DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 14, change “duct passing” to -- duct and passing --
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form. Claim 9 recites the “The household appliance according to claim 6 and claim 7, wherein” which, in accordance with MPEP 608.01(n), renders Claim 9 an improper multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, Claim 9 has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a supply unit” (Claim 12)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “a supply unit” (from Claim 12): The specification fails to disclose any structure for the claimed “unit”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “unit” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of supply which warrants 112(a)/112(b) rejections for Claim 1 (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “a supply unit” (from Claim 12) will be interpreted as any unit that can perform or contribute to performing the function of supplying.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
3. Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation “a supply unit” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to disclose any possible structure for the claimed “unit”. Thus, the claim 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 since no possible structure for the claimed “supply unit” has been disclosed. The specification accordingly lacks adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 accordingly stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a stovetop having at least one suction opening for cooking fumes and extending mainly along the width and depth direction” in lines 4-5 which is considered indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes “mainly” in the context claimed. It is unclear what degree of extension constitutes “extending mainly along the width and depth direction” and if, and by how much, extension may occur along a direction other than width and depth such as, e.g., height. Similarly, Claim 1 recites the limitation “said suction chamber extending mainly along the width and depth direction below the stovetop” in lines 21-22 which is considered indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes “mainly” in the context claimed. It is unclear what degree of extension constitutes “extending mainly along the width and depth direction below the stovetop” and if, and by how much, extension may occur along a direction other than width and depth such as, e.g., height. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear.
Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the manifold is configured to slide the suction flow in the vicinity of the cover element so as to remove part of the heat” which is considered generally indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “configured to slide the suction flow in the vicinity of the cover element so as to remove part of the heat” in the context claimed and thus unclear how this limitation affects the structure of the claimed apparatus. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue.
Furthermore, Claim 12 recites the limitation “a supply unit” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to disclose any structure for the claimed “unit”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “unit” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of supply which renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of Claim 12 are consequently unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “a supply unit” will be interpreted as any unit that can perform or contribute to performing the function of supplying.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flesch et al. (US 2022/0178552 A1) (hereinafter “Flesch”) in view of Leikam et al. (US 2023/0213209 A1) (hereinafter “Leikam”).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Flesch teaches of a household appliance (1) for cooking dishes (via at least element (10)) (see at least [0039] and Figs. 1-2) extending along a height direction, a width direction, and a depth direction defining a three-dimensional Cartesian reference system (as is shown in at least Figs. 1-2), said household appliance comprising:
- a stovetop (10) having at least one suction opening (111) for cooking fumes (see at least [0045] and Figs. 1-2) and extending mainly along the width and depth direction (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 1-2),
- a downdraft hood (downdraft hood comprising elements (11) and (12)) (see at least [0045]-[0046] and Figs. 2, 6) comprising:
- a box-like body (Note that in light of the specification, “a box-like body” is being interpreted as body that defines an internal volume. In the instant case, element (12) forms a box-shaped body with a volume therein as is shown in Figs. 2, 6 and accordingly constitutes a box-like body as claimed) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6) extending below the stovetop along the height direction (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) and defining an internal volume (the internal volume of element (12) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) accessible through a connection opening (1101) (see at least [0046] and Figs. 2, 6), said internal volume being placed in fluid communication with the suction opening of the stovetop through said connection opening (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045]-[0046] and Figs. 2, 6),
- a suction unit (suction unit comprising element (110)) arranged in the internal volume of the box-like body (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) and having a discharge duct (duct comprising outlet (1102) as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0046] and Figs. 2, 6), said suction unit being configured to generate a suction flow of the cooking fumes directed along a fluid-dynamic path (the fluid dynamic path that the dashed line fluid flow arrows flow along as shown in Fig. 2) extending from the suction opening (111) of the stovetop to the discharge duct (1102) and passing through the connection opening (1101) (see at least [0046] and Figs. 2, 6);
- a filter unit (114), configured to filter greases and/or odors present in the cooking fumes (filter unit (114) filters grease via elements (1141) and odors via elements (115)) (see [0045] and Figs. 2, 6), arranged along the fluid-dynamic path between the suction opening and the suction unit (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see [0045] and Figs. 2, 6),
- a suction manifold (1142) interposed between the stovetop and the box-like body along the height direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) and defining a suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) placed in fluid connection with the suction opening and with the connection opening (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6), said suction chamber extending mainly along the width and depth direction below the stovetop (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6), the filter assembly being arranged in the suction chamber and comprising:
- a grease filter (1141) arranged below the suction opening (111) of the stovetop (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6), and
- at least one odor filter (115) arranged laterally to the grease filter along the width direction or the depth direction (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6).
Flesch fails to explicitly teach that the discharge duct is protruding from the box-like body.
Leikam discloses a relatable cooking appliance (1) (see at least [0050] and Fig. 1) that comprises a suction opening (26) that feeds a downdraft hood (downdraft hood comprising element (44)) which includes a box-like body (44) (see at least [0054] and Fig. 1), a suction unit (suction unit comprising fan (36)) (see at least [0053] and Fig. 1) and a filter unit (filter unit comprising element (48)) (see at least [0056] and Fig. 1). Leikam teaches that the appliance also comprises a discharge duct (discharge duct comprising element (30) as shown in Fig. 1) protruding from the box-like body (as is shown in Fig. 1, discharge duct comprising (30) protrudes from the bottom of box-like body (44)) and that such a discharge duct provides means for accommodating an external grill element (34) and for exhausting gas to an external environment via the grill element (34) (see at least [0052], [0054] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the appliance taught by Flesch by configuring the existing discharge duct to have a portion that protrudes from the existing box-like body based on the teachings of Leikam. Doing so would have provided means for accommodating an external grill element and for exhausting gas to an external environment via the grill element. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Flesch and Leikam teach the household appliance according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Flesch also teaches that (at least) the extension of the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) along the width direction (the horizontal width extension of the suction chamber as is shown in Fig. 2) is greater than the extension of the suction opening (111) along the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2).
Flesch (in addition to Leikam) fails to explicitly teach that “- the extension of the suction chamber along the width direction is equal to 1-20 times the extension of the suction opening along the width direction, and/or - the extension of the suction chamber along the depth direction is equal to 1-20 times the extension of the suction opening along the depth direction”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have (at least) simply adjusted the existing extension of the suction chamber along the width direction to be equal to 1-20 times the extension of the suction opening along the width direction as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). (see MPEP 2144.05)
In the instant case, Flesch teaches that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) has an extension along the width direction (the horizontal width extension of the suction chamber as is shown in Fig. 2) that is greater than the extension of the suction opening (111) along the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the suction chamber extension along the width direction relative to the extension of the suction opening along the width direction is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from Flesch, the magnitude of the suction chamber extension along the width direction depends upon (at least) the inclination of filter elements (1141) relative to one another that form a desired “V-shape” within the suction chamber (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6) wherein a relatively larger angle of inclination and corresponding wider V-shape will require a relatively larger extension of the suction chamber along the width direction to accommodate that V-shape and vice-versa (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing extension of the suction chamber along the width direction, depending on the desired angle of inclination of filter elements (1141) and corresponding V-shape width, to be equal to 1-20 times the extension of the existing suction opening along the width direction as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Flesch and Leikam teach the household appliance according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Flesch also teaches that the stovetop (10) extends along the width direction for a first width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2), that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) extends along the width direction for a second width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2) and that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) for a third width value (the value of width overlap as shown in Fig. 2).
Flesch (in addition to Leikam) fails to explicitly teach that the third width value is “greater than 50% of the first width value”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have (at least) simply adjusted the magnitude of the existing third width value to be greater than 50% of the first width value as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). (see MPEP 2144.05)
In the instant case, Flesch teaches that the stovetop (10) extends along the width direction for a first width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2), that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) extends along the width direction for a second width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2) and that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) for a third width value (the value of width overlap as shown in Fig. 2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the third width value is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from Flesch, the magnitude of the third width value in which the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction is contingent upon (at least) the width of the suction chamber extension along the width direction which depends upon (at least) the inclination of filter elements (1141) relative to one another that form a desired “V-shape” within the suction chamber (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6) wherein a relatively larger angle of inclination and corresponding wider V-shape will require a relatively larger extension of the suction chamber along the width direction to accommodate that V-shape and vice-versa (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing extension of the suction chamber along the width direction, depending on the desired angle of inclination of filter elements (1141) and corresponding V-shape width, such that the magnitude of the existing third width value in which the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction is greater than 50% of the first width value as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Flesch and Leikam teach the household appliance according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Flesch also teaches that the stovetop (10) extends along the width direction for a first width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2), that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) extends along the width direction for a second width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2) and that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) for a third width value (the value of width overlap as shown in Fig. 2).
Flesch (in addition to Leikam) fails to explicitly teach that the third width value is “greater than 30% of the first width value”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have (at least) simply adjusted the magnitude of the existing third width value to be greater than 30% of the first width value as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). (see MPEP 2144.05)
In the instant case, Flesch teaches that the stovetop (10) extends along the width direction for a first width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2), that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) extends along the width direction for a second width value (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Fig. 2) and that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) for a third width value (the value of width overlap as shown in Fig. 2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The magnitude of the third width value is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from Flesch, the magnitude of the third width value in which the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction is contingent upon (at least) the width of the suction chamber extension along the width direction which depends upon (at least) the inclination of filter elements (1141) relative to one another that form a desired “V-shape” within the suction chamber (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6) wherein a relatively larger angle of inclination and corresponding wider V-shape will require a relatively larger extension of the suction chamber along the width direction to accommodate that V-shape and vice-versa (see at least [0048] and Figs. 2, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing extension of the suction chamber along the width direction, depending on the desired angle of inclination of filter elements (1141) and corresponding V-shape width, such that the magnitude of the existing third width value in which the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) and the stovetop (10) extend overlapping vertically in the width direction is greater than 30% of the first width value as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Flesch also teaches that the stovetop (10) comprises a support portion (100) adapted to support food containers (food containers that are to be heated on element (100)) (see at least [0040] and Fig. 2) and a bottom portion (the bottom surface/portion of element (10) as shown in Fig. 2) opposite to the support surface along the height direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) and that the suction chamber (inner chamber of element (1142) as shown in Figs. 2, 6) is delimited above by the bottom portion of the stovetop (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0040], [0045] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Flesch and Leikam teach a household appliance according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Flesch also teaches that the appliance (1) extends along the depth direction between a front portion (Note that Fig. 1 shows a top view of the appliance wherein the bottom portion of Fig. 1 represents the front portion of the appliance shown from above) and a rear portion (Note that Fig. 1 shows a top view of the appliance wherein the top portion of Fig. 1 represents the rear portion of the appliance shown from above) (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0039] and Figs. 1-2), wherein:
- the box-like body (12) is arranged in said rear portion of the appliance (as is shown in at least Figs. 1-2, element (12) extends completely to the rear of the appliance and is consequently arranged in said rear portion of the appliance as claimed) (see at least [0045], sentence #2 - “The combination appliance 1 has an appliance housing 12 in which the components of the fume extraction device 11 and the hob 10 are received” and note that element (12), which houses element (10), extends completely to the rear of the appliance as shown in Fig. 1); and
- the manifold (1142) extends along the depth direction between the front portion and the rear portion of the household appliance (to thereby accommodate filter unit (114) therein) (see at least [0045], the last 5 sentences, and note that element (1142) forms a “housing 1142 for receiving the filter unit 114” (2nd sentence from the end of [0045]) and that “filter unit 114 is arranged below the cut-out 1000 and thus the suction opening 111” (5th sentence from the end of [0045]) wherein element (111), in addition to element (114) that is housed by element (1142), extends along the depth direction between the front portion and the rear portion of the household appliance as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least the last 5 sentences of [0045] and Figs. 1-2, 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Flesch also teaches that the manifold comprises a bottom (the bottom half of element (1142) with respect to Fig. 2) delimiting the suction chamber below (as is shown in Fig. 2), said bottom having a further connection opening (the outer connection opening of element (1142) through which the dashed line flow arrows flow as shown in Fig. 2) which can be associated with the connection opening of the box-like body for fluidic connection of the suction chamber and the internal volume (as is shown via the dashed line flow arrows in Fig. 2) (see at least [0045]-[0046] and Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Flesch also teach that the further connection opening (the outer connection opening of element (1142) through which the dashed line flow arrows flow as shown in Fig. 2) extends along the width direction for the entire extension in the width direction of the suction chamber (as can be observed in Fig. 2 via at least the dashed line flow arrows, the further connection opening extends completely through element (1142) from one side to the other across its entire width and accordingly extends along the width direction for the entire extension in the width direction of the suction chamber as claimed) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Flesch also teach that the filter unit comprises a first and a second odor filter (“odor filters” (115) of which there are two as shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6) arranged on opposite sides of the grease filter (1141) along the width direction or the depth direction (as is shown in Figs. 2, 6) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6), said fluid-dynamic path having a bifurcation downstream of the suction opening (as is shown in Fig. 2 via the bifurcated division of the flow arrows shown via dashed lines) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6) and defining a first path through the first odor filter (the left-hand dashed line flow path with respect to Fig. 2) and a second path through the second odor filter (the right-hand dashed line flow path with respect to Fig. 2) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Felsch also teach that the filter unit (114) is arranged in a central region of the manifold (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) along the length direction and/or the width direction (along both the length and width direction as shown in Fig. 2) (see [0045] and Figs. 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 12, to the extent that Claim 12 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Flesch also teaches that the stovetop comprises at least one heating element (“heating coil” shown as element (101) in Fig. 2) (see at least [0008], the 6th sentence, [0040] and Figs. 2, 6), a supply unit of said heating element (“electrical heating module”) (see at least [0008], the 6th sentence, and Figs. 2, 6), and a cover element (100) defining a seat (seat connection between elements (100) and (101) as shown in Fig. 2) adapted to receive the heating element (101) and the supply unit (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0008], [0040] and Figs. 2, 6), wherein the heating element, the supply unit and the covering element are arranged above the manifold along the height direction (as is shown in Fig. 2) and wherein the manifold is configured to slide the suction flow in the vicinity of the cover element (as is shown in Fig. 2 via the dashed line flow arrows) so as to remove part of the heat generated by the heating element and the supply unit in the seat (via the dashed line flow arrows shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0046]-[0047] and Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Kim et al. (US 2021/0215350 A1)
Arntz et al. (US 6,455,818 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/25/2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights