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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 4/16/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 28 recites the limitation "the connecting portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-23, and 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (WO 2018003397 A1) and Claprood (US 20120243253 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura teaches a control knob (Fig. 1B, the assembly of knob 2) for rotating a shaft (FIG. 1B, the assembly of knob base part 6 and shaft part 71), the control knob comprising: a knob element (FIG. 2, knob 2 and the surface 8a) for manual operation by an operator (the user of the knob 2) and comprising an opening (FIG. 4, the opening at the exit face 48); and a coupling element (FIG. 2, light guide 4, which couples knob 2 to the shaft part 71) made of light-transmitting material (paragraph 16, “The light guide 4 is a member that allows light to pass through”.) and configured to send light through the opening towards the operator (FIG. 4, light guide 4 emits light outward and toward the user);, the coupling element being configured to connect the knob element to the shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (FIGS. 1B and 4, the light guide 4 connects the knob 2 to the knob base part 6 and the shaft part 71).
Nakamura fails to teach that the shaft is in a household appliance; and that the shaft is in particular for operating a valve shaft in a gas valve of a cooking hob.
However, Claprood teaches that the shaft is in a household appliance (paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range); and that the shaft is in particular for operating a valve shaft (FIG. 1, shaft 14) in a gas valve (FIG. 1, gas valve 12) of a cooking hob (paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by making it so the knob assembly was able to be used for a gas range, and includes a thin handle portion, as taught by Claprood, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Claprood with the motivation of allowing a user to employ the knob for a number of different mechanisms, and to gain purchase of the knob more easily through a thin handle portion.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the coupling element is arranged at least partially inside or, with respect to the operator, behind the opening in the knob element (Nakamura, the light guide 4 is disposed within the circumferential opening of the knob 2).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the knob element is at least partially made of a non-light-transmitting material (Nakamura, paragraph 13, “The knob 2 is formed of material that does not allow light to pass through (i.e., a light non-transmitting material).”), which is why the display part 3 is between the knob 2 and the surface 8a).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the opening extends through an axial face and/or circumferential surface of the knob element (Nakamura, FIG. 4, the opening that the exit face 48 sits in extends through a circumferential surface of the knob 2).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the knob element has a T-shaped cross section (Claprood, in the combination above the knob of Nakamura has a thin handle portion, as seen in Claprood, giving the knob assembly a T-shaped cross section at the top of the knob).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the knob element comprises a base portion (Nakamura, FIG. 1A the lower portion of the knob 2) and a gripping portion (Nakamura, FIG. 1A, the upper portion of the knob 2) axially protruding from the base portion (Nakamura, FIG. 1A, the upper portion of the knob 2 extends axially from the lower portion).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the coupling element comprises a sleeve portion (Nakamura, FIG. 4, the walls surrounding internal space 42) for receiving the shaft along an axial direction so as to connect the knob element to the shaft in the rotationally fixed manner (FIG. 2, the light guide 4 receives the knob base part 6 and the shaft part 71 into the internal space 42 of FIG. 4 to connect the knob 2 to the shaft part 71 (additionally, the unnumbered member above the knob base part 6 helps connect the assembly)).
Regarding claim 29, Nakamura teaches a manual control system (Fig. 1B, the assembly of knob 2), comprising: a control knob (FIG. 2, knob 2 and the surface 8a) comprising a knob element (FIG. 2, the knob 2) configured for manual operation by an operator (the user of the knob 2) and comprising an opening (FIG. 4, the opening at exit face 48); and a coupling element (FIG. 2, light guide 4, which couples knob 2 to the shaft part 71) made of light-transmitting material (the material of light guide 4 transmits light) and configured to send light through the opening towards the operator (FIG. 4, light guide 4 emits light outward toward the user); and a rotatable shaft (FIG. 1B, the assembly of knob base part 6 and shaft part 71) coupled to the coupling element of the control knob by connecting the knob element to the shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (FIGS. 1B and 4, the light guide 4 connects the knob 2 to the knob base part 6 and the shaft part 71).
Nakamura fails to teach that the manual control system is for a household appliance; and that the shaft is in particular for operating a valve shaft in a gas valve of a cooking hob.
However, Claprood teaches that the manual control system is for a household appliance (paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range); and that the shaft is in particular for operating a valve shaft (FIG. 1, shaft 14) in a gas valve (FIG. 1, gas valve 12) of a cooking hob (paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by making it so the knob assembly was able to be used for a gas range, and includes a thin handle portion, as taught by Claprood, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Claprood with the motivation of allowing a user to employ the knob for a number of different mechanisms, and to gain purchase of the knob more easily through a thin handle portion.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches a cooking hob as the household appliance (Claprood, paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the shaft is a valve shaft of a gas valve (Claprood, FIG. 1, gas valve 12).
Regarding claim 32, Nakamura teaches a control knob (FIG. 2, knob 2 and the surface 8a) comprising a knob element (FIG. 2, the knob 2) configured for manual operation by an operator (the user of the knob 2) and an opening (FIG. 4, the opening of the exit face 48); and a coupling element (FIG. 2, light guide 4, which couples knob 2 to the shaft part 71) made of light-transmitting material (the material of light guide 4 transmits light) and configured to send light through the opening towards the operator (FIG. 4, the light guide 4 emits light outward and toward the user); and a rotatable shaft (FIG. 1B, the assembly of knob base part 6 and shaft part 71) coupled to the coupling element of the control knob by connecting the knob element to the shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (FIGS. 1B and 4, the light guide 4 connects the knob 2 to the knob base part 6 and the shaft part 71).
Nakamura fails to teach that a household appliance comprises the control knob.
However, Claprood teaches that a household appliance comprises the control knob (paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by making it so the knob assembly was able to be used for a gas range, and includes a thin handle portion, as taught by Claprood, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Claprood with the motivation of allowing a user to employ the knob for a number of different mechanisms, and to gain purchase of the knob more easily through a thin handle portion.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the household appliance is constructed in a form of a cooking hob (Claprood, paragraph 2, the assembly may be used for a range).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the shaft is a valve shaft of a gas valve (Claprood, FIG. 1, gas valve 12).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches a light source (FIG. 1B, light source 5, which shines through the shaft part 71, as shown in FIG. 4) for emitting light towards the coupling element (FIG. 4, the light source 5 shines light through the shaft part 7 and at the light guide 4), wherein the coupling element is configured to guide the light emitted by the light source and to send it towards the operator through the opening in the knob element (Nakamura, the light is guided through the opening in the knob 2 and toward a user).
Claim(s) 19, 24, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Claprood as applied to claims 16-18, 20-23, and 29-35 above, and further in view of Gallien (US 20130114270 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood fails to teach the opening is formed as a slit inside the knob element, the slit extending in a plane including an axis of rotation of the shaft or parallel thereto.
However, Gallien teaches that the opening is formed as a slit inside the knob element (Gallien, FIG. 2, the radial slit 101), the slit extending in a plane including an axis of rotation of the shaft or parallel thereto (Gallien, FIG. 2, the radial slit 101 lies in a plane extending radially from the axis of rotation of the assembly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by making it so the knob included a slit through which light is transmitted and the tapered end portion of the core 300, as taught by Gallien, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Gallien with the motivation of allowing a user to see the position of the knob in a dark environment, and to help with placing the core 300 in the knob.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Nakamura and Claprood teaches that the opening is formed as a slit inside the knob element (Nakamura, FIG. 1A, the slit between the knob 2 and the surface 8a housing the light guide 4), said coupling element comprising a plate shaped portion (Nakamura, FIG. 4, the radial portion of the light guide 4 that forms a plate along the circumference) extending inside the slit in the knob element and configured to send out light through at least one edge of the plate-shaped portion (Nakamura, FIG. 4, as shown by the arrows, light exits through the radial portions of light guide 4 at exit face 48).
The combination of Nakamura and Claprood fails to teach a connecting portion connecting the plate shaped portion to the sleeve portion and arranged inside a recess in the knob element so as to transfer a rotational force acting on the knob element onto the coupling element.
However, Gallien teaches a connecting portion (Gallien, FIG. 2, the tapered portion on the core 300) connecting the plate shaped portion to the sleeve portion (Gallien, FIG. 2, the tapered portion of the core 300 connects part of the light emitting surface 301 to the core 300) and arranged inside a recess in the knob element (Gallien, FIG. 2, a tapered recess of the outer shell 100) so as to transfer a rotational force acting on the knob element onto the coupling element (Gallien, FIG. 2, the tapered portion of the core 300 fits into a tapered recess of the outer shell 100, which assists in locking the pieces together during rotation).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by making it so the knob included a slit through which light is transmitted and the tapered end portion of the core 300, as taught by Gallien, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Gallien with the motivation of allowing a user to see the position of the knob in a dark environment, and to help with placing the core 300 in the knob.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Nakamura, Gallien, and Claprood teaches that the plate shaped portion extends radially further than the connecting portion (Gallien, FIG. 2, the portion containing the light emitting surface 301 extends axially further than the tapered portion of the core 300).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Nakamura, Gallien, and Claprood teaches that the plate shaped portion, the connecting portion and/or the sleeve portion are formed integrally (Nakamura, FIG. 2, the assembly of the knob 2 is integrally formed).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, Gallien, and Claprood as applied to claims 19, 24, 25, and 27 above, and further in view of Sheahan (US 2936359 A).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nakamura, Gallien, and Claprood fails to teach a single screw fixing the connecting portion to the knob element.
However, Sheahan teaches a single screw (FIG. 5, a single screw 47 connects the body of knob 15 to sleeve 43) to a metal shell 1 of a knob) fixing the connecting portion to the knob element (FIG. 5, the screw 47 connects the knob body 15 to the sleeve 43).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by connecting the light guide 4 to the knob 2 (specifically the tapered portion brought over from Gallien) via a screw, as taught by Sheahan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Sheahan with the motivation of ensuring that the piece is secured in place.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Claprood as applied to claims 16-18, 20-23, and 29-35 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 111271742 A).
Regarding claim 28, Nakamura and Claprood fails to teach radial ribs connecting the sleeve portion to the connecting portion and/or a spring element inserted into the sleeve portion.
However, Hu teaches radial ribs (FIG. 1, ribs 11) connecting the sleeve portion to the connecting portion (FIG. 1, as stated above, there is not antecedent basis for “the connecting portion”, however, the ribs 11 of Hu connect a circumferential portion of the knob 1 to a top portion 5 of the knob) and/or a spring element inserted into the sleeve portion.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nakamura by including ribs on the inside portion of the light guide 4 in the internal space 42, as taught by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakamura with these aforementioned teachings of Hu with the motivation of improving the structural integrity of the light guide 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the appeal brief, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-35 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamura, Gallien, and Claprood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights