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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 6/1/26 response to the Office Action dated 3/4/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 4-7 and 13-15 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims have overcome the previously set forth objections and 112b rejections, except for the 112b rejection to claims 1-9, so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly. The 112b rejection to claims 1-9 is repeated in the present Office Action.
NOTE: It appears Applicant’s intent was to remove ‘surface’ and add ‘face’ to claim 1, but the current amendments indicate the opposite order of operation.
NOTE: If the claims being examined are ever in condition for allowance, it’s noted that the withdrawn claims must be cancelled or eligible for rejoinder before the application is in a state for allowance. See MPEP 821.
Response to Remarks
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, Applicant states that the 112(f) interpretation of ‘control unit’ is not explicitly accepted. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. This remark does not explain 1) why ‘control unit’ should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation nor 2) why ‘unit’ should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as 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. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
To help further prosecution, Examiner suggests Applicant explain how the limitations interpreted under 112(f) fail the 3 prong test. This would help the Examiner better understand the Applicant's position that these limitations should not be interpreted under 112(f).
NOTE: If the 112(f) interpretation of ‘control unit’ is withdrawn, it’s the Examiner’s position that claims 9, 10, and 19 would become 102 rejections because Kozinski ‘326 would no longer be required as a teaching reference.
On pgs. 15-16 of the Remarks, Applicant submits that Kozinski ‘096 fails to disclose the claimed structural relationship where the first flange is “offset from” the outer surface as recited by claim 1 because the term “offset” would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to require that the flange be spatially displaced or separated from the outer surface, i.e., be set back in a parallel plane. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would not include ‘parallel’ in the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘offset’. Reference the attached Merriam Webster definition of ‘offset’. As shown in the attached definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘offset’ includes “an abrupt change in the dimension or profile of an object”. Looking at annotated Fig. C on Pg. 12 of the present Office Action (Fig. C from the previous Office Action), the first flange is at least offset from the outer surface by virtue of the abrupt profile change between the two structures. Applicant further submits ‘offset’ requires spatial separation between displaced surfaces. Examiner disagrees because 1) the first flange is at least spatially separated from the first outer surface along an axis extending perpendicularly from the first outer surface (reference annotated Fig. C) and 2) one of ordinary skill in the art would not include ‘displaced surfaces’ in the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘offset’ for the same or substantially the same reasons as explained for ‘parallel’ above. If Applicant intended a different interpretation and has support for a structural difference from this interpretation in the as-filed disclosure, Applicant is recommended to claim it.
On pg. 16 of the Remarks, Applicant states that Kozinski ‘096 fails to disclose the claimed perpendicular relationship between the first major face and the first outer surface. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The first major face is perpendicular to the first outer surface, as shown in annotated Fig. A.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First major face)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First outer surface
(opposite surface, not visible))][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
On pgs. 16-17 and 19 of the Remarks, Applicant submits that Kozinski ‘096 fails to disclose a protrusion positioned within a notch on the first flange of the first supporting end wherein this protrusion is received in a slot defined by a tab of the console body. In particular, Applicant submits Kozinski ‘096 has tabs on the end plate that are receiving into slots on the control panel, which is structurally distinct from the claimed invention. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As shown in Fig. D on Pg. 12 of the present Office Action (Fig. C from the previous Office Action), the tab is on the console body, not on the end plate as stated by the Applicant. See the prior art rejection to amended claim 2 below for more details.
On Pgs. 18-20 of the Remarks, Applicant submits that Kozinski ‘326 discloses separate structures such as frame 146 with rails 148, 150, end caps 152, 154, and brackets 156, 158 to support the control units and therefore does not read on the amended limitation that the control units be directly coupled to the console body interior without an internal support frame. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The mounting of the control units to the console body without an internal support frame is rejected by Kozinski ‘096, not Kozinski ‘326 individually. Kozinski ‘326 is used to modify the structures of the control units so they include bases and stems and therefore read on the ‘control unit’ limitation as interpreted under 112(f). Additional structures of Kozinski ‘326, such as frame 146 with rails 148, 150, end caps 152, 154, and brackets 156, 158, are not being incorporated into Kozinski ‘096. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In response to the Applicant’s remarks and the amended scope of the claim, the rejections to claims 9, 10, 17, and 20 have been revised to better explain how this modification reads on the claims.
On Pgs. 18-19 of the Remarks, Applicant submits that Kozinski ‘326 discloses a fundamentally different control mounting structure that would destroy the intended function of Kozinski ‘096. This remark has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The reasons are the same or substantially the same ones as noted for the ‘internal support frame’ remarks above. To summarize, it is only the control units that are being modified; other structures of Kozinski ‘326 are not being incorporated into Kozinski ‘096.
On Pgs. 20-21, Applicant remarks that neither Braden nor Yantis overcome the deficiencies of Kozinski ‘096 and Kozinski ‘326 with respect to claim 10. This is moot because neither Braden nor Yantis are relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 10.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 5, should read “the tab defining a slot
Claim 11 is objected to for the same reason and should be amended in the same way.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 has been amended to recite “at least one of a control unit and a display unit for the cooking appliance being directly coupled to the console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame” (emphasis added). Examiner notes the as-filed specification discloses structures such as the first and second end posts 14a, 14b that would read under the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘internal support frame’ because they connect to the inside of the console body 26 and support the frame / provide the underling structure that gives shape or strength to the console assembly 10. However, in light of Par. 0025 of the as-filed specification and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘internal support frame’ refers to a separate structure from console body 26 that is used to carry the load of control units 34. See, for example, element letter ‘F’ in Fig. 2 of the as-filed drawings. Given the ‘internal support frame’ is a separate structure from console body 26 that is used to carry the load of control units 34, an assembly that functions without the use of a distinct structure from the console body to carry the load of the control units will be considered to read on the claimed limitation.
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 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:
Claim 9, line 1: control unit. The nonce term “unit” is modified by functional language “control”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a knob connected to a base via a stem, as specified in Par. 0025 and shown in Figs. 2-3, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 10, 17, 19, and 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.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the display unit is claimed to be “directly coupled to the console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame” (Claim 9, lines 2-3). However, adequate structure isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Instead, the as-filed specification discloses “without the need for an internal support or frame to carry the load of such control units 34” (Par. 0025) without providing an associated disclosure of the display unit 50 being supported without the need for an internal support or frame. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. B, the as-filed figures appear to show internal structures that serve to frame / provide the underling structure that gives shape or strength that supports the display unit 50 and therefore comprise an ‘internal support frame’.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for the display unit directly coupled to the console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of directly coupling the display unit to the console body without an internal support frame, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 9.
PNG
media_image3.png
712
1178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Internal support frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from as-filed specification showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the first major surface” (emphasis added) lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed the first major face and first major surface reference to the same structure.
Claims 2-9 is rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kozinski (US 20230057096 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘096).
Regarding claim 1, Kozinski ‘096 discloses a console assembly (Figs. 1-2, backsplash 26) for a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 10), comprising:
a first supporting end post (Fig. 2, first end plate 40) mountable adjacent to an upper surface of the cooking appliance (Fig. 1, cooking surface 14 and maintop 44) on a first side thereof (Fig. 1, left side of cooking surface 14 and maintop 44), the first supporting end post defining a first outer surface (annotated Fig. C, first outer surface) having a perimeter (annotated Fig. C, perimeter of first outer surface) and a first flange (annotated Fig. C, first flange) offset from the outer surface and extending outwardly from the perimeter (annotated Fig. C); and
a console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) having a first major face (Fig. 2, front surface of console body 22) and a first inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes) on a first side of the first major face (Fig. 1, left side of front surface of console body 22) and being coupled with the first supporting end post by engagement of the inwardly-turned end surface with the first flange of the first supporting end post (Figs. 1, 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22. It is to be understood that the left end 100 of the control panel 22 is substantially identical to, e.g., a mirror image of, the right end 102. The slots 112 at each end of the control panel 22 generally correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on each end plate 40 and 42, e.g., the slots 112 at the left end 100 correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on the first end plate 40”) with the inwardly-turned end surface positioned outside of the first flange (Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. C, which show the surface with slots 112 is positioned outside of or at the outer surface of the first flange) and the first major surface extending perpendicular to the first outer surface (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
433
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First outer surface
(opposite surface, not visible))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First flange)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes.
Regarding claim 2, Kozinski ‘096 discloses the console assembly of claim 1, wherein:
the first flange (annotated Fig. C, first flange) of the first supporting end post (Fig. 2, first end plate 40) defines at least one notch (annotated Fig. D, notch) extending inwardly toward the perimeter (annotated Fig. C, perimeter of first outer surface. As shown in annotated Fig. D, from the perspective of the right end of the notch, the notch extends inwardly toward the perimeter) with a protrusion positioned within the notch (Fig. 5, retention tab 104 is positioned within the notch); and
the console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) includes at least one tab (annotated Fig. D, tab) extending laterally from an edge of the inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112), the tab defining a slot (Fig. 5, slot 112) with the tab, with the protrusion of the first supporting end post being received in the slot to couple the console body to the first supporting end post (Figs. 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22. It is to be understood that the left end 100 of the control panel 22 is substantially identical to, e.g., a mirror image of, the right end 102. The slots 112 at each end of the control panel 22 generally correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on each end plate 40 and 42, e.g., the slots 112 at the left end 100 correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on the first end plate 40”. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details about how claim 2 is being interpreted).
PNG
media_image7.png
676
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Notch)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tab)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 5 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Kozinski ‘096 discloses the console assembly of claim 1, further including a second supporting end post (Fig. 2, second end plate 42) mountable on the upper surface of the cooking appliance (Fig. 1, cooking surface 14 and maintop 44) on a second side thereof (Fig. 1, right side of cooking surface 14 and maintop 44), the second supporting end post defining a second outer surface (annotated Fig. E, second outer surface) having a perimeter (annotated Fig. E, perimeter of second outer surface) and a second flange (annotated Fig. E, second flange) offset from the outer surface and extending outwardly from the perimeter (annotated Fig. E), wherein:
the console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) further has a second inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’) on a second side of the first major face (Fig. 1, right side of front surface of console body 22) opposite the first inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes), the console body being coupled with the second supporting end post by engagement of the second inwardly-turned end surface with the second flange of the second supporting end post (Figs. 1, 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22) with the second inwardly-turned end surface positioned outside of the second flange (Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. E, which show the surface with slots 112 is positioned outside of or at the outer surface of the second flange) and the first major face extending perpendicular to the second outer surface (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
433
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second outer surface
(opposite surface, not visible))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second flange)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. E: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinski (US 20230057096 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘096) in view of Braden et al. (US 20130292371 A1, hereafter Braden).
Regarding claim 3, Kozinski ‘096 discloses the console assembly of claim 2.
However, Kozinski ‘096 does not disclose the protrusion of the first supporting end post is received in the slot in a press-fit arrangement.
Braden discloses a range with a backsplash (Par. 0040) similar to the present invention and Braden further discloses it is known for a protrusion (Fig. 5, tab 68) of a first supporting end post (Fig. 5, front wall 66) to be received in a slot (Fig. 8, slot formed by tab receivers 38) in a press-fit arrangement (Par. 0008, “the first mating component is removably joined to the second mating component in a press-fit manner.”; Par. 0044, “As seen in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, mating components are on each of the end walls 66, 70 and include two tabs 68, 72 in each respective end wall 66, 70”; Par. 0047, “With reference to FIG. 8, two further mating components include two tab receivers 38”; Par. 0052, “tabs 68, 72 engage the tab receivers 38, 46”; and Par. 0052, “Once the griddle insulation retainer 58 is positioned, it is pushed downwardly with the front wall tabs 68 and the rear wall tabs 72 engaging the front tab receivers 38 and the rear tab receivers 46”. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details about how claim 3 is being interpreted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusion and slot of Kozinski ‘096 with the protrusion and slot as taught by Braden so the protrusion of the first supporting end post is received in the slot in a press-fit arrangement. This would provide the predicable result and benefit of reducing the need for hand tools during assembly (As suggested by Par. 0043 of Braden: “providing mating components that press-fit, preferably without the use of hand tools.”) which simplifies and/or makes assembly faster.
Claims 9-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinski (US 20230057096 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘096) in view of Kozinski ‘326 et al. (US 20200271326 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘326).
Regarding claim 9, Kozinski ‘096 discloses the console assembly of claim 1, further including at least one of a control knob (Par. 0031, “Controls 24 may include…knobs”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the ‘control unit’ is a knob connected to a base via a stem and equivalents thereof. Although Kozinski ‘096 discloses the knobs, Kozinski ‘096 is silent regarding a stem and base, therefore, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose an equivalent thereof) and a display unit (Fig. 1, the middle of control panel 22 which has controls 24, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a display unit. Further support is provided in Par. 0031, “Controls 24 may include buttons”) for the cooking appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 10) being directly coupled to the console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) on an interior thereof (Figs. 1-2, which show the control knob and display unit are directly coupled to the interior of the console body 22) without an internal support frame (Figs. 1-2 and 5, which show the controls 24 are only coupled to the console body 22. There is no separate structure from console body 22 that carries the load of the controls 24. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details).
However, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose at least one of a control unit and a display unit for the cooking appliance are directly coupled to the console body on an interior thereof.
Kozinski ‘326 discloses a control console (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kozinski ‘326 discloses it is known for control units (Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136, which meet the interpretation of ‘control unit’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above. It’s noted the heating element control units 136 are equivalent to bases because they support the control knobs 132. Reference Par. 0033, “Control knobs 132 are connected to stems 138 of a plurality of heating element control units 136”) of a cooking appliance (Abstract, cooking range) to be directly coupled to a console body (Fig. 3, frame 146 and glass panel 140) on an interior thereof (Figs. 3-5, which show heating element control units 136 and display 134 are directly coupled to console body 22 on an interior thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Kozinski ‘096 with the control unit of Kozinski ‘326. Kozinski ‘096 discloses the claimed invention, including control knobs, but is silent regarding the control unit as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above. Kozinski ‘326 discloses that control knobs 132 with stems 138 and heating element control units 136 are equivalent control knobs known in the art. Therefore, because the two control knobs were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the control knobs and their mating apertures (Reference annotated Fig. G) of Kozinski ‘096 with the same of Kozinski ‘326. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely allowing a user to activate and adjust cooking operations, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that control units that are coupled to a console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame are well known in the art, as indicated by Fig 3 of KR 101710402 B1, hereafter ‘402, referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 10, Kozinski ‘096 discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 10), comprising:
a cooktop upper surface (Fig. 1, cooking surface 14 and maintop 44); and
a console assembly (Fig. 1, control panel 22) extending upwardly from a rear edge of the cooktop upper surface (Fig. 1, rear edge of cooking surface 14 and maintop 44) and including:
a first supporting end post (Fig. 2, first end plate 40) mountable on the upper surface of the cooking appliance on a first side thereof (Fig. 2, left side of oven appliance 10) adjacent the rear edge (Figs. 1-2, at least the portion of first end plate 40 identified in annotated Fig. F is mountable on the maintop 44 on a left side of the oven appliance 10), the first supporting end post defining a first outer surface (annotated Fig. C, first outer surface) having a perimeter (annotated Fig. C, perimeter of first outer surface) and a first flange (annotated Fig. C, first flange) offset from the outer surface and extending outwardly from the perimeter (annotated Fig. C); and
a console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) having a first major face (Fig. 2, front surface of console body 22) and a first inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes) on a first side of the first major face (Fig. 1, left side of front surface of console body 22), the console body being coupled with the first supporting end post by engagement of the inwardly-turned end surface with the first flange of the first supporting end post (Figs. 1, 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22. It is to be understood that the left end 100 of the control panel 22 is substantially identical to, e.g., a mirror image of, the right end 102. The slots 112 at each end of the control panel 22 generally correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on each end plate 40 and 42, e.g., the slots 112 at the left end 100 correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on the first end plate 40”) with the inwardly-turned end surface positioned outside of the first flange (Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. C, which show the surface with slots 112 is positioned outside of or at the outer surface of the first flange) and the first major face extending perpendicular to the first outer surface (Fig. 2); and
at least one control knob (Par. 0031, “Controls 24 may include…knobs”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the ‘control unit’ is a knob connected to a base via a stem and equivalents thereof. Although Kozinski ‘096 discloses the knobs, Kozinski ‘096 is silent regarding a stem and base, therefore, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose an equivalent thereof) for the cooking appliance mounted to the console body (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
752
500
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Portion)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. F: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology. Note that although Fig. 4 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 4 is referenced for illustrative purposes.
However, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose at least one control unit for the cooking appliance mounted to the console body.
Kozinski ‘326 discloses a control console (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kozinski ‘326 discloses it is known for least one control unit (Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136, which meet the interpretation of ‘control unit’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above. It’s noted the heating element control units 136 are equivalent to bases because they support the control knobs 132. Reference Par. 0033, “Control knobs 132 are connected to stems 138 of a plurality of heating element control units 136”) for a cooking appliance (Abstract, cooking range) mounted to a console body (Figs. 3-5, frame 146 and glass panel 140. Note positions cuff 144 and glass panel openings 142 support the mounting of control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136 to glass panel 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Kozinski ‘096 with the control unit of Kozinski ‘326. Kozinski ‘096 discloses the claimed invention, including control knobs, but is silent regarding the control unit as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above. Kozinski ‘326 discloses that control knobs 132 with stems 138 and heating element control units 136 are equivalent control knobs known in the art. Therefore, because the two control knobs were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the control knobs and their mating apertures (Reference annotated Fig. G) of Kozinski ‘096 with the same of Kozinski ‘326. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely allowing a user to activate and adjust cooking operations, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that control units that are coupled to a console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame are well known in the art, as indicated by Fig 3 of KR 101710402 B1, hereafter ‘402, referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 11, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 17, Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein:
the console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) defines a plurality of apertures (annotated Fig. G, apertures. One of ordinary skill of the art would understand the identified structures are apertures) extending therethrough to the first major face thereof (Fig. 2, front surface of console body 22); and
the at least one control unit (Kozinski ‘326: Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136, as explained in claim 10) includes a plurality of control units (Kozinski ‘096: Fig. 1 and Kozinski ‘326: Figs. 3-4) coupled directly to an interior of the console body (Figs. 1-2, which show the control knobs are directly coupled to the interior of the console body 22) without an internal support frame (Figs. 1-2 and 5, which show the controls 24 are only coupled to the console body 22. There is no separate structure from console body 22 that carries the load of the controls 24. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details), each one of the plurality of control units having operative portions (Kozinski ‘326: Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132 and stems 138, which are ‘operative portions’ because they are the structures the user manipulates in order to operate the heating element control units 136) extending through respective ones of the apertures and extending to an exterior of the console body (Fig. 1, exterior of control panel 22. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the substitution of control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136 of Kozinski ‘326 as described in claim 10).
PNG
media_image11.png
434
585
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Apertures)]
Fig. G: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Kozinski ‘096 showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinski (US 20230057096 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘096) in view of Kozinski ‘326 et al. (US 20200271326 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘326) and further in view of Braden et al. (US 20130292371 A1, hereafter Braden).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, Kozinski ‘096 discloses a console assembly (Fig. 1, control panel 22) for a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 10), comprising:
first (Fig. 2, first end plate 40) and second supporting end posts (Fig. 2, second end plate 42) mountable on an upper surface of the cooking appliance (Fig. 1, cooking surface 14 and maintop 44) on respective first (Fig. 1, left side of cooking surface 14 and maintop 44) and second sides thereof (Fig. 1, right side of cooking surface 14 and maintop 44), each of the first and second supporting end posts defining respective first (annotated Fig. C, first outer surface) and second outer surfaces (annotated Fig. E, second outer surface) having a respective perimeter (annotated Fig. C, perimeter of first outer surface and annotated Fig. E, perimeter of second outer surface) and respective first and second flanges (annotated Fig. C, first flange and annotated Fig. E, second flange) offset from the respective outer surface and extending outwardly from the respective perimeter (annotated Figs. A and C), wherein the first flange defines at least one notch (annotated Fig. D, notch) extending inwardly toward the perimeter (annotated Fig. C, perimeter of first outer surface. As shown in annotated Fig. D, from the perspective of the right end of the notch, the notch extends inwardly toward the perimeter) with a protrusion positioned within the notch (Fig. 5, retention tab 104 is positioned within the notch); and
a console body (Fig. 2, console body 22) having a first major face (Fig. 2, front surface of console body 22), a first inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes) on a first side of the first major face (Fig. 1, left side of front surface of console body 22), the console body including at least one tab (annotated Fig. D, tab) extending laterally from an edge of the first inwardly-turned end surface Fig. 5, surface with slots 112,), the tab defining a slot (Fig. 5, slot 112) configured to receive the protrusion (Figs. 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22. It is to be understood that the left end 100 of the control panel 22 is substantially identical to, e.g., a mirror image of, the right end 102. The slots 112 at each end of the control panel 22 generally correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on each end plate 40 and 42, e.g., the slots 112 at the left end 100 correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on the first end plate 40”. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details about how claim 2 is being interpreted), and a second inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 5, surface with slots 112, which is inwardly-turned from the console body 22 and is at an end of console body 22; therefore the surface with slots 112 is an ‘inwardly-turned end surface’) on a second side of the first major face (Fig. 1, right side of front surface of console body 22) opposite the first inwardly-turned end surface (Fig. 1), the console body being coupled with the first supporting end post by engagement of the first inwardly-turned end surface with the first flange of the first supporting end post (Figs. 1, 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22. It is to be understood that the left end 100 of the control panel 22 is substantially identical to, e.g., a mirror image of, the right end 102. The slots 112 at each end of the control panel 22 generally correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on each end plate 40 and 42, e.g., the slots 112 at the left end 100 correspond to the sliding retention tabs 104 on the first end plate 40”) with the inwardly-turned end surface positioned outside of the first flange (Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. C, which show the surface with slots 112 is positioned outside of or at the outer surface of the first flange) and the first major face extending perpendicular to the first outer surface (Fig. 2) and with the second supporting end post by engagement of the second inwardly-turned end surface with the second flange of the second supporting end post (Figs. 1, 5-6 and Par. 0037, “FIG. 5 illustrates the slots 112 at the right end 102 of the control panel 22) with the second inwardly-turned end surface positioned outside of the first flange (Fig. 5 and annotated Figs. A and C, which show the surface with slots 112 is positioned outside of or at the outer surface of the first flange) and the first major face extending perpendicular to the second outer surface (Fig. 2); and
at least one control knob (Par. 0031, “Controls 24 may include…knobs”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the ‘control unit’ is a knob connected to a base via a stem and equivalents thereof. Although Kozinski ‘096 discloses the knobs, Kozinski ‘096 is silent regarding a stem and base, therefore, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose an equivalent thereof) for the cooking appliance mounted to the console body on an interior thereof (Figs. 1-2, which show the control knobs are mounted to the interior of the console body 22).
However, Kozinski ‘096 does not explicitly disclose at least one control unit for the cooking appliance mounted to the console body on an interior thereof and having an operative portion positioned on an exterior of the console body and the tab defining a slot configured to receive the protrusion in a press-fit arrangement.
Kozinski ‘326 discloses a control console (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kozinski ‘326 discloses it is known for least one control unit (Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136, which meet the interpretation of ‘control unit’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above. It’s noted the heating element control units 136 are equivalent to bases because they support the control knobs 132. Reference Par. 0033, “Control knobs 132 are connected to stems 138 of a plurality of heating element control units 136”) for a cooking appliance (Abstract, cooking range) mounted to a console body (Figs. 3-5, frame 146 and glass panel 140. Note positions cuff 144 and glass panel openings 142 support the mounting of control knobs 132, stems 138, and heating element control units 136 to glass panel 140) on an interior thereof (Figs. 3-5, which show heating element control units 136 and display 134 are directly coupled to console body 22 on an interior thereof) and having an operative portion (Figs. 3-4, control knobs 132 and stems 138, which are ‘operative portions’ because they are the structures the user manipulates in order to operate the heating element control units 136) positioned on an exterior of the console body (Fig. 3, exterior of console 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit and display of Kozinski ‘096 with the same of Kozinski ‘326. Kozinski ‘096 discloses the claimed invention, including control knobs, but is silent regarding the control unit as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above. Kozinski ‘326 discloses that control knobs 132 with stems 138 and heating element control units 136 are equivalent control knobs known in the art. Therefore, because the two control knobs were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the control knobs and their mating apertures (Reference annotated Fig. G) of Kozinski ‘096 with the same of Kozinski ‘326. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely allowing a user to activate and adjust cooking operations, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
However, Kozinski ‘096 does not disclose the tab defining a slot configured to receive the protrusion in a press-fit arrangement.
Braden discloses a range with a backsplash (Par. 0040) similar to the present invention and Braden further discloses it is known for a tab (Fig. 8, tab receivers 38) defining a slot (Fig. 8, slot formed by tab receivers 38) to be configured to receive a protrusion (Fig. 5, tab 68) in a press-fit arrangement (Par. 0008, “the first mating component is removably joined to the second mating component in a press-fit manner.”; Par. 0044, “As seen in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, mating components are on each of the end walls 66, 70 and include two tabs 68, 72 in each respective end wall 66, 70”; Par. 0047, “With reference to FIG. 8, two further mating components include two tab receivers 38”; Par. 0052, “tabs 68, 72 engage the tab receivers 38, 46”; and Par. 0052, “Once the griddle insulation retainer 58 is positioned, it is pushed downwardly with the front wall tabs 68 and the rear wall tabs 72 engaging the front tab receivers 38 and the rear tab receivers 46”. See the Claim Interpretation section above for more details about how claim 3 is being interpreted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusion and slot of Kozinski ‘096 with the protrusion, tab, and slot as taught by Braden so the tab defining a slot is configured to receive the protrusion in a press-fit arrangement. This would provide the predicable result and benefit of reducing the need for hand tools during assembly (As suggested by Par. 0043 of Braden: “providing mating components that press-fit, preferably without the use of hand tools.”) which simplifies and/or makes assembly faster.
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 17 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 17 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinski (US 20230057096 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘096) in view of Kozinski ‘326 et al. (US 20200271326 A1, hereafter Kozinski ‘326) and further in view of Yantis (US20240353111A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10.
However, Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, does not disclose the console assembly further includes lower and rear cover members coupled with the first supporting end post respectively beneath and rearward the console body.
NOTE: The first supporting end post of Kozinski ‘096 (Fig. 2, first end plate 40) appears to have a tab for attachment with a rear structure, as shown in Fig. 5. Note that although Fig. 5 shows the mate between the console body 22 and the second end plate 42, Kozinski discloses the first end plate 40 and the second end plate 42 are substantially identical, i.e., mirrored, (Par. 36) so Fig. 5 is referenced for illustrative purposes.
Kozinski ‘326 further discloses the console assembly (Figs. 5-6, console 130) further includes lower (Figs. 5-6, lower rail 150) cover members coupled with a first supporting end post (Figs. 5-6, end cap 152) respectively beneath and above the console body (Par. 0035, “Frame 146 includes an upper rail 148 and a lower rail 150, which extend horizontally along lateral direction L between opposing end caps 152, 154 and are connected therewith”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the console assembly of Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, with the same of Kozinski ‘326 in order to have the console assembly includes lower cover members coupled with the first supporting end post respectively beneath the console body and thereby make it easier to access components within the console assembly, such as element control units 136, for easier and/or cheaper maintenance and cleaning.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a lower cover member since it has been held that making a claimed element separable was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 V-C, including:
“In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).”
However, Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, does not disclose the console assembly further includes a rear cover member coupled with the first supporting end post rearward the console body.
Yantis discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 100) similar to the present invention and Yantis further discloses it is known to have a console assembly (Fig. 1, control assembly 150) that includes a rear cover member (Figs. 3-4, rear wire cover 160) coupled with a first supporting end post (Fig. 3, second side panel 158 and Par. 0045, “the first rotation hook 172 and the second rotation hook 174, of the rear wire cover 160 may be inserted into the control assembly 150 to facilitate rotation of the rear wire cover 160 relative to the control assembly 150. In particular, the first rotation hook 172 may be inserted into a slot 178 defined by the first side panel 156, and similarly, the second rotation hook 174 may be inserted into a slot 176 defined by the second side panel 158.”) rearward the console body (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the console assembly of Kozinski ‘096, as modified above, with the same of Yantis in order to have a rear cover member coupled with the first supporting end post rearward the console body and thereby enclose the inside of the console assembly so that is inaccessible (As suggested by Par. 0036 of Yantis: “opening 171 may be closed by the rear wire cover 160 such that the control assembly 150, e.g., the interior thereof, may be fully enclosed and may be inaccessible”). This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing the amount of dust, debris, etc. that enters the inside of the console assembly and thereby increase the reliability of the console assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
‘402 (KR 101710402 B1) discloses it is known to have control units that are coupled to a console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame.
Best et al. (US 20170227231 A1) discloses it is known to have control units that are coupled to a console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame.
Huang (CN 207623831 U) discloses it is known to have a control unit that is coupled to a console body on an interior thereof without an internal support frame.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights