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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant is thanked for their February 6, 2026 response to the Office Action filed . The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 2, 6-8, 16, and 18 have been amended and claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) independent claims 1 and 16 under 35 USC 102, as well as their dependents under 35 USC 102 and 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Flesch and Lawlor.
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:
retainer element in claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12, and 15-20
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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 16, lines 23 and 24, “first filter element” should read “first filter” (two instances).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/081271 by Flesch et al (hereinafter “Flesch”) in view of US 6,716,267 issued to Lawlor (hereinafter “Lawlor”).
Regarding claim 1, Flesch teaches an extraction device for removing air comprising cooking vapours from an area above a cooking hob, the extraction device being configured to form a combination appliance in combination with the cooking hob (Abstract, Fig 1), wherein the extraction device comprises:
an inlet opening for an intake of the air into an interior of the extraction device (Fig 2 inlet opening 111),
an outlet opening for exhausting the air into ambient air (Fig 1 air outlet 13),
a first filter element comprising a filter area and a filter frame surrounding and supporting the filter area (Fig 2 and Fig 4, grease filter 1201, shown as a filter cassette with filter element and frame; paragraph [0091]),
and a filter carrier for accommodating the first filter element, the filter carrier being removably arranged inside the extraction device (Fig 4 filter holder 120; paragraph [0049]),
wherein the first filter element and the filter carrier are arranged in an airflow direction between the inlet opening and the outlet opening (Fig 2),
wherein the first filter element is a separate unit from the filter carrier (Fig 4).
Flesch is silent as to the first filter element being separable and removable from the filter carrier. Flesch does not teach that the filter carrier comprises a first retainer element that extends from an upper portion of the filter carrier or the extraction device comprises a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier, wherein the spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the filter frame against the first retainer element.
However, Lawlor teaches a filter carrier for accommodating a filter element (Fig 3-4, filter rack 38 holds filter 24), wherein the filter carrier comprises a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier (Fig 4 leaf spring 72 with associated filter rail 70, particularly the one on the bottom of the filter carrier) and a retainer element that extends from an upper portion of the filter carrier and engages an upper portion of the filter element to retain the filter element in the filter carrier (Fig 3 and Fig 5, filter rail 70 with leaf spring 72, particularly the ones on the top of the filter carrier), and wherein the filter element is separable and removable from the carrier (col 2 line 15-17) and comprises a filter area and a filter frame surrounding and supporting the filter area (Fig 3, filter element comprises an air permeable medium 26 supported by filter frame 28), and wherein the spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the filter frame against the first retainer element (Fig 4, spring element(s) 72 at bottom of Fig push filter/frame up towards top rail 70 of carrier, see also Fig 5 showing filter 26 and frame 28 in rail/retainer element 70; col 3 line 45-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Flesch by making the filter element separable and removable from the filter carrier, in order to allow the filter to be easily removed for cleaning or replacement. It would further have been obvious to include a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier, wherein the spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the filter frame against a first retainer element such that the first retainer element retains the first filter element in the filter carrier, as taught by Lawlor, in order to securely hold the filter element in the filter carrier, and to prevent movement of the filter element in the filter carrier when installed.
Regarding claim 2, Flesch further teaches that the first filter element is a flat filter element (Figs 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Flesch further teaches that the filter carrier comprises a filter seat for accommodating the first filter element (Fig 4 collection trough 1202; paragraph [0079]). Flesch, as modified by Lawlor (see claim 1 rejection), teaches the first filter element being accommodated or accommodatable in a clamped position within the filter seat, the clamping being spring-loaded (Flesch, when modified with the spring element and retainer element of Lawlor, would result in the filter element being clamped in the filter seat of the filter carrier and held in place by the spring element and retainer element).
Regarding claim 4, Flesch, as modified by Lawlor teaches the extraction device of claim 3. Lawlor further teaches that the first retainer element is configured to retain the filter element in a filter seat of the filter carrier, the retainer element being elastically arranged at the filter carrier, and/or being made of a flexible material, and/or forming a snapping or clamping element (Lawlor Fig 4, flexible/elastic leaf springs 72 of retainer element 70/72 at top of filter carrier 38 serve to hold filter in place in the filter seat).
Regarding claim 6, Flesch, as modified by Lawlor, teaches that the first retainer element and the spring element act on opposite sides of the filter frame (Lawlor Fig 4 shows bottom spring element 70/72 at bottom of filter with top retainer element 70/72 at top of filter).
Regarding claim 8, Flesch, as modified by Lawlor, teaches that the filter frame is released or releasable from the first retainer element while the spring element is in a stressed state, and the spring element is at least partially unloaded when the filter frame is in its assembled position (Flesch, as modified with the spring element of Lawlor, would function this way).
Regarding claim 9, Flesch further teaches that the filter carrier comprises a carrier housing (Fig 4 frame 1200) and a carrier frame part, which is completely removable from the carrier housing (Fig 4 inlet frame 1203). Flesch, as modified with the first retainer element and spring element of Lawlor (see claim 1 rejection above), teaches that the carrier frame part, located at the top of the filter carrier, would comprise the first retainer element (Lawlor teaches that the retainer element would be located at the top of the filter element to hold the filter in place; the modification of Flesch with Lawlor would result in the first retainer element being part of the carrier frame, as the upper portion of the filter carrier).
Regarding claim 10, Flesch teaches a carrier frame part that is positioned at the upper portion of the filter carrier and is attachable or closable after putting the first filter element in place (Fig 4 inlet frame 1203). Flesch, as modified with the first retainer element and spring element of Lawlor (see claim 1 rejection above), teaches that the first retainer element is a part or portion of or is formed by the carrier frame part (Lawlor teaches that the retainer element would be located at the top of the filter element; the modification of Flesch with Lawlor would result in the first retainer element being part of the carrier frame, as the upper portion of the filter carrier).
Regarding claim 11, Flesch, as modified with Lawlor, further teaches that a filter seat of the filter carrier includes guiding means for a guided insertion of the first filter element and/or a support section for a pivoted take-up of the first filter element (the modification of Flesch with Lawlor would result in the spring element, including the filter rail, at the inner surface of the filter carrier, particularly at the filter seat; the filter seat would therefore include a filter rail to act as a guiding means and/or support section).
Regarding claim 12, Flesch, as modified with Lawlor, further teaches a second filter element that is separate from the first filter element such that the first and second filter elements would be independently removable from the filter carrier, wherein the first filter element and the second filter element are arranged in the filter carrier and arranged in a V-shaped arrangement (Fig 2, two filter elements are shown in a V-shaped arrangement; paragraph [0053]) and the filter carrier comprises a second retainer element that extends from the upper portion of the filter carrier and engages an upper portion of the second filter element to retain the second filter element in the filter carrier (Fig 4 inlet frame 1203 of filter carrier would have portions that retain each of the two filters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the extraction device of Flesch with the spring element and retaining element of Lawlor to hold the filter in place, that the spring element and retainer element would also be used in the same way for the second filter in a mirrored arrangement, resulting in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Flesch, as modified with Lawlor, teaches the extraction device of claim 1. Flesch further teaches that a combination appliance including a cooking hob and the extraction device (Fig 1, combination device 1 with cooking hob 10 and extraction device).
Regarding claim 14, Flesch teaches a method for installing the first filter element in the filter carrier of the extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element is inserted in the filter carrier with a bottom edge thereof, and thereafter, the filter element is pivoted into a mounting position within the filter carrier, said mounting position being an inclined mounting position (Fig 2 and Fig 4, filter element would be inserted through the top of the filter carrier such that bottom edge is inserted first and then filter element is pivoted into the inclined mounted position; Examiner notes that the method as claimed need only be usable with extraction device according to claim 1, but does not necessarily require an extraction device with all of the structural elements of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Flesch as modified with the spring element and retainer element of Lawlor, teaches that in a consecutive order of the following installation steps the filter element is:
inserted in a lower section of a filter seat (Fig 2 filter element lowers into lower section of collection trough 1202),
pressed against a force of a spring arranged in the lower section of the filter seat (the modification with Lawlor results in a spring arranged in the lower section of filter seat to press against the filter element, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill that the force of the spring must be pressed against at this step),
pivoted into its mounting position (Flesch Fig 2, after inserting downward, the filter element would have to be pivoted to achieve the tilted mounting position shown), and
supported against the first retainer element by at least partially releasing tension in the spring (the modification with Lawlor results in the first retainer element at the top of the filter and supporting the filter element in the mounted position).
Regarding claim 16, Flesch teaches a combination appliance (Abstract, Fig 1 combination device 1) comprising:
a cooking hob having a cover plate adapted to support cookware for cooking thereon and having an opening formed therein (Fig 1 cooking hob 10 with cover plate 100 and recess 1000); and
an extraction device arranged below the cover plate, the extraction device comprising (Fig 1):
a filter carrier arranged directly beneath said opening and comprising a carrier housing (Fig 4 filter holder 120; paragraph [0049]),
a filter installed within the carrier housing said filter being adapted to filter particulates and or droplets that pass through said opening in the cover plate, and to accommodate passage of air therethrough (Fig 2 and Fig 4, grease filter 1201),
a fan configured to draw air from an area above the cover plate, through the opening therein, then through the filter and into an exhaust duct for recirculation of the drawn air back into a room space housing the combination appliance via an exhaust opening (Fig 1 blower 110; paragraph [0087]);
wherein said filter comprises a first filter portion having a first flat filter area and a first filter frame portion surrounding and supporting the first flat filter area (Fig 2 and Fig 4, filter 1201, shown as a filter cassette with filter area and frame; paragraph [0091]);
wherein said filter carrier comprising comprises a first filter seat adapted to accommodate the first filter portion in a definite first position when installed therein (Fig 4 collection trough 1202; paragraph [0079]),
Flesch further teaches an element at the upper portion of the filter carrier which may be considered a clamping means adapted to hold the filter portion in place against the filter seat (Fig 4 and Fig 7, inlet frame 1203 at upper edge of filter carrier; note that this would also aid in reducing noise caused by vibration of the filter portion),
But Flesch is silent as to the filter being removable from the carrier housing. Flesch does not teach a retainer element of the first clamping means that extends from an upper portion of the filter carrier and engages an upper portion of the first filter frame to retain the first filter element in the filter carrier and a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier, and wherein said spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the first filter frame against the first retainer element.
However, Lawlor teaches a filter carrier for accommodating a filter (Fig 3-4, filter rack 38 holds filter 24), wherein the filter carrier comprises a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier (Fig 4 leaf spring 72, particularly the one on the bottom of the filter carrier) and a retainer element that extends from an upper portion of the filter carrier and engages an upper portion of the filter to retain the filter in the filter carrier (Fig 3 and Fig 5, filter rail 70 with leaf springs 72, particularly the one on the top of the filter carrier), and wherein the filter is removably installed in the housing of the filter carrier (col 2 line 15-17) and comprises a flat filter area and a filter frame portion surrounding and supporting the flat filter area (Fig 3, filter element comprises an air permeable medium 26 supported by filter frame 28), and wherein the spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the filter frame against the first retainer element (Fig 4, spring element(s) 72 at bottom of Fig push filter/frame up towards top rail 70 of carrier, see also Fig 5 showing filter 26 and frame 28 in rail/retainer element 70; col 3 line 45-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination appliance of Flesch by making the filter removable from the filter carrier, in order to allow the filter to be easily removed for cleaning or replacement. It would further have been obvious to include the retainer element taught by Lawlor that extends from an upper portion of the filter carrier and a spring element supported against an inner surface of the filter carrier, also taught by Lawlor, wherein the spring element acts on the first filter element by pressing the filter frame against the first retainer element such that the first retainer element retains the first filter in the filter carrier, as taught by Lawlor, in order to securely hold the filter in the filter carrier, and to prevent movement of the filter in the filter carrier when installed.
Regarding claim 17, Flesch, modified with the first retainer element and spring element of Lawlor, teaches the combination appliance according to claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection above). Lawlor teaches that said first retainer element extends from a first wall of the filter carrier (Fig 4 side length member 42, shown at top of filter carrier 38), said first retainer element having a downholder or bulge facing downward that resiliently engages an upper cross member of the first filter frame, thereby fixing the first filter portion in said definite first position within the filter carrier (Fig 4 first retainer element includes downholder/rail 70 which is resiliently supported through leaf springs 72 to engage upper cross member of filter frame).
Regarding claim 18, Flesch as modified with the spring element and first retainer element with downholder of Lawlor, teaches the combination appliance according to claim 17. Lawlor further teaches that said downholder is resiliently biased into engagement with the upper cross member of the first filter frame via said spring element (Fig 4 and 5, downholder 70 engages filter frame 28 and is biased by spring element 72 at bottom), wherein said spring element engages against a lower cross member of the first filter frame and urges the first filter frame upward in a direction toward the first retainer element (Fig 4 spring element 72 at bottom engages against lower cross member of frame 28 through bottom rail 70 and urges frame upward).
Regarding claim 20, Flesch teaches that said filter further comprises a second filter portion having a second flat filter area and a second filter frame portion surrounding and supporting the second flat filter area (Fig 2 includes a second filter mirroring the first); said filter carrier further comprising a second filter seat adapted to accommodate the second filter portion in a definite second position when installed therein (Fig 2, a portion of collection trough 1202 is used as a seat for the first filter portion and another portion used as a seat for the second filter portion), and second clamping means adapted to reversibly clamp the second filter portion in said definite second position associated with the second filter seat in a manner that avoids noise cause by vibration of the second filter portion (Fig 4 inlet frame 1203 includes a portion which clamps the first filter and a portion which clamps the second), said first and second filter portions being independent of one another and being independently removable from the filter carrier (Fig 2 and Fig 4). Flesch, as modified with the spring element and retainer element of Lawlor, teaches that the second clamping means would comprise a second retainer element that extends from the upper portion of the filter carrier and engages an upper portion of the second filter portion to retain the second filter portion in the filter carrier (the second retainer element would mirror the first).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an extraction device with all of the limitations of claim 7, particularly the limitation directed to the recess or cut-out in the first and second filter frame parts or first and second filter frame sections for receiving a portion of the respectively assigned first retainer element. Flesch/Lawlor teaches the extraction device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Flesch, as modified by Lawlor, also teaches that the filter frame comprises a first filter frame part or first filter frame section, which is assigned to the spring element (first filter frame part/section correlates to the bottom horizontal portion of the filter frame), and a second filter frame part or second filter frame section, which is assigned to the first retainer element and which is opposite to the first filter frame part or first filter frame section (second filter frame part/section correlates to the top horizontal portion of the filter frame). But Flesch/Lawlor does not teach the recess or cut-out portion for receiving a portion of the respectively assigned first retainer element, nor would it have been obvious to modify Flesch/Lawlor with this limitation. Therefore, this limitation combined with every other limitation of the claim distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests an extraction device with all of the limitations of claim 19, particularly the limitation directed to “said downholder or bulge depending downwardly from a cantilevered portion of the first retainer element extending from said first wall of the upper part of the filter carrier, said cantilevered portion resiliently biasing the downholder or bulge into engagement with the upper cross member of the first filter frame.” Flesch/Lawlor teaches the extraction device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). But Flesch/Lawlor does not teach the downholder or bulge depending downwardly from a cantilevered portion of the first retainer element extending from said first wall of the upper part of the filter carrier, said cantilevered portion resiliently biasing the downholder or bulge into engagement with the upper cross member of the first filter frame, nor would it have been obvious to modify Flesch/Lawlor with this limitation. Therefore, this limitation combined with every other limitation of the claim distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762