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 filed on 03/03, 2023, 04/14/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The references DE102018121082, EP 2921830, International Search Report PCT/EP2021/074756 dated March 15, 2022 and Report of Examination EP 21773771.7 dated April 9, 2026. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 20-38) in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 39 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 30 recites: “said illumination unit configured to couple visible light into the radiation guiding element in an operating state”
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “illumination unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0019 discloses: “An illumination unit is to be understood as a unit which has at least one light source and which provides light, in particular visible light, in at least one operating state, in particular by means of the light source. At least one light source of the illumination unit could, by way of example, be designed as a, preferably backlit, display unit, in particular as a matrix display unit, preferably as an LCD display, or as an OLED display. Advantageously, at least one light source of the illumination unit, particularly advantageously at least a majority of the light sources, preferably all light sources of the illumination unit, are designed as LEDs, in particular as RGB LEDs.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 29 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29, “ the sensor unit includes a sensor element” should be “ the sensor unit further includes a sensor element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 25, 27-29, 30, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the term “visible light” in line 3. It is unclear if the term “visible light” corresponds to the “visible light” previously recited in claim 20. If so, the term “visible light” (claim 22) should be “the visible light”. Claim 30 recites the same term “visible light” so it is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 22.
Claim 25 recites the term “infrared radiation and visible light” in line 2, It is unclear if the term “infrared radiation and visible light” corresponds to the “infrared radiation and visible light” previously recited in claim 20. If so, the term “infrared radiation and visible light” (claim 25) should be amended as “the infrared radiation and visible light”.
Claim 27 recites the term “the radiation conducting element” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if term “the radiation conducting element” corresponds to the term “radiation guiding element” previously recited in claim 20. For examination purposes, the term ““the radiation conducting element” is construed as the term “radiation guiding element”.
Claim 35 recites the term “the radiation guiding element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the previous claim 34 does not recites the term “the radiation guiding element” and it is unclear which element that the term “the radiation guiding element” refers to.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation “A cooktop”, and the claim also recites “in particular an induction cooktop” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature “in particular an induction cooktop” introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 28-29 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 27.
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) 20-24, 26-28, 31-33 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatani JP2003317920A (Cited in 4/14/2026 IDS)
Regarding claim 20, Nakatani discloses
A cooking system (induction heating cooker, see fig.1 and para.0013), comprising:
a placement plate (23, see fig.1); and
a radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1) which is permeable for infrared radiation and visible light (see para.0013, 0016-0017), said radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1) extending in an assembled state at least in part along a normal direction (vertical direction) perpendicular to a main extent plane (horizontal plane) of the placement plate (23) from an upper side to a lower side of the placement plate (23, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Nakatani further discloses
The cooking system of claim 20, constructed in a form of an induction cooking system (see title and para.001: “induction heating cooker”).
Regarding claim 22, Nakatani further discloses
at least one partial area of the placement plate (23, see fig.1) outside the radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1) has a lower transmittance at least for visible light than the radiation guiding element (see para.0017: “the top plate 23 transmits only infrared rays having a wavelength of 4 microns or less, but an infrared transmitting material 26 that pierces the center portion of the top plate 23 and transmits infrared rays well is embedded... infrared light having a wavelength of 6 to 10 microns, which is emitted by many objects having a temperature of 30 ° C. to 200 ° C., which is a temperature when cooking, is often passed through the center portion of the top plate 23).
Regarding claim 23, Nakatani further discloses
the radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1) is integrated in the assembled state in a cut-out of the placement plate (hole of the top plate 23, see fig.1 and para.0013).
Regarding claim 24, Nakatani further discloses
the radiation guiding element (23, see fig.1) has a surface area extent which is significantly smaller than a surface area extent of the placement plate (23) when viewed along the normal direction (vertical direction, See fig.1).
Regarding claim 26, Nakatani further discloses
in the assembled state the radiation guiding element (26) has along the normal direction (vertical direction) an extent (length of 26) which is greater than an extent of the placement plate (length of 23, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 27, Nakatani further discloses
a sensor unit (22, see fig.1), which in the assembled state is arranged offset along the normal direction with respect to the radiation conducting element (23) so as to detect a sensor parameter (See para.0013: “an infrared sensor 22 for receiving infrared rays emitted from the bottom of the pan 20, and a central portion”).
Regarding claim 28, Nakatani further discloses
the sensor unit includes an infrared temperature sensor (22, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 31, Nakatani further discloses
a heating element (21, see fig.1), which when viewed along the normal direction (vertical direction) at least in part surrounds the radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 32, Nakatani further discloses
the heating element is an induction heating element (see para.0014: “an induction magnetic field is emitted from the heating coil 21”).
Regarding claim 33, Nakatani further discloses
the placement plate is designed as a cooktop plate (top plate 23, see fig.1)
Regarding claim 38, Nakatani discloses
A cooktop (induction heating cooker, see fig.1 and para.0013),, in particular an induction cooktop, said cooktop comprising a cooking system ( see fig.1), configured in one of two ways, a first way in which the cooking system (induction heating cooker, see fig.1) comprises a placement plate (23, see fig.1) and a radiation guiding element (26, see fig.1) which is permeable for infrared radiation and visible light (see para.0013, 0016-0017), said radiation guiding element extending in an assembled state at least in part along a normal direction (vertical direction) perpendicular to a main extent plane of the placement plate (23) from an upper side to a lower side of the placement plate (see fig.1). (Notes: claim 38 requires “one of two ways”, and Nakatani discloses the claimed “first way” which fulfills the claimed requirement. Also, it is noted that the claimed “second way in which the cooking system comprises a placement plate and a thermal insulation element configured for arrangement on an upper side of the placement plate and to protect the placement plate against temperature influences, said thermal insulation element including a cut-out through which the placement plate is visible” is taught by Graber US 20090095736 A1).
Claim(s) 34, 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Graber US 20090095736 A1
Regarding claim 34, Graber discloses
A cooking system (combo 40 and 20, see figs.1-3), comprising:
a placement plate (20, see fig.1); and a thermal insulation element (40, see fig.1 and para.0022: “The trivet acts as an insulator to limit the amount of heat transferring from the heat retention object through the trivet to the countertop”) configured for arrangement on an upper side of the placement plate (upper side of 20, see fig.1) and to protect the placement plate against temperature influences (para.0022: “The trivet acts as an insulator to limit the amount of heat transferring from the heat retention object through the trivet to the countertop”) , said thermal insulation element (40, see fig.2) including a cut-out (channel(s), see fig.2 and para.0040) through which the placement plate (20) is visible (See fig.2 the lines on the item 20 is visible through the channels of 40).
Regarding claim 36, Graber further discloses the thermal insulation element (40) has an upper side and a lower side (see figs.1-2), and said lower side of the thermal insulation element (40) contacting the placement plate (20, see fig.1).
Graber does not expressly disclose a lower side which has a degree of roughness which is lower than a degree of roughness of the upper side.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the roughness of the lower side to be lower than a degree of roughness of the upper side since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so protects the upper surface of the countertop from scratching while prevents slippery surface between the thermal insulation element and the pan/serving disk.
Regarding claim 37, Graber further discloses
a position sensor unit (46, see fig.3) configured to detect a positioning of the thermal insulation element (see para.0044: “ this coil-originating energy may be used to power a processor which in turn may intelligently determine trivet position”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani in view of Alonso US20150253014A1
Regarding claim 25, Nakatani discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 20, except further comprising a further radiation guiding element which is permeable for infrared radiation and visible light and which in the assembled state is arranged offset along the normal direction with respect to the radiation guiding element and interacts optically with the radiation guiding element.
Eduardo discloses an induction domestic appliance, comprising:
further radiation guiding element (39, see fig.2 and para.006-008 ) which is permeable for infrared radiation and visible light (para.006-008) and which in the assembled state is arranged offset along the normal direction (vertical direction, see fig.2) with respect to the radiation guiding element (33) and interacts optically with the radiation guiding element (See fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Nakatani to incorporate “further radiation guiding element which is permeable for infrared radiation and visible light and which in the assembled state is arranged offset along the normal direction with respect to the radiation guiding element and interacts optically with the radiation guiding element” as taught by Eduardo. Doing so allows to create the two part beams from the light which is guided from the light-guiding fiber to the light sensors in order to improve temperature determination (See para.009 of Eduardo).
Regarding claim 29, Nakatani discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 28, except the sensor unit includes a sensor element configured to assist the infrared temperature sensor and/or to detect a further sensor parameter.
Alonso discloses an induction domestic appliance, comprising:
the sensor unit (20, see fig.2) includes a sensor element (40 or 42, see fig.2) configured to detect a further sensor parameter (See para.0018).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Nakatani to incorporate the “sensor element configured to detect a further sensor parameter” as taught by Alonso. Doing so allows to determine a temperature of the heating zone or determine a temperature of the light-guiding element ( see para.0018 of Alonso).
Claim 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani
Regarding claim 30, in the embodiment as shown in fig. 1, Nakatani does not expressly disclose an illumination unit arranged in the assembled state offset along the normal direction with respect to the radiation guiding element, said illumination unit configured to couple visible light into the radiation guiding element in an operating state.
However, in the embodiment as shown in fig. 2, Nakatani further discloses an illumination unit (35, see fig.2) arranged in the assembled state offset along the normal direction (vertical direction, see fig.2) with respect to the radiation guiding element (32, see fig.2), said illumination unit (35) configured to couple visible light into the radiation guiding element (35) in an operating state (See para.0020: “The third optical fiber 32 is for transmitting the light from the light emitting diode 35 to the photodiode 34 and for measuring the light emission amount of the photodiode 34 by the light amount detection unit 36 connected to the photodiode 34”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Nakatani to incorporate the “illumination unit arranged in the assembled state offset along the normal direction with respect to the radiation guiding element, said illumination unit configured to couple visible light into the radiation guiding element in an operating state” as taught in fig.2 of Nakatani. Doing so allows to accurately calculate the temperature of the pan bottom (See para.0022 Nakatani).
Claim 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graber in view of Nakatani JP2003317920A
Regarding claim 35, Graber discloses the cut-out has a diameter which corresponds at least to a diameter of the energy pick-up coil 46, wherein this coil-originating energy may be used to power a processor which in turn may intelligently determine trivet position, power to the temperature detection (see para.0044).
Graber dose not expressly disclose the cut-out has a diameter which corresponds at least to a diameter of the radiation guiding element.
However, Nakatani discloses an induction heating cooker, comprising:
the cut-out (cut-out of 23, see fg.1) has a diameter which corresponds at least to a diameter of the radiation guiding element (diameter of item 26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cut-out of Graber to have a diameter which corresponds at least to a diameter of the radiation guiding element as taught by Nakatani. Doing so allows to accurately calculate the temperature of the pan bottom (see para.0022 of Nakatani).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE102018121082A1 (cited in 04/14/2026) discloses Hob system (100) comprising a worktop (200) and a hob device (1), the hob device (1) being accommodated on the underside (201) of the worktop and the top side (202) of the worktop (200) having a footprint (203) for cookware.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights