranda [0060]).
Regarding claim 31, Klein and Scheibe teach the hob apparatus of claim 16, but is silent on a further sensor region, comprising a further sensor; a further signal processing region, comprising a further signal processor configured to process and/or analyze a further signal from the further sensor; and a further printed circuit board, wherein the further sensor region and the further signal processing region are are disposed on the same further printed circuit board.
PNG
media_image3.png
398
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Aranda
Aranda teaches a further sensor region, comprising a further sensor (20a, each heating unit 12a has a sensor element 20a); a further signal processing region (14A), comprising a further signal processor configured to process and/or analyze a further signal from the further sensor (20A); and a further printed circuit board (54A), wherein the further sensor region (20A) and the further signal processing region (14A) are disposed on the same further printed circuit board (54A).
It would have been obvious to have modified Klein and Scheibe to incorporate the teachings of Aranda to have a further sensor unit, signal processing unit, and printed circuit board in order to allow the operator have a high level of comfort in controlling the cooking parameters of the cooking vessel resulting in optimal cooking results (Aranda [0017]).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheibe (US12590476) in view of Jenkins (20190125120 ).
Regarding claim 34, Schiebe teaches a sensor (11), a signal processor (13) configured to process and/or analyze a signal from the sensor (11); and a printed circuit board (1), wherein the sensor (11) and the signal processor (13) are disposed on the same printed circuit board (1).
Schiebe is silent on an induction sensor.
Jenkins teaches an induction sensor (304, [0236] induction sensor).
Schiebe and Jenkins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor circuitry. 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 Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins to have an induction sensor in order to be able to accurately detect and transmit desired sensed characteristics without external interference (Jenkins [0236]).
Regarding claim 35, The hob apparatus of claim 34, and Scheibe teaches wherein the signal processor (13) and the sensor (11) are on opposite sides of a bend (12) in the printed circuit board (1).
Schiebe is silent on an induction sensor
Jenkins teaches an induction sensor (304, [0236] induction sensor).
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 Schiebe to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins to have an induction sensor in order to be able to accurately detect and transmit desired sensed characteristics without external interference (Jenkins [0236]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16 and 32 in view of Klein (US20230137254) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Klein (US20230137254) and newly cited reference Scheibe (US12590476).
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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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 Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/4/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights