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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 05/22/2026. Claims 15-17, 19-31, 33-36 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 15-16 and 30 have been amended; claims 1-14, 18, 32 cancelled; claims 35-36 have been newly added.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and the Specifications filed 05/22/2026 have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 05/22/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026. See details in the Claim Interpretation section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 05/22/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding independent claims 15 and 30 – see details on pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 05/22/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art on record Alaman et al. (EP 3223586 A1) does not teach the limitation “wherein the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate” that was added to the independent claims 15 and 30, see details on pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 05/22/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the prior art record Alaman et al. does not teach the limitation “wherein the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate” that was added to the independent claims 15 and 30, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Applicant is treating “at least substantially thermally insulated” as meaning no heating conduction; however, the Instant Application itself does not define it that way. Instead, Par.0015 of the Specification of the Instant Application expressly defines the “at least substantially thermally insulated” in terms of relative thermal resistance, not the absence of heat transfer. Specifically, the Instant Application does not define the claimed limitation “at least substantially thermally insulated” as requiring no heat transfer between the second region and the mounting plate. Rather, the Instant Application expressly explains that “the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate” means that the second thermal resistance between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate because Par.0015 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “It is further proposed that the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate. In particular, the second thermal resistance between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate.”. In this case, Alaman discloses the contact area between the second region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the hob plate 12a is smaller than the contact area between the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the hob plate 12a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for conductive heat transfer through the same materials, reducing the contact area increases the conductive thermal resistance because the available heat-transfer path is reduced. Accordingly, the thermal resistance between the second region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the hob plate 12a is greater than the thermal resistance between the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the hob plate 12a. Under the definition provided in Par.0015 of the Instant Application, the second region is therefore at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate. Accordingly, Alaman properly discloses all limitations recited in the independent claims 15 and 30.
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments for dependent claims 16-17, 20-25, 31 are the same as provided for the independent claims 15 and 30; therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claims 15 and 30 generally applies to dependent claims 16-17, 20-25, 31.
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding dependent claims 19, 26-29, 33-34 – see details on page 15 of the Remarks dated 05/22/2026)
Applicant alleged that “Martin does not remedy the above-discussed deficiencies of Alaman. In particular, it would not have been obvious to combine any insulating feature of Martin with the device of Alaman to suggest "wherein the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate," as recited in claim 15, from which claims 19 and 26-29 depend. Similarly, it would not have been obvious to combine any insulating feature of Martin with the device of Alaman to suggest "wherein the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate," as recited in claim 30, from which claims 33 and 34 depend.”, see details on page 15 of the Remarks dated 05/22/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the actual rejection. The rejection does not propose thermally insulating the entirety of Alaman’s temperature compensation unit from the hob plate. Rather, the rejection relies on Martin for teaching a localized thermal insulation medium positioned between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the hob plate, while the remaining portion of the thermal distribution unit remains thermally coupled to the hob plate. Thus, the modification preserves Alaman’s temperature compensation function while selectively modifying the heat transfer characteristics of only the claimed second region. Additionally, the modification is explicitly supported by Martin’s teachings. Martin teaches providing an insulation unit containing air to thermally isolated a selected portion of the assembly, thereby reducing thermal stresses in the hob plate while maintaining overall temperature compensation function of the temperature compensation unit. Martin further explains that localized thermal insulation provides a more favorable thermal stress distribution across the hob plate and reduces thermally induced mechanical loading, thereby improving durability and reducing the likelihood of damage to the hob plate. Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Examiner insist the rationale of the combination of Alaman and Martin is proper because in the instant case, the purpose of combining Alaman and Martin is not defeated, for, at least, the benefits of selectively controlling the thermal conduction path between the thermal distribution unit and the hob plate, reducing localized thermal gradients and resulting thermal stresses, reducing thermally induced mechanical strain and deformation of the hob plate, improving temperature distribution across the hob plate, reducing the likelihood of crack initiation caused by thermal shock, increasing the operational durability and service life of the hob plate, and improving thermal management while maintaining the overall heat distribution function of Alaman’s temperature compensation unit. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”.
Importantly, the modification does not render Alaman inoperable or defeat its intended purpose. Rather, it represents a predictable optimization of heat flow through different regions of the thermal distribution unit. Alaman already seeks to reduce thermal gradients in order to reduce thermal stress and improve durability of the hob plate. Martin teaches that selective thermal insulation provides an additional mechanism for controlling heat transfer to achieve the same engineering objective. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Alaman’s thermal distribution unit to include the Martin’s localized thermal insulation medium between the claimed second region and the hob plate in order to selectively control heat transfer, reduce thermal stress, improve thermal distribution, and increase the durability of the hob plate while preserving Alaman’s overall temperature compensation function.
Therefore, Alaman in view of Martin properly teaches all limitations recited in the claim 19. It is noted that claim 33 is of the same scope as claim 19. Therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 19 generally applies to claim 33.
Furthermore, regarding claims 26-29 and 34, Applicant alleged that “it would not have been obvious to combine any insulating feature of Martin with the device of Alaman” – see details on page 15 of the Remarks dated 05/22/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Examiner did not incorporate any insulating feature of Martin into the rejections of claims 26-29 and 34. In contrast, regarding claims 26-29 and 34, the heat transfer element, i.e., the fastening unit 22a consists thermally conductive silicone material of Martin, was incorporated into the primary reference Alaman, to fix the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate. As shown in Martin Fig.2, the fastening unit 22a secures the temperature compensation unit 18a to the hob plate. Martin further teaches that the fastening unit is preferably formed from a thermally conductive silicone material having sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat while providing secure attachment and accommodation thermal expansion of the components, see Martin Translated Document on page 5, paragraph 3 teaches: “In addition, it is proposed that the fastening unit consists at least to a large extent of in particular thermally conductive silicone.”. Accordingly, incorporating Martin’s fastening unit into Alaman would not eliminate Alaman’s heat transfer mechanism or render Alaman inoperable. Instead, the fastening unit would continue to thermally couple the temperature compensation unit to the mounting plate while simultaneously providing the mechanical and thermal advantages recognized by Martin.
Moreover, in the instant case, the purpose of combining Alaman and Martin is not defeated, for, at least, the benefits of providing secure mechanical attachment of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate, thereby improving positional stability during repeated heating and cooling cycles; maintaining reliable thermal contact between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate over long term operation despite thermal expansion and contraction; accommodating different thermal expansion between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate through compliant silicone fastening material, thereby reducing interface stresses and minimizing stress concentration; reducing the likelihood of delamination, separation, loosening, or fatigue failure at the interface during repeated heating operation; and improving the overall durability and service life of the cooking appliance by reducing thermally induced mechanical stresses. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 26-29 and 34 are not persuasive.
Therefore, Alaman in view of Martin properly teaches all limitations recited in claims 26-29 and 34.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“thermal distribution unit designed to distribute heat” in claim 15 (line 4), and “thermal distribution unit” in claim 16 (line 2), claim 17 (line 2), claim 19 (line 2), claim 20 (lines 1-2), claim 21 (line 2), claim 23 (lines 2-3), claim 24 (line 2), claim 25 (line 2), claim 26 (line 2), claim 27 (line 2), claim 28 (line 2), claim 29 (line 2), claim 30 (lines 2-3, 4, 6), claim 31 (line 2), claim 33 (line 2), claim 34 (line 2). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “designed to distribute heat” / “thermal distribution” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “thermal distribution unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “thermal distribution unit” will be interpreted as a flat piece that comprises material with a thermal conductivity coefficient of at least 50 W/(m*K) such as copper, and is capable of being connected to the mounting plate, and equivalents, as shown in Figs.2-3, 7-8 [thermal distribution unit 14a-c] and described in Par.0020 of the Instant Application.
“heat transfer element connecting the first region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 26 (lines 1-2),
“heat transfer element connecting the third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 27 (lines 1-3),
“heat transfer element fixes the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 28 (lines 1-2) & claim 29 (lines 1-2),
“connecting the first region and a third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate via a heat transfer element” in claim 34 (lines 1-3).
These limitations use generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “connecting the first region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 26, “connecting the third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 27, “fixes the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claims 28 & 29, “connecting the first region and a third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate” in claim 34 (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “heat transfer element” will be interpreted as “silicone” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0024: “It is further proposed that the heat transfer element fixes the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate. It might be conceivable that the heat transfer element comprises at least one thermally conductive silicone, which fixes the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate. It might also be conceivable that the heat transfer element entirely consists of thermally conductive silicone, which fixes the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15-17, 20-25, 30-31, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alaman et al. (EP 3223586 A1, Published 09/27/2017, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Alaman discloses a cooking system (cooktop 10a, Alaman Figs.1-2), in particular an induction cooking system (Alaman Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 4 discloses the cooktop is induction cooktop), said cooking system (cooktop 10a, Alaman Figs.1-2) comprising:
a mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2); and
a thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) designed to distribute heat (Alaman Translated Document on page 7 – last paragraph discloses: “The temperature compensation unit 16a substantially reduces a temperature gradient of the hob plate 12a between the installation area 14a and the area 18a surrounding the installation area 14a.”, and Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 1 discloses: “The temperature compensation unit 16a adjusts the temperature gradient of the cooktop panel 12a between the installation area 14a and the surrounding area 18a to substantially 15 K / mm in a horizontal direction 20a aligned parallel to a main extension plane of the cooktop panel 12a.”) and including a first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the first region is formed by portions of the three temperature compensation elements 26a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a first thermal resistance to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the first region has a first thermal resistance to the plate 12a), and a second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the second region is formed by portions of two temperature compensation element 26a and four further temperature compensation elements 28a , as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a second thermal resistance to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a & the further temperature compensation elements 28a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the second region has a second thermal resistance to the plate 12a), the second thermal resistance substantially deviating from the first thermal resistance (it is noted that the thermal resistance depends on contact area, thus, the second thermal resistance substantially deviating from the first thermal resistance because the contact area of the first region to the plate 12a is different from the contact area of the second region to the plate 12a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (Examiner’s Note: Since the Instant Application defines “It is further proposed that the thermal distribution unit has at least one third region having a third thermal resistance to the mounting plate, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance. "At least substantially" in this context is intended to be understood to mean that a deviation from a predetermined value, in particular, deviates by less than 25%, preferably less than 10% and particularly preferably less than 5% of the predetermined value.” in Par.0017 of the Instant Application, thus, the “substantially deviating” is understood to be deviated by at least more than 25%),
wherein the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (It is noted that the Instant Application defines the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate as “It is further proposed that the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate. In particular, the second thermal resistance between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate.” in Specification Par.0015 of the Instant Application. In this case, the second thermal resistance between the second region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the plate 12a is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the plate 12a because the contact area between the second region and the plate 12a is smaller than the contact area between the first region and the plate 12a; therefore, the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the plate 12a).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) is designed to absorb heat from a heating zone (area 14a, Alaman Figs.1-2) of the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 4 discloses: “The heat dissipated from the installation area 14a leads to the temperature compensation unit 16a of the hob plate 12a in the surrounding area 18a. The temperature compensation unit 16a removes heat from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a and supplies the heat taken from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a to the cooktop panel 12a in the surrounding area 18a.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) is thermally conductively connected to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 4 discloses: “The heat dissipated from the installation area 14a leads to the temperature compensation unit 16a of the hob plate 12a in the surrounding area 18a. The temperature compensation unit 16a removes heat from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a and supplies the heat taken from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a to the cooktop panel 12a in the surrounding area 18a.”, and since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a is thermally conductively connected to the plate 12a).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) includes a third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the third region is formed by portions of the three temperature compensation elements 26a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a third thermal resistance to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the third region has a third thermal resistance to the plate 12a), the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance (It is noted that the Instant Application defines “substantially corresponding” as “It is further proposed that the thermal distribution unit has at least one third region having a third thermal resistance to the mounting plate, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance. "At least substantially" in this context is intended to be understood to mean that a deviation from a predetermined value, in particular, deviates by less than 25%, preferably less than 10% and particularly preferably less than 5% of the predetermined value.”, as indicated by Specification Par.0017 of the Instant Application. In this case, it is noted that the thermal resistance depends on contact area, thus, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance because the contact area of the third region to the plate 12a is substantially the same as the contact area of the first region to the plate 12a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below and because the second region divide the circular temperature compensation unit 16a into two portions that are approximately equal to each other, each has a substantially semicircle shape, the substantially semicircle on the left is interpreted as the first region and the substantially semicircle on the right is interpreted as the third region, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) is designed to discharge heat to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 4 discloses: “The heat dissipated from the installation area 14a leads to the temperature compensation unit 16a of the hob plate 12a in the surrounding area 18a. The temperature compensation unit 16a removes heat from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a and supplies the heat taken from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a to the cooktop panel 12a in the surrounding area 18a.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) is arranged between the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) and the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) is designed to conduct heat from the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) to the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (since the temperature compensation elements 26a & the further temperature compensation elements 28a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], and the second region is arranged in between the first region and the third region; thus, the second region conducts heat from the first region to the third region).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) and the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) extend in a common plane (as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 24, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) extends at least to a large extent outside the common plane (Alaman annotated Fig.1 below shows the second region extends at least to a large extent outside the common plane of the first and the third regions), in a further plane parallel to the common plane (Alaman annotated Fig.1 below shows the second region extends at least to a large extent outside the common plane of the first and the third regions, in a further plane parallel to the common plane).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Alaman discloses a method for installing a cooking system (cooktop 10a, Alaman Figs.1-2), in particular an induction cooking system (Alaman Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 4 discloses the cooktop is induction cooktop), with the cooking system (cooktop 10a, Alaman Figs.1-2) comprising a mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) and a thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2), said method comprising:
connecting a first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the first region is formed by portions of the three temperature compensation elements 26a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2), with the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a first thermal resistance (since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the first region has a first thermal resistance); and
arranging a second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the second region is formed by portions of two temperature compensation element 26a and four further temperature compensation elements 28a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) on the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2), with the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a second thermal resistance (since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a & the further temperature compensation elements 28a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the second region has a second thermal resistance to the plate 12a) which substantially deviates from the first thermal resistance (it is noted that the thermal resistance depends on contact area, thus, the second thermal resistance substantially deviating from the first thermal resistance because the contact area of the first region is different from the contact area of the second region, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (Examiner’s Note: Since the Instant Application defines “It is further proposed that the thermal distribution unit has at least one third region having a third thermal resistance to the mounting plate, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance. "At least substantially" in this context is intended to be understood to mean that a deviation from a predetermined value, in particular, deviates by less than 25%, preferably less than 10% and particularly preferably less than 5% of the predetermined value.” in Par.0017 of the Instant Application, thus, the “substantially deviates” is understood to be deviated by at least more than 25%),
wherein the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (It is noted that the Instant Application defines the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate as “It is further proposed that the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the mounting plate. In particular, the second thermal resistance between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate.” in Specification Par.0015 of the Instant Application. In this case, the second thermal resistance between the second region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the plate 12a is substantially greater relative to the first thermal resistance between the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a and the plate 12a because the contact area between the second region and the plate 12a is smaller than the contact area between the first region and the plate 12a; therefore, the second region is at least substantially thermally insulated from the plate 12a).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Alaman discloses the method set forth in claim 30, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) is thermally conductively connected to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2) (Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 4 discloses: “The heat dissipated from the installation area 14a leads to the temperature compensation unit 16a of the hob plate 12a in the surrounding area 18a. The temperature compensation unit 16a removes heat from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a and supplies the heat taken from the cooktop panel 12a in the installation area 14a to the cooktop panel 12a in the surrounding area 18a.”, and since temperature compensation unit 16a is mounted to the plate 12a [Alaman Figs.1-2 & Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 5] and the temperature compensation elements 26a comprise silver [Alaman Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph], thus, the first region of the temperature compensation unit 16a is thermally conductively connected to the plate 12a).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below), the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below), and the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) are formed as a single continuous unit (Alaman annotated Fig.1 below shows the first region, the second region, and the third region are formed as a single continuous unit).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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 19, 26-29, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alaman et al. (EP 3223586 A1, Published 09/27/2017, previously cited) in view of Martin et al. (WO 2019058202 A1, Published 03/28/2019, previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Alaman does not explicitly disclose further comprising
a thermal insulation medium arranged between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate.
Martin teaches a cooking system (cooking system 10c, Martin Fig.5), in particular an induction cooking system (Martin Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 3 teaches the cooking system is induction cooking system), said cooking system (cooking system 10c, Martin Fig.5) comprising:
a thermal insulation medium (insulation unit 24c consists air, Martin Fig.5) (Martin Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4 teaches: “the insulation unit could consist at least largely of silicone and / or of air”) arranged between the second region (formation 72c, Martin Fig.5) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18c, Martin Fig.5) and the mounting plate (mounting plate 12c, Martin Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking system of Alaman, by adding the thermal insulation medium arrange between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate, as taught by Martin, in order to effectively reduce thermal stresses, as recognized by Martin [Martin, Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4]. Thus, prevent overheating-related component failure, potential cracking of the mounting plate surface; and extend the overall lifespan of the cooking system. Reducing thermal stresses also ensures optimal performance, reduces maintenance costs, and enhances safety by preventing malfunctions.
Regarding claim 26, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 15, Alaman does not explicitly disclose further comprising
a heat transfer element connecting the first region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate.
Martin teaches a cooking system (cooking system 10a, Martin Fig.2), in particular an induction cooking system (Martin Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 3 teaches the cooking system is induction cooking system), said cooking system (cooking system 10a, Martin Fig.5) comprising:
a heat transfer element (fastening unit 22a consists silicone, Martin Fig.2) (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “heat transfer element”; in this case, Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “the fastening unit 22a consists for the most part of silicone”) connecting the first region of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18a, Martin Fig.2) to the mounting plate (mounting plate 12a, Martin Fig.2) (since the fastening unit 22a connecting the entire temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a, thus, it connecting the first region of the temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking system of Alaman, by adding the heat transfer element connecting the first region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate, as taught by Martin, in order to provide precise, stable connection between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate of the induction cooktop, thus, maximize the conductivity between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate. This allows the temperature compensation unit to effectively reduce temperature differences across the mounting plate, preventing localized hot spots and reducing thermal stresses.
Regarding claim 27, Alaman discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 20, Alaman does not explicitly disclose
a heat transfer element connecting the third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate.
Martin teaches a cooking system (cooking system 10a, Martin Fig.2), in particular an induction cooking system (Martin Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 3 teaches the cooking system is induction cooking system), said cooking system (cooking system 10a, Martin Fig.5) comprising:
a heat transfer element (fastening unit 22a consists silicone, Martin Fig.2) (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “heat transfer element”; in this case, Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “the fastening unit 22a consists for the most part of silicone”) connecting the third region of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18a, Martin Fig.2) to the mounting plate (mounting plate 12a, Martin Fig.2) (since the fastening unit 22a connecting the entire temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a, thus, it connecting the third region of the temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking system of Alaman, by adding the heat transfer element connecting the third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate, as taught by Martin, in order to provide precise, stable connection between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate of the induction cooktop, thus, maximize the conductivity between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate. This allows the temperature compensation unit to effectively reduce temperature differences across the mounting plate, preventing localized hot spots and reducing thermal stresses.
Regarding claim 28, Alaman in view of Martin teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 26, Martin also teaches:
wherein the heat transfer element (fastening unit 22a consists silicone, Martin Fig.2; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 26 above) (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “heat transfer element”; in this case, Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “the fastening unit 22a consists for the most part of silicone”) fixes the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18a, Martin Fig.2) to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Martin Fig.2) (Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “In an assembled state, the fastening unit 22a fastens the temperature compensation unit 18a at least materially to the mounting plate 12a. The fixing unit 22a fixes the temperature compensation unit 18a in an assembled state by means of an adhesive connection to the mounting plate 12a.”).
Regarding claim 29, Alaman in view of Martin teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 27, Martin also teaches:
wherein the heat transfer element (fastening unit 22a consists silicone, Martin Fig.2; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 27 above) (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “heat transfer element”; in this case, Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “the fastening unit 22a consists for the most part of silicone”) fixes the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18a, Martin Fig.2) to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Martin Fig.2) (Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “In an assembled state, the fastening unit 22a fastens the temperature compensation unit 18a at least materially to the mounting plate 12a. The fixing unit 22a fixes the temperature compensation unit 18a in an assembled state by means of an adhesive connection to the mounting plate 12a.”)
Regarding claim 33, Alaman discloses the method set forth in claim 30, Alaman does not explicitly disclose further comprising
arranging a thermal insulation medium between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate.
Martin teaches a method for installing a cooking system (cooking system 10c, Martin Fig.5), in particular an induction cooking system (Martin Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 3 teaches the cooking system is induction cooking system), said method comprising:
arranging a thermal insulation medium (insulation unit 24c consists air, Martin Fig.5) (Martin Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4 teaches: “the insulation unit could consist at least largely of silicone and / or of air”) between the second region (formation 72c, Martin Fig.5) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18c, Martin Fig.5) and the mounting plate (mounting plate 12c, Martin Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alaman, by adding the teaching of arranging thermal insulation medium between the second region of the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate, as taught by Martin, in order to effectively reduce thermal stresses, as recognized by Martin [Martin, Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4]. Thus, prevent overheating-related component failure, potential cracking of the mounting plate surface; and extend the overall lifespan of the cooking system. Reducing thermal stresses also ensures optimal performance, reduces maintenance costs, and enhances safety by preventing malfunctions.
Regarding claim 34, Alaman discloses the method set forth in claim 30, Alaman also discloses:
further comprising connecting the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) and a third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the third region is formed by portions of the three temperature compensation elements 26a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 16a, Alaman Figs.1-2) to the mounting plate (plate 12a, Alaman Figs.1-2), with the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) having a third thermal resistance which at least substantially corresponds to the first thermal resistance (It is noted that the Instant Application defines “substantially corresponding” as “It is further proposed that the thermal distribution unit has at least one third region having a third thermal resistance to the mounting plate, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance. "At least substantially" in this context is intended to be understood to mean that a deviation from a predetermined value, in particular, deviates by less than 25%, preferably less than 10% and particularly preferably less than 5% of the predetermined value.”, as indicated by Specification Par.0017 of the Instant Application. In this case, it is noted that the thermal resistance depends on contact area, thus, the third thermal resistance at least substantially corresponding to the first thermal resistance because the contact area of the third region to the plate 12a is substantially the same as the contact area of the first region to the plate 12a, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below and because the second region divide the circular temperature compensation unit 16a into two portions that are approximately equal to each other, each has a substantially semicircle shape, the substantially semicircle on the left is interpreted as the first region and the substantially semicircle on the right is interpreted as the third region, as shown in Alaman annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alaman does not explicitly disclose:
connecting the first region and a third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate via a heat transfer element
Martin teaches a method for installing a cooking system (cooking system 10a, Martin Fig.2), in particular an induction cooking system (Martin Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 3 teaches the cooking system is induction cooking system), said method comprising:
connecting the first region and a third region of the thermal distribution unit (temperature compensation unit 18a, Martin Fig.2) to the mounting plate (mounting plate 12a, Martin Fig.2) via a heat transfer element (fastening unit 22a consists silicone, Martin Fig.2) (See the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “heat transfer element”; in this case, Martin Translated Document on page 8 – paragraph 8 teaches: “the fastening unit 22a consists for the most part of silicone”. It is noted that since the fastening unit 22a connecting the entire temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a, thus, it connecting the first region and the third region of the temperature compensation unit 18a to the plate 12a)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alaman, by adding the teaching of connecting the first region and a third region of the thermal distribution unit to the mounting plate via heat transfer element, as taught by Martin, in order to provide precise, stable connection between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate of the induction cooktop, thus, maximize the conductivity between the thermal distribution unit and the mounting plate. This allows the temperature compensation unit to effectively reduce temperature differences across the mounting plate, preventing localized hot spots and reducing thermal stresses.
Regarding claim 35, Alaman in view of Martin teaches the method set forth in claim 34, Alaman also discloses:
wherein the first region (first region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below), the second region (second region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below), and the third region (third region, Alaman annotated Fig.1 below) are formed as a single continuous unit (Alaman annotated Fig.1 below shows the first region, the second region, and the third region are formed as a single continuous unit).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sykes (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0161952 A1) discloses a multi-zone cooking surface with separate, discrete zones that are thermally isolated from one another. The individual cooking zones are separated by a gap that is filled with a thermally insulating material. Each zone can have an independent associated temperature control.
Shaffer (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0255658 A1) discloses a cooktop for a cooking appliance including a glass ceramic plate, the glass ceramic plate providing a cooking surface and having an instrumentation opening. A low thermal expansion metallic sleeve is inserted into the opening and a high temperature ceramic cement is used to bond the sleeve to the glass ceramic plate.
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 extension fee 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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/25/2026
Prosecution Insights