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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is indefinite because of the limitation “the valve rod of the gas valve is designed for displacement perpendicular to the control panel”. There is no language found in the specification as filed. From figure 2, the rod opening 22 is larger than the diameter of the engaging part/valve rod, suggesting possible perpendicular movement. However, from the specification, displacement of the valve rod is only explained in a longitudinal direction, e.g. a longitudinal stroke [paragraph 0008]. Along with the limitation “along a stroke smaller than a biggest distance from the skirt to the external surface of the control panel”, the limitation is interpreted to mean that no movement of the valve rod perpendicularly to the control panel, e.g. there is a substantially snug/flush fit with the control panel and rod, would fulfill the scope of the limitation and fulfill the requirement of the specification with regard to “the distance between the skirt and the external surface of the control panel is bigger than a longitudinal actuation stroke of the valve rod.”
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris et al [4499630].
With respect to claim 11, Harris discloses: A household gas cooking appliance [col 2, line 35-40], comprising: a control panel (13) having an external surface; a gas valve (12) including a valve rod (11) extending through the control panel through a rod opening [see FIG 1]; and an operating element (10) designed to operate the valve rod of the gas valve, said operating element comprising a grabbing body (14) designed to be grabbed by a user and a coupling body designed for detachable coupling to the valve rod and including a plastic piece [col 2, line 58-64], an engaging part (20) received in the plastic part and adapted to engage with the valve rod [see FIG 3, col 2, line 48-57], and a latching part [a., see FIG below] fixedly connectable with the grabbing body, said grabbing body having a cylindrical shape with a top disc [b., see FIG below] and with a skirt (15, 61) extending around the engaging part towards the control panel and having a height smaller than three fifths of a disc radius [see FIG 4, col 3, line 10-30].
Harris further discloses:
{cl. 12} The household gas cooking appliance of claim 11, wherein the height of the skirt is smaller than half the disc radius [see FIG 3].
{cl. 21} The household gas cooking appliance of claim 1 1, wherein the grabbing body is made of metal [col 3, line 10-19].
PNG
media_image1.png
338
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al [4499630], further in view of Hollman [2696877].
With respect to claims 13-14, and 20, Harris discloses the invention as substantially claimed however does not show teach the actuation stroke as claimed.
Hollman makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 13} The household gas cooking appliance of claim 11, wherein, in a resting position of the valve rod (47) of the gas valve (46), a distance from the skirt to the external surface of the control panel is bigger than a longitudinal actuation stroke of the valve rod [see FIG 3, col 4, line 45-col 5, line 14].
{cl. 14} The household gas cooking appliance of claim 11, further comprising a longitudinal blocking device (57) and/or a rotational blocking device (at 46) between the grabbing body and the latching part of the coupling body [col 4, line 1-14, col 5, line 15-34].
{cl. 20} The household gas cooking appliance of claim 11, wherein the valve rod of the gas valve is designed for displacement perpendicular to the control panel (85) along a stroke smaller than a biggest distance from the skirt to the external surface of the control panel [col 5, line 35-76].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Harris with the teachings of Hollman because Hollman provides a safety feature requiring longitudinal actuation of the controller therein preventing unwanted gas release.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are 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. Impermissible hindsight reasoning is required to arrive at the invention as claimed since a modification would be made to a teaching reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Turner et al [201900514689, see FIG 4, element 130, 132, 136, paragraph 0030-0033] and Ha [20180238465, see FIGs 9-9, elements 116, 114, abstract] is considered pertinent art for similar teachings of the structure of the operating/grabbing structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights