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.
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 15-20 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4405610 A1 (hereinafter “SCHROEDER”) in view of CN 102213397 B (hereinafter “ZHOU”).
Regarding Claim 15, SCHROEDER discloses a household appliance apparatus (2), in particular a cooktop apparatus, comprising: a light source (5); and a light guiding unit (6) designed to guide light from the light source to a target region (see 3, 3’), said light guiding unit comprising a tubular structure (see 9, 10) for guiding light.
SCHROEDER does not disclose a tubular structure designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface.
ZHOU teaches a light guide comprising: a tubular structure (10) designed to surround a hollow channel (114) and comprising a reflective inner surface (13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SCHROEDER wherein said tubular structure is designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface as taught and/or suggested by ZHOU, since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination.
Regarding Claims 16-20, SCHROEDER further discloses wherein the light guiding unit (6) includes a large part which is formed by the tubular structure (see 9, 10); wherein the tubular structure (see 9, 10) extends from the light source (5) to the target region (see 3, 3’); wherein the light guiding unit (6) comprises a target region-side end (see 10) which is guided in a hot region (see 2, 2A, 2B and 2C); further comprising a household appliance plate (1) designed to enable light to shine through, said target region (see 3, 3’) being located on the household appliance plate (1); wherein the household appliance plate (1) is a cooktop plate.
Regarding Claim 25, ZHOU further teaches wherein the tubular structure (10) includes at least a partial portion which is formed from at least two partial elements (11, 12), each of the at least two partial elements partially defining the hollow channel (114) over a periphery.
Regarding Claim 26, ZHOU further teaches wherein the tubular structure (10) includes at least one partial portion (11) which is designed in one piece over a periphery.
Regarding Claim 27, SCHROEDER discloses further comprising: a further light source (see the provided English translation: “When using multiple Light sources can vary depending on the temperature of the cook individual light sources with associated light decoupling places to be added.”).
SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose a further light guiding unit designed to guide light from the further light source to a further target region, said further light guiding unit comprising a further tubular structure designed to surround a further hollow channel for guiding light and including a further reflective inner surface, wherein the tubular structure and the further tubular structure comprise at least one common component.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU to comprise a further light guiding unit designed to guide light from the further light source to a further target region, said further light guiding unit comprising a further tubular structure designed to surround a further hollow channel for guiding light and including a further reflective inner surface, wherein the tubular structure and the further tubular structure comprise at least one common component, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also DUPLICATION OF PARTS: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). In the present case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SCHROEDER wherein a single large light guiding unit comprises multiple separate smaller light guiding units. Such an arrangement would provide the benefit of distributed operationality wherein if one light guide unit becomes inoperable the other remaining light guides can still function.
Regarding Claim 28, SCHROEDER discloses a household appliance, in particular a cooktop (1), comprising a household appliance apparatus (2), said household appliance apparatus comprising a light source (5), and a light guiding unit (6) designed to guide light from the light source to a target region (see 3, 3’), said light guiding unit comprising a tubular structure (see 9, 10) for guiding light.
SCHROEDER does not disclose a tubular structure designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface.
ZHOU teaches a light guide comprising: a tubular structure (10) designed to surround a hollow channel (114) and comprising a reflective inner surface (13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SCHROEDER wherein said tubular structure is designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface as taught and/or suggested by ZHOU, since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination.
Regarding Claims 29-31, SCHROEDER discloses a method for producing a household appliance apparatus, the method comprising: designing a light guiding unit (6) with a tubular structure (see 9, 10) to guide light from a light source (5) to a target region (see 3, 3’); wherein the tubular structure (see 9, 10) is designed to extend from the light source (5) to the target region (see 3, 3’); further comprising: designing a household appliance plate (1) to enable light to shine through; and arranging the target region (see 3, 3’) on the household appliance plate (1).
SCHROEDER does not disclose a tubular structure that defines a hollow channel and designing the tubular structure in surrounding relation to the hollow channel with a reflective inner surface.
ZHOU teaches a light guide comprising: a tubular structure (11, 12) that defines a hollow channel (114) designing the tubular structure (11, 12) in surrounding relation to the hollow channel (114) with a reflective inner surface (13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify SCHROEDER wherein a tubular structure defines a hollow channel and designing the tubular structure in surrounding relation to the hollow channel with a reflective inner surface as taught and/or suggested by ZHOU, since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination.
Claims 21-23 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU as applied to the parent claim above, and further in view of FR 2967236 A1 (hereinafter “GUISET”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 32, SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the tubular structure has a maximum extent which corresponds at least to a third of a maximum extent of the household appliance plate.
GUISET, with reference to Fig. 1, teaches a household appliance wherein a tubular structure (6) has a maximum extent which corresponds at least to a third of a maximum extent of the household appliance plate (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU wherein the tubular structure has a maximum extent which corresponds at least to a third of a maximum extent of the household appliance plate as taught and/or suggested by GUISET, since such a modification would provide a tubular structure which can guide light to a large portion of said household appliance thereby providing a more easily seen and larger display area over which to alert a user of an operational state or status of said household appliance.
Regarding Claims 22 and 33, SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the light source is arranged in an edge region of the household appliance plate.
GUISET, with reference to Fig. 1, teaches a household appliance wherein the light source (11) is arranged in an edge region of the household appliance plate (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU wherein the light source is arranged in an edge region of the household appliance plate as taught and/or suggested by GUISET, since such a modification would provide an easily accessible light source for inspection, replacement and/or maintenance purposes compared to a less accessible location.
Regarding Claim 23, SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a large part of the tubular structure is arranged at least substantially parallel to the household appliance plate.
GUISET, with reference to Fig. 1, teaches a household appliance wherein at least a large part of the tubular structure (6) is arranged at least substantially parallel to the household appliance plate (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU wherein at least a large part of the tubular structure is arranged at least substantially parallel to the household appliance plate as taught and/or suggested by GUISET, since such a modification would provide a compact or shallow design when compared to arranging said tubular structure in a perpendicular or angled orientation relative to said household appliance plate thereby occupying less space or volume directly below said household appliance plate thus freeing space below said household appliance for other purposes such as storage or the placement of other appliances.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU as applied to the parent claim above, and further in view of WO 01/41510 A1 (hereinafter “AIHARA”).
Regarding Claims 24 and 34, SCHROEDER in view of ZHOU does not disclose further comprising a partition plate designed to separate a heating element region from an electronics region, said tubular structure being formed at least partially from the partition plate.
AIHARA, with reference to Fig. 10, teaches a household appliance comprising a partition plate (311) designed to separate a heating element region (see 304) from an electronics region (see 306), a tubular structure (see 307) being formed at least partially from the partition plate (311; since partition plate 311 serves to cover and block light propagating through said tubular structure 307, the light guiding tubular structure 307 is at least partially formed from said partition plate 311).
Claims 15 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/011586 A1 (hereinafter “BECKE”) in view of CN 102213397 B (hereinafter “ZHOU”).
PNG
media_image1.png
913
1693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 15 and 35, BECKE discloses a household appliance apparatus (10), in particular a cooktop apparatus, comprising: a light source (20); and a light guiding unit (24) designed to guide light from the light source to a target region (see 12), said light guiding unit comprising a tubular structure (see 24, Figs. 2, 3 and 5) for guiding light; further comprising a partition plate (46) designed to separate a heating element region (see 14) from an electronics region (see 40/42), said tubular structure extending through the partition plate (see Figs. 2 and 4).
BECKE does not disclose a tubular structure designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface.
ZHOU teaches a light guide comprising: a tubular structure (10) designed to surround a hollow channel (114) and comprising a reflective inner surface (13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify BECKE wherein said tubular structure is designed to surround a hollow channel and comprising a reflective inner surface as taught and/or suggested by ZHOU, since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ZHOU is non-analogous art because it is not in Applicant’s field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicant was concerned.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s field of endeavor concerns a light guiding unit and the particular-problem with which Applicant was concerned is the structural details of said light guiding unit. The intended use of said light guiding unit with a household appliance does not limit the field of endeavor to the cooking hob art, as argued by Applicant. Furthermore, the base reference SCHROEDER squarely falls within Applicant’s alleged field of endeavor (i.e., the cooking hob art) and comprises a light guiding unit. ZHOU teaches a light guide, introduced to modify SCHROEDER’s light guiding unit, which is the particular-problem with which Applicant was concerned. Thus Applicant’s non-analogous argument is unpersuasive because ZHOU is both in Applicant’s field of endeavor AND reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Applicant was concerned.
Applicant next argues that it would not be obvious to combine ZHOU with SCHROEDER.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mention above, SCHROEDER squarely falls within Applicant’s alleged field of endeavor (i.e., the cooking hob art) and comprises a light guiding unit. ZHOU teaches a light guide, introduced to modify SCHROEDER’s light guiding unit, which is the particular-problem with which Applicant was concerned. Therefore, since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination. Thus Applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to combine ZHOU with SCHROEDER is unpersuasive since both references teach tubular light guides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one tubular light guide for the other to achieve the predictable result of guiding light from a source to a target or destination.
Applicant next argues, with regards to Claims 24 and 34, Aihara makes no mention of the partition plate (coil base 311) forming at least a portion of the tubular structure (light guide means 307). Applicant submits that a first element simply being in contact with a second element does not make that second element a portion of the first element.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The quoted passage of AIHARA presented on Pg. 15 of Applicant’s remarks states: “a light guiding means 307 which is located below the heating coil 304 and which is made of translucent glass, resin or the like” therefore, since the tubular structure 307 is translucent the partition plate 311 is an integral part of said tubular structure since it assist in guiding the light through said tubular structure in a horizontal direction with respect to Fig. 10 and prevents light from traveling in a vertical direction with respect to Fig. 10. Therefore, AIHARA satisfies the claimed “said tubular structure being formed at least partially from the partition plate.” And “forming the tubular structure at least partially from the partition plate.” In addition, AIHARA further states: “Further, as another embodiment, as in an induction heating cooker 110 shown in FIG. 11, the coil base on which the heating coil 304 is placed can be also used as the light guide means 307.” See the provided English translation. Thus, AIHARA explicitly teaches/discloses said light guiding tubular structure being formed at least partially from the partition plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
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 JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights