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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (EP 3267766) in view of Hanni et al (US 4,109,298).
Takahashi discloses the induction cooking hob claimed including at least one first board element (9) and at least one second board element (6) wherein each board comprises electrical components (as electrical connections are made therebetween via power lines 33) wherein a substrate of the second board element (which includes a holder 26) is engaged in non-parallel arrangement or that is orthogonal to the first board element that allows the second board element to be directly and mechanically coupled to the first board element (also, see Figures 2, 3 and 7), but Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the substrate of the second board element that extends within at least one recess of a substrate of the first board element as claimed.
Hanni discloses it is known to arrange a plurality of board elements including a first board element (2) and a second board element (1) wherein a substrate of the second board element extends within at least one recess (shown by an aperture 5 or 51) that allows the second board element to be orthogonally engaged (i.e., non-parallel shown by an angled portion 10) with a substrate of the first board element as illustrated in Figures 3b and 3c.
In view of Hanni, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi with the substrate of the second board member that extends within a recess of the substrate of the first board member, as an alternative arrangement, so that the second board member can be predictably arranged in a non-parallel arrangement providing a mechanically secured connection with the first board member while providing an electrical connection therebetween as known in the art.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 21, Hanni further discloses the second board member (1) having a projection portion (31 as shown in Figure 2) along with a cutout that is delimited by one or more bearing surfaces that engages with the first board member in a vertical and/or orthogonal arrangement when the projection portion is inserted in the recess (51) of the first board element.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Hanni discloses the recess (shown by an elongated aperture 51) having a width that accommodates a thickness of the substrate of the second board element, and it would have been obvious to provide the recess having the width being substantially identical to a thickness of second board element so that the second board element can be suitably accommodated within the width of the width for a secured fit therein.
With respect to claim 9, Hanni discloses the recess wherein a projection portion of the substrate of the second board element protrudes through the recess (also, see Figure 3a-3c), and while Hanni does not explicitly disclose the width of the recess to be .8 mm to 3.2 mm or the projection that protrudes 1 mm to 5 mm, it would have been obvious to provide the width and/or protrusion having the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentations or optimization to optimize a suitable width or protrusion that allows for a secured fit between the first board element and the second board element which also can provide for a desired electrical connection therebetween.
With respect to claim 10, Hanni discloses the projection portion (3 or 31) of the second board element (1) comprising a plurality of conductors (4) wherein a part or all of the conductors are electrically connected and fixed with respective corresponding conductors (6) of the first board element (2; also, see Figures 1 and 2)
With respect to claim 11, Hanni discloses the form of the projection portion that is formed or inserted in the recess to position and fix the conductors of the projection with the conductors of the first board by soldering (also, see Abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Hanni discloses the second board (1) arranged in a peripheral region of the first board element (2) such that a longitudinal extension of the second board element is substantially parallel to a peripheral edge of the first board and/or orthogonal to a second peripheral edge of the first board element as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claim 13, Hanni discloses an additional board element such as a third board element (Figures 3b and 3d) that can be coupled to the first board element in the same way as the second board element, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi with a third board element or any other suitable board elements provided on different peripheral regions of the first board element wherein the third board element can be used to provide additional electronic components for operating the induction cooking just as Hanni discloses for a use of multiple printed circuit/wiring boards coupled to the first board element which would predictably allow a user to provide additional circuitry to meet a demand or used of the cooking hob, and while Hanni does not show a region of the first board between the second board element and the peripheral edge with no circuitry in the region, it would have been obvious to provide no circuitry in the peripheral edge of the first board and the second board element as a matter of a design choice to prevent and limit a circuitry being close to an edge of the first board element which can be more prone to damages and thus protect the circuitry of the first board element.
With respect to claim 14, Takahashi discloses the first board element and the second board element surface mounted components, and Hanni further shows it is known for a surface mounted component (8) that is through hole mounted as illustrated in Figure 3a wherein it would have been obvious to provide the first board and second board element with through hole mounted electronic components which is a known method by which electronic component such surface mounted devices are mounted on the printed circuit board as well known in the art.
With respect to claim 15, Takahashi discloses the induction cooking hob including the first board element and the second board element but does not explicitly show through hole mounted components.
Hanni discloses it is known to provide first and second board elements which are soldered including a through hole mounted component (8) which is also soldered.
Thus, in view of Hanni, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi with the first and second elements, which would include soldered through hole mounted components such as electronic components as taught by Hanni, for operating the cooking hob wherein the second board element s along with the through hole mounted components are soldered to the first board element in one soldering step to provide for an electrical as well as mechanical connection therebetween to predictably for an assembled first and second board element for its use in an operation of the cooking hob as disclosed in Takahashi.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Hani as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-15 and 21 above and further in view of Jeanneteau et al (US 2021/02677021) and Parachini et al (US 2019/0297686).
With respect to claim 2, Takahashi in view of Hani discloses the first board element (9) including a driver circuit that provides power (para 0031) and the second board element including a relay switch (32) for controlling or switching power connection to the induction hob (para 0046), but does not explicitly disclose that the first and second board elements are printed circuit boards.
Jeanneteau discloses a printed circuit board including a drive circuit for supplying power to an induction cooking hob(also, see Abstract and para 0012).
Parachini discloses for a printer circuit board as a control board (46; para 0035) for communicating a control signal for controlling an induction cooking hob.
In view of Jeanneteau and Parachini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi, as modified by Hani, with the first and second board elements that are provided with a printed circuit board PCB that is known to include electronic components in a compact circuit arrangement that allows power as well as control signals to be supplied to an induction cooking hob for its operating as desired.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Hani as applied to claims 1, 6-15 and 21 above and further in view of Matsuoka (US 2019/02884419) and Toth et al (US 2016/0223178).
With respect to claim 3, Takahashi in view of Hani discloses the cooking hob claimed including the first board element (9) and the second board element as claimed, but Takahashi does not explicitly disclose that the first board element comprises a paper based epoxy composite including at least one woven glass fabric and the second board comprising a glass reinforced epoxy laminate.
Matsuoka discloses it is known to provide a circuit board comprising a paper epoxy which further includes a glass woven fabric (para 0010).
Toth discloses it is known to provide a circuit board that is made of a glass reinforced epoxy laminate that provides a good heat dissipation (para 0012).
In view of Matsuoka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi, as modified by Hani, with the first board element comprising a paper epoxy composite having a layer of woven glass fabric that provides for a stiff board that can predictably provide for a mechanically strong/rigid board element that can withstand mechanical forces; and in view of Toth, it would have been obvious to further adapt the second board element of Takahashi with a glass reinforced epoxy laminate to predictably allow the board element to more effectively dissipate heat to prevent heating or overheating from electronic components that are known to be mounted thereon.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Hani as applied to claims 1, 6-15 and 21 above and further in view of Hassemer et al (US 2019/0098758).
With respect to claim 5, Takahashi in view of Hani discloses the cooking hob claimed including the first board element (9) and the second board element each having a substrate element but does not show that the substrate element of the second board element is soldered to the substrate element of the first board member and additionally with an adhesive as claimed.
Hassemer discloses it is known to fasten or assemble a first printed circuit board and a second printed circuit board with soldering and/or adhesive (para 0083).
In view of Hassemer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi, as modified by Hani, with the substrate of the second board element that is fastened to the first board element not only with soldering but additionally also with adhesive which would predicably provide a stronger and more secured attachment of the second board member with the first board member.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (EP 3267766) in view of Jeanneteau et al (US 2021/02677021), Parachini et al (US 2019/0297686), and Hanni et al (US 4,109,298).
With respect to claim 16, Takahashi discloses the induction cooking hob claimed including at least one first board element (9) and at least one second board element (6) wherein each board comprises electrical components (as electrical connections are made therebetween via power lines 33) wherein a substrate of the second board element (which includes a holder 26) is engaged in non-parallel arrangement or orthogonal to the first board element that allows the second board element to be directly and mechanically coupled to the first board element (also, see Figures 2, 3 and 7), and Takahashi further discloses that the first board element (9) is a driver circuit that provides power (para 0031) and the second board element including a relay switch (32) for controlling or switching power connection to the induction hob (para 0046). But, Takahashi t does not explicitly disclose that the first and second board elements are a printed circuit board, or that the substrate of the second board element comprising a projection portion and a plurality of conductors that are configured to be connected to respective corresponding conductors on the first board element, the projection passing through a recess of the first board element wherein the substrate element of the second board element is directly soldered to the substrate element of the first board element as claimed.
Jeanneteau discloses a printed circuit board including a drive circuit for supplying power to an induction cooking hob(also, see Abstract and para 0012).
Parachini discloses for a printer circuit board as a control board (46; para 0035) for communicating a control signal for controlling an induction cooking hob.
Hanni discloses it is known to arrange a plurality of board elements including a first board element (2) and a second board element (1) wherein a substrate of the second board element extends within at least one recess (shown by an aperture 5 or 51) that allows the second board element to be orthogonally engaged (i.e., non-parallel shown by an angled portion 10) with a substrate of the first board element as illustrated in Figures 1, 3b and 3c wherein the substrate of the second board element is soldered to the substrate of the first board element.
In view of Jeanneteau and Parachini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi with the first and second board elements that are provided with a printed circuit board PCB that is known to include electronic components in a compact circuit arrangement that allows power as well as control signals to be supplied to an induction cooking hob for its operating as desired; and in view of Hanni, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further adapt Takahashi with the substrate of the second board member that extends within a recess of the substrate of the first board member, as an alternative arrangement, so that the second board member can be predictably arranged in a mechanically secured connection with the first board member via soldering that is known in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Hanni further discloses the second board member (1) having a projection portion (31 as shown in Figure 2) along with a cutout that is delimited by one or more bearing surfaces that engage with the first board member when the projection portion is inserted in the recess (51) of the first board element.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Hanni discloses the recess (shown by an elongated aperture 51) having a width that accommodates a thickness of the substrate of the second board element, and it would have been obvious to provide the recess having the width being substantially identical to a thickness of second board element so that the second board element can be suitably accommodated within the width of the recess for a secured fit therein.
With respect to claim 19, Hanni discloses the second board (1) arranged in a peripheral region of the first board element (2) such that a longitudinal extension of the second board element is substantially parallel to a peripheral edge of the first board and/or orthogonal to a second peripheral edge of the first board element as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claim 20, Hanni discloses an additional board element such as a third board element (Figures 3b and 3d) that can be coupled to the first board element in the same way as the second board element, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Takahashi with a third board element or any other suitable board elements provided on different peripheral regions of the first board element wherein the third board element can be used to provide additional electronic components for operating the induction cooking just as Hanni discloses for a use of multiple printed circuit/wiring boards coupled to the first board element which would predictably allow a user to provide additional circuitry to meet a demand or used of the cooking hob, and while Hanni does not show a region of the first board between the second board element and the peripheral edge with no circuitry in the region, it would have been obvious to provide no circuitry in the peripheral edge of the first board and the second board element as a matter of a design choice to prevent and limit a circuitry being close to an edge of the first board element which can be more prone to damages and thus protect the circuitry of the first board element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takahashi fails to disclose or suggest that its second board element is mounted to the first board element such that a substrate of the second board element is non-parallel to a substrate of the first board element wherein it would not have been obvious to combine Takahashi with Hani since it would not have been obvious for the second board element to provide a flat, horizontal heating surface for cooking.
It is noted that Takahashi shows the second board element that is engaged with the first board element in an orthogonal relationship via a holder element of the second board element wherein the substrate of the second board element, when modified by Hani, can be directly engaged with the substrate of the first board element that provides not only for a mechanical connection but also for an electrical connection there between as an arrangement as stated in the ground of rejection. It is noted that as Hani allows a part of the substrate of the second board element to be bent (shown by the angled portion 10) to provide for a compact arrangement of the first and second board elements (also, see Figures 3b and 3c of Hanni) wherein the combination would also allow the second board element of Takahashi to provide for a flat, horizontal heating surface for cooking.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujima et al (US 2021/0267056) and Reniers (US 6,661,674) that disclose for a second printed circuit board that is orthogonally provided with a first printed circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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 W. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights