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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant is thanked for their June 5, 2026 response to the Office Action filed April 9, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 10, 19, and 20 have overcome the previously set forth rejections to these claims under 35 USC 112(b) and those rejections are therefore withdrawn.
With respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112(a) regarding new matter, Applicant’s amendments have addressed the portion of the rejection related to the limitation “wherein when both of said first and second cooking zones are in operation as determined from either or both the user interface or from said first and second sensors, said actuator unit is configured to adjust the position of said cover element in order that respective portions of the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross-sectional area adjacent to both said first and second cooking stations are approximately equal” in claim 19 and the limitation “when all of the first, second, third and fourth cooking zones are in operation as determined from either or both the user interface or from said respective sensors, said actuator unit is configured to adjust the position of said cover element in order that respective portions of the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross-sectional area adjacent to all of said first, second, third and fourth cooking stations are approximately equal” in claim 20. However, the rejections related to adjusting the position of the cover element “in order to maximize the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross-sectional area adjacent to the one or more of said cooking stations in use during one or more cooking operations” and “respective sensors associated with each of said cooking stations, configured to measure a cooking parameter associated with cooking the food in the respective cooking station” in claim 19 have not been overcome and are maintained in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “in parallel to a said reference plane” should read “in parallel to said reference plane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “said control unit being configured to operate said actuator unit to adjust the position of said cover element in order to maximize the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross- sectional area adjacent to the one or more of said cooking stations in use during one or more cooking operations.” Although the original disclosure discusses optimizing recess access for extracted air, it does not disclose that such optimization is achieved by maximizing “the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross-sectional area adjacent to the one or more of said cooking stations in use during one or more cooking operations,” as claimed.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “respective sensors associated with each of said cooking stations”. The included drawings, specifically Fig 1, Fig 2a, and Fig 4, show two sensors (60.1 and 60.2) on the cooktop surface near, and potentially associated with two of the cooking stations, both of which are located on the same side of the recess. No sensors are shown near or associated with the other two cooking stations on the right side of the figure. Two other sensors, 60.3 and 60.4, are shown in the flow channel 32 and not associated with a cooking station. The written specification also fails to disclose that each of the cooking stations has a respective sensor associated with it.
Since the original disclosure fails to adequately disclose these limitations, they constitute new matter and are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 20 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 19.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10-12, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102018209259 by Chartrel et al (hereinafter “Chartrel”).
Regarding claim 1, Chartrel discloses an extraction device for the extraction of fumes and/or vapours, the extraction device being arranged or configured to be arranged below a worktop or a cover plate (Fig 2 extractor hood 11 arranged below worktop 20), the extraction device comprising:
a blower unit and a flow channel (paragraph [0011]) for guiding fumes and/or vapours from an upper space through an inlet opening (Fig 2 intake opening 110) in a direction toward the blower unit, the inlet opening having an inlet opening cross-section and being arranged or configured to be arranged in or at a recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate (Fig 2 inlet opening 110 in worktop 20), wherein the upper space is defined by an area upstream of the inlet opening above the worktop or cover plate (Fig 2), and
an inlet cavity or inlet shaft arranged at the inlet opening on a lower space defined by an area downstream of the inlet opening opposite to the upper space with reference to the worktop or cover plate (Fig 2 duct leading from inlet opening 110 to blower),
wherein the inlet cavity or inlet shaft is in flow connection or in flow communication with the flow channel and comprises a drive unit and a cover element (Fig 2 cover plate 100 and associated drive unit; paragraph [0050]), and
wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated to partially cover the inlet opening cross-section by the drive unit and/or dependent on at least one parameter relating to the extraction device (cover element 100 moves from the position in Fig 1 where it partially covers the inlet opening to the position in Fig 2; paragraph [0051] drive unit of cover element 100 is automatically actuated when fan is switched off, i.e. dependent on the operating state of the blower unit), and
wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated translationally and/or rotationally (Fig 1 shows arrows representing translational movement of cover element) such that a top surface of the cover element is flush with a top surface of the worktop or cover plate while the cover element is actuated in parallel to a reference plane that includes the inlet opening cross-section and/or is parallel to the worktop or the cover plate (Fig 2 shows cover element 100 flush with worktop 20 while moved translationally parallel to worktop/inlet opening as shown by arrows in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Chartrel discloses that the extraction device further comprises in sections at least one guidance element for translationally and/or rotationally guiding the cover element, the at least one guidance element being arranged or configured to be arranged on the worktop or cover plate or in the inlet cavity or inlet shaft in a region of the inlet opening and/or in a region of the recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate, wherein the at least one guidance element comprises a guide rail formed as a slide rail or formed as a ball bearing rail (Fig 1 frame 13 which functions as a guidance element with a guide rail that is formed as a slide rail on which the cover element slides; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Chartrel further discloses that the drive unit comprises an actuator unit that is operatively coupled to the cover element for at least translationally actuating the cover element in parallel to the reference plane (paragraph [0050], drive unit is controlled to move cover element 100 automatically and thus includes an actuator unit providing the driving power).
Regarding claim 7, Chartrel further discloses that the inlet opening and/or the recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate and/or the inlet cavity or inlet shaft include(s) at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section, which is allocated to or which interacts with an edge or edge zone of the cover element (Fig 3 frame 13).
Regarding claim 10, Chartrel further discloses that in a top view, the cover element comprises a contour which is identical to a contour of the recess, and/or wherein the cover element is designed plate-shaped at least in sections (Fig 1 cover element 100 is a cover plate and is plate-shaped).
Regarding claim 11, Chartrel further discloses that the cover element and/or the recess comprises a rectangular or a round or an oval contour in a top view (Figs 1 and 2, cover element 100 and recess are both rectangular).
Regarding claim 12, Chartrel further discloses that the cover element comprises at least a first part or segment and a second part or segment, which first and second parts or segments are moveable independently from each other (Fig 1, cover element comprises cover plate 100 as a first part or segment, but also cover plate 101 as a second part or segment, parts 100 and 101 being independently movable).
Regarding claim 14, Chartrel discloses a combination apparatus comprising a hob (Fig 1 combination device 1; paragraph [0001]), the hob comprising a cooktop plate (Fig 1 worktop 20 and cover plate 101) with at least one cooking unit (Fig 3 heating module 103) and a recess with the recess cross-section being formed in the cooktop plate (Fig 2 inlet opening/recess 110), and the extraction device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the cooktop plate of the cooking hob forms the worktop or cover plate, below which the extraction device is arranged (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Chartrel further discloses that the cover element is configured to be actuated dependent on at least one parameter relating to the extraction device and/or relating to the at least one cooking unit, wherein the at last one parameter comprises information relating to at least one of:- selection of the at least one cooking unit for a cooking process to be started by a user interface of the combination apparatus;- operating condition of the at least one cooking unit;- operating condition of the blower unit;- detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit; and/or- detection of air quality at least in the region between the recess and the at least one cooking unit (paragraph [0051] drive unit of cover element 100 is automatically actuated when fan is switched off, i.e. dependent on the operating condition of the blower unit).
Regarding claim 19, Chartrel teaches an extraction device for extraction of fumes or vapours from above a cooktop (Fig 2 extractor hood 11), comprising:
a recess in a cooktop plate of the cooktop (Fig 2 gap 104 in cooktop plate which consists of cover plates 100/101), said cooktop plate having at least first and second cooking stations configured to receive a cooking vessel thereon for cooking food, said first and second cooking stations having respective first and second cooking units associated therewith configured to deliver cooking energy (Fig 3, heating modules 102 and 103; paragraph [0010] and [0036] each heating module 102/103 comprise at least one cooking zones, which would function to receive a cooking vessel and deliver cooking energy), said recess disposed at least partially between said first and second cooking stations of the cooktop plate (Fig 3), said recess defining an inlet of a flow channel extending beneath the cooktop plate, said inlet having an inlet cross-sectional area (Fig 2, recess 104 defines an inlet for the intake opening 110);
a blower disposed within or communicating with said flow channel and configured to draw a flow of air from a region above said cooktop plate, through said inlet defined by said recess, and into said flow channel beneath the cooktop plate (paragraph [0011]);
a cover element configured to cover a portion of said recess, thereby impeding flow into said flow channel through said inlet (Fig 2 cover plate 100);
an actuator unit operatively coupled to said cover element and adapted to adjust a position thereof relative to said inlet to thereby optimize an operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross-sectional area that is open to air flow from said region above the cooktop into the flow channel via the inlet (paragraph [0050], drive unit for moving cover element 100); and
a control unit operatively linked to said actuator unit (paragraph [0052] and Fig 5, control element 153 for controlling actuator unit) and to at least one of:
- a user interface adapted to receive user inputs concerning the activation of one or more of said heating units, and- respective sensors associated with each of said cooking stations, configured to measure a cooking parameter associated with cooking food in the respective cooking station (Fig 5 control unit 153; paragraph [0053], 153 is operatively linked to control module/user interface 15 which receives user inputs from control element 150 to control the hob);
said control unit being configured to operate said actuator unit to adjust the position of said cover element in order to maximize the operative cross-sectional region of said inlet cross- sectional area adjacent to the one or more of said cooking stations in use during one or more cooking operations based on a user selection via said user interface and/or sensor data from one or more of said sensors (paragraph [0054], control element 153 controls the drive unit of the cover element based on a user selection for the extraction hood via user interface 15 and would perform this function),
wherein the control unit being configured to operate said actuator unit to translate and/or rotate the cover element (Fig 1 shows arrows representing translational movement of cover element) such that a top surface of the cover element is flush with a top surface of the cooktop plate while the cover element is translated and/or rotates in parallel to a reference plane that includes the inlet cross-sectional area and/or is parallel to the cooktop plate (Fig 2 shows cover element 100 flush with worktop 20 while moved translationally parallel to worktop/inlet opening as shown by arrows in Fig 1).
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.
Claims 5, 6, 8 , and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartrel in view of DE 102018101308 by Junkereit (cited in previous Office Action and previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Junkereit”).
Regarding claim 5, Chartrel teaches the extraction device according to claim 4 (see details in claim 4 rejection above). Chartrel teaches that the cover element can be actuated manually or automatically (paragraph [0057]). But Chartrel is silent as to the details of the actuator unit and so does not teach that the actuator unit comprises a linkage assembly driven by a motor, and/or wherein the actuator unit is configured to be operated manually via a lever arrangement that is operatively coupled to the actuator unit for driving the actuator unit.
However, Junkereit teaches a similar extraction device arranged below a cover plate (Fig 1 suction device 1), the extraction device comprising an inlet opening in the cover plate (Fig 6 extraction opening 3), and a cover element configured to be actuated translationally by an actuator unit to cover the inlet opening (Fig 6 cover element 6). Junkereit further teaches that the actuator unit comprises a linkage assembly driven by a motor (paragraph [0023], the drive unit may comprise a rack driven by a motor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Chartrel by making the actuator unit to comprise a linkage assembly driven by a motor, as taught by Junkereit, as a means to provide driving power to the drive unit for moving the cover element.
Regarding claim 6, teaches the extraction device according to claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Chartrel is silent as to the details of the drive unit and so does not explicitly teach that the drive unit comprises a motor with a rotor and a stator, wherein the rotor is operatively coupled to the cover element for at least translationally and/or rotationally actuating the cover element.
However, Junkereit teaches a similar extraction device arranged below a cover plate (Fig 6 suction device 1), the extraction device comprising an inlet opening in the cover plate (Fig 6 inlet opening 3), and a drive unit (Fig 6 drive device 16) and a cover element configured to be actuated translationally to cover the inlet opening (Fig 6 cover element 6). Junkereit teaches that the drive unit comprises a motor with a rotor and a stator, wherein the rotor is operatively coupled to the cover element for at least translationally and/or rotationally actuating the cover element (paragraph [0023], drive device comprises a motor, which implicitly comprises a rotor and stator, the stator being the moving portion for actuating the cover element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Chartrel such that the drive unit comprises a motor with a rotor and a stator, wherein the rotor is operatively coupled to the cover element for at least translationally and/or rotationally actuating the cover element, as is known in the art, in order to provide the driving force for actuating the cover element.
Regarding claim 8, teaches the extraction device according to claim 7 (see details in claim 7 rejection above). Although Chartrel teaches a drive unit for actuating the cover element, Chartrel is silent as to the details of the drive unit and does not teach that - the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section includes areas or segments configured to be set under electro-magnetic influence, wherein the cover element comprises at least one ferromagnetic element or zone, and/or - the cover element includes areas or segments configured to be set under electromagnetic influence, wherein the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section comprises a ferromagnetic element or zone.
However, Junkereit teaches a similar extraction device arranged below a cover plate (Fig 6 suction device 1), the extraction device comprising an inlet opening in the cover plate (Fig 6 inlet opening 3), and a drive unit (Fig 6 drive device 16) and a cover element configured to be actuated translationally to cover the inlet opening (Fig 6 cover element 6), and a fixed frame part which is allocated to or which interacts with an edge or edge zone of the cover element (Fig 6 displacement element 11). Junkereit teaches that (a) the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section includes areas or segments configured to be set under electro-magnetic influence, wherein the cover element comprises at least one ferromagnetic element or zone, and/or (b) the cover element includes areas or segments configured to be set under electromagnetic influence, wherein the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section comprises a ferromagnetic element or zone (Fig 6 drive device 16 includes magnetic device 17; paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Chartrel such that (a) the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section includes areas or segments configured to be set under electro-magnetic influence, wherein the cover element comprises at least one ferromagnetic element or zone, and/or (b) the cover element includes areas or segments configured to be set under electromagnetic influence, wherein the at least one fixed frame part or at least one fixed edge part or section comprises a ferromagnetic element or zone, as is known in the art (demonstrated by Junkereit), in order to provide the driving force for automatically actuating the cover element.
Regarding claim 9, Chartrel teaches the extraction device according to claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Chartrel is silent as to the details of the drive unit and does not teach that the drive unit uses and/or is operated by an electromagnetic actuator arranged within a range of the cover element and/or allocated: - to the inlet opening, and/or - to the recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate, and/or - to the inlet cavity or inlet shaft.
However, Junkereit teaches a similar extraction device arranged below a cover plate (Fig 6 suction device 1), the extraction device comprising an inlet opening in the cover plate (Fig 6 inlet opening 3), and a drive unit (Fig 6 drive device 16) and a cover element configured to be actuated translationally to cover the inlet opening (Fig 6 cover element 6). Junkereit teaches that that the drive unit uses and/or is operated by an electromagnetic actuator arranged within a range of the cover element and/or allocated: - to the inlet opening, and/or - to the recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate, and/or - to the inlet cavity or inlet shaft (Fig 6 drive unit 16 uses an electromagnetic actuator, magnetic device 17, to drive cover element; paragraph [0024] and [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Chartrel such that the drive unit uses and/or is operated by an electromagnetic actuator arranged within a range of the cover element and/or allocated: - to the inlet opening, and/or - to the recess or cutout of the worktop or cover plate, and/or - to the inlet cavity or inlet shaft, as taught by Junkereit, in order to provide the driving force for actuating the cover element.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartrel in view of DE 102018107904 by Lauderlein et al (cited in previous Office Action and previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Lauderlein”).
Regarding claim 16, Chartrel teaches the combination apparatus of claim 15 (see details in claim 14 rejection above). But Chartrel does not explicitly teach that the combination apparatus further comprises at least one sensor unit, wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured for detecting and/or measuring the at least one parameter.
However, Lauderlein teaches a similar combination device having an extraction device arranged below a cooktop plate (Fig 1a, extraction device 100 below cooktop 105), an inlet opening communicating with the extraction device (Fig 1 a-c, inlet opening 135), and a drive unit and a cover element (Fig 1a, closing element 130 with motor 145), wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated to cover the inlet opening (paragraph [0032]), and wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated dependent on at least one parameter relating to the at least one cooking unit, the parameter being the operating condition of the at least one cooking unit and/or detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit (paragraph [0034], hob signal 160 to the control unit represents position and/or number of cooking vessels and/or power of cooking zone on hob). Lauderlein teaches that the combination apparatus further comprises at least one sensor unit, wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured for detecting and/or measuring the at least one parameter (Fig 1a, sensor 175 of sensor device 120; paragraph [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination apparatus of Chartrel by including a sensor configured for detecting and/or measuring the operating condition for the at least one cooking unit and/or the detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit, so that the cover element could be automatically actuated based on these sensed parameters, thus providing a more precise control over the actuation of the cover element for more efficient operation.
Regarding claim 17, Chartrel teaches the combination apparatus of claim 15 (see details in claim 14 rejection above). Chartrel teaches that the combination apparatus further comprises a control unit for controlling the drive unit dependent on the at least one parameter (paragraph [0050] control element 143 controls the drive unit; paragraph [0051] control element 143 may be combined with control element 142 for the extractor hood, such that the drive unit for the cover element is controlled based on the operating condition of the extractor hood/blower unit). But Chartrel does not explicitly teach that the parameter is detected by at least one sensor unit of the combination apparatus.
However, Lauderlein teaches a similar combination device having an extraction device arranged below a cooktop plate (Fig 1a, extraction device 100 below cooktop 105), an inlet opening communicating with the extraction device (Fig 1 a-c, inlet opening 135), and a drive unit and a cover element (Fig 1a, closing element 130 with motor 145), wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated to cover the inlet opening (paragraph [0032]), and wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated dependent on at least one parameter relating to the at least one cooking unit, the parameter being the operating condition of the at least one cooking unit and/or detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit (paragraph [0034], hob signal 160 to the control unit represents position and/or number of cooking vessels and/or power of cooking zone on hob). Lauderlein teaches that the parameter is detected by at least one sensor unit of the combination apparatus (Fig 1a, sensor 175 of sensor device 120; paragraph [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination apparatus of Chartrel such that the drive unit is controlled by the controller dependent on at least one parameter detected by at least one sensor unit of the combination apparatus, in particular the condition of the cooking unit and/or the detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit, as taught by Lauderlein. This modification would allow the cover element to be automatically actuated based on these sensed parameters, thus providing a more precise control over the actuation of the cover element and the blower unit for more efficient operation.
Regarding claim 18, Chartrel teaches a method for operating the combination apparatus of claim 14 (see details of apparatus in claim 14 rejection above), comprising: actuating the cover element dependent on the at least one parameter by the drive unit (paragraph [0050], drive unit is controlled to move cover element 100; paragraph [0051] drive unit of cover element 100 is automatically actuated when fan is switched off, i.e. dependent on the operating state of the blower unit).
But Chartrel does not explicitly teach that the at least one parameter is detected by at least one sensor unit.
However, Lauderlein teaches a similar combination device having an extraction device arranged below a cooktop plate (Fig 1a, extraction device 100 below cooktop 105), an inlet opening communicating with the extraction device (Fig 1 a-c, inlet opening 135), and a drive unit and a cover element (Fig 1a, closing element 130 with motor 145), wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated to cover the inlet opening (paragraph [0032]), and wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated dependent on at least one parameter relating to the at least one cooking unit, the parameter being the operating condition of the at least one cooking unit and/or detection of a cooking vessel on the at least one cooking unit (paragraph [0034], hob signal 160 to the control unit represents position and/or number of cooking vessels and/or power of cooking zone on hob). Lauderlein teaches a method of operating such a combination device comprising - detecting at least one parameter relating to the at least one cooking unit by at least one sensor unit; and - actuating the cover element dependent on the detected at least one parameter by the drive unit (Fig 4 and paragraph [0054]-[0055], cooktop signal, representing the at least one parameter, is determined using a sensor in step 415 and control signal is output to actuate the cover element in step 410; see also paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chartrel such that at least one parameter, such as the position and/or number of cooking vessels and/or power of cooking zone on hob, is detected by a sensor unit, and actuating the cover element dependent on the at least one detected parameter. This modification would allow the cover element and the blower unit to be automatically actuated based on these sensed parameters, thus providing a more precise control over the actuation of the cover element and the blower unit for more efficient operation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartrel in view of US 2007/0062513 by Gagas (hereinafter “Gagas”).
Regarding claim 20, Chartrel teaches the extraction device of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Chartrel does not teach that said cooktop plate further comprises third and fourth cooking stations configured to receive a cooking vessel thereon for cooking food, said third and fourth cooking stations having respective third and fourth cooking units associated therewith configured to deliver cooking energy, said recess in the cooktop plate being at least partially disposed adjacent to each of said first, second, third and fourth cooking stations.
However, Gagas teaches a similar induction cooktop (Fig 1 cooktop 20) with a cooktop plate (Fig 1 cooking surface 28) having a recess and an extraction device in communication with the recess and configured to suction air from above the cooktop through the recess (Fig 1 and Fig 2, vent hole 32 connected to ventilator 20), wherein the cooktop plate has a first and second cooking stations each configured to receive a cooking vessel thereon for cooking food, said first and second cooking stations having respective first and second cooking units associated therewith configured to deliver cooking energy (Fig 1 heating elements 25a and 25b), and said recess disposed at least partially between said first and second cooking stations of the cooktop plate (Fig 1). Gagas further teaches that said cooktop plate further comprises third and fourth cooking stations configured to receive a cooking vessel thereon for cooking food, said third and fourth cooking stations having respective third and fourth cooking units associated therewith configured to deliver cooking energy (Fig 1 heating elements 25c and 25d), said recess in the cooktop plate being at least partially disposed adjacent to each of said first, second, third and fourth cooking stations (Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extraction device of Chartrel such that the cooktop plate further comprises third and fourth cooking stations configured to receive a cooking vessel thereon for cooking food, said third and fourth cooking stations having respective third and fourth cooking units associated therewith configured to deliver cooking energy, said recess in the cooktop plate being at least partially disposed adjacent to each of said first, second, third and fourth cooking stations, as taught by Gagas. This modification would only require the addition of duplicate cooking stations, i.e. two cooking stations on each of cover elements 100 and 101 of Chartrel instead of the one cooking station on each cover element shown in the figures. Cooktops with multiple cooking stations, in particular four cooking stations, are known in the art, as taught by Gagas. One of ordinary skill in the art, recognizing that the number of cooking stations is directly correlated to the number of cooking vessels that can be accommodated, would have found it obvious to include a third and fourth cooking stations, as claimed, in addition to the first and second cooking stations taught by Chartrel. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests an extraction device with all of the limitations of claim 2, particularly the limitation that “the cover element is configured to be actuated rotationally in parallel to said reference plane”, along with the limitation “wherein the cover element is configured to be actuated translationally and/or rotationally such that a top surface of the cover element is flush with a top surface of the worktop or cover plate while the cover element is actuated in parallel to a reference plane that includes the inlet opening cross-section and/or is parallel to the worktop or the cover plate” from parent claim 1. This combination of limitations requires that the cover element move rotationally, while also remaining flush with the top surface of the worktop or cover plate, which was not found in the prior art of record. Therefore, these limitations, along with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Chartrel is considered to be the closest prior art of record. Chartrel teaches the extraction device of claim 1, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. But Chartrel teaches that the cover element is actuated translationally rather than rotationally. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify Chartrel with this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights