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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “an perimeter” is considered grammatically correct when written “a perimeter wall”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al [5771878].
With respect to claim 16, Lewis discloses: A cooking apparatus, comprising: a housing [see abstract, implied by “stove or range”]; a heat source on one side of the housing [col 1, line 21-23]; a control panel (24) coupled to the housing [col 2, line 56-65]; a knob (10) rotatably mounted on the control panel so as to operate the heat source [see FIG 7 with reference to arrow 27, col 2, line 37-44]; a button (33) movably coupled to the knob [col 3, line 52-65]; a stopper (34, 42) between the control panel and the button and including an anti-rotation portion [see reproduced FIG 7, below] configured to prevent a rotation of the knob [col 2, line 66-col 3, line 23]; and a locking pin (36) secured to the button so as to be received in the anti-rotation portion and configured to prevent the rotation of the knob while the locking pin is received in the anti-rotation portion [col 2, line 66-col 3, line 23, see FIGs 7 and 10, col 2, line 56-65].
With respect to claim 18, Lewis discloses: A cooking apparatus comprising: a housing [see abstract, implied by “stove or range”]; a heat source on one side of the housing [col 1, line 21-23]; a control panel (24) to cover a portion of a front side of the housing [col 2, line 56-65]; a knob (10) mounted on the control panel so as to operate the heat source and configured to be movable toward the control panel [see FIG 7 with reference to arrow 27, col 2, line 37-44]; a button (33) movably coupled to the knob [col 3, line 52-65]; a pin (36) including a first pin position secured to the button so as to be moved based on the button being moved and a second pin position moved from the first pin position based on the button being moved [col 3, line 37-44]; and a stopper (34, 42) between the control panel and the button and including an anti-rotation portion [see reproduced FIG 7 below] contactable with the pin at the first pin position of the knob to prevent the knob from moving toward the control panel [col 2, line 66-col 3, line 23], wherein based on the knob being moved toward the control panel and the pin being at the second pin position, the knob is rotated [col 2, line 66-col 3, line 23, see FIGs 7 and 10, col 2, line 56-65].
PNG
media_image1.png
487
658
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) 1-3, 6-8, 11, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al [5771878], further in view of Starr [20170060170].
With respect to claim 1, Lewis discloses: A cooking apparatus, comprising: a housing [see abstract, implied by “stove or range”]; a heat source on one side of the housing [col 1, line 21-23]; a control panel (24) couplable to the housing [col 2, line 56-65]; a knob (10) rotatably mountable on the control panel to operate the heat source and movable rearwardly [see FIG 7 with reference to arrow 27, col 2, line 37-44]; a stopper (34, 42) between the control panel and the knob, the stopper including an anti-rotation portion [see reproduced FIG 7] configured to prevent a rotation of the knob [col 2, line 66-col 3, line 23]; a button (33) movably couplable to the knob [col 3, line 52-65]; and a locking pin (36) accommodated in the anti-rotation portion and secured to the button so as to move along the button [col 3, line 37-44]; and wherein the locking pin is deviated from the anti-rotation portion based on a movement of the button, the knob is rotatable while the knob is moved rearwardly and the locking pin is deviated from the anti-rotation portion, and the knob is rotated to operate the heat source [see FIGs 7 and 10, col 2, line 56-65].
Lewis further shows:
{cl. 2} The cooking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rotation of the knob is prevented while the locking pin is accommodated in the anti-rotation portion [col 3, line 20-23].
{cl. 6} The cooking apparatus of claim 3, wherein the stopper comprises: a hollow portion (31); an perimeter wall (29) forming the hollow portion; and a protruding wall protruding (47) from the perimeter wall and on which the stopper groove is formed [col 3, line 24-44].
{cl. 14} The cooking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control panel is configured to partially cover a front side of the housing, and the knob is movable between a first knob position and a second knob position moved rearwardly from the first knob position, and the cooking apparatus [col 2, line 56-65] further comprises: a regulator (23) disposed on a rear side of the control panel to operate the heat source in response to the rotation of the knob [see FIG 10]; a shaft (22) coupled to the regulator to be movable from a first shaft position in which rotation with respect to the regulator is restricted at the first knob position of the knob to a second shaft position rotatable with respect to the regulator at the second knob position so as to operate the heat source [col 2, line 45-65]; a fixing protrusion protruding from the shaft in a radial direction of the shaft; and a fixing groove formed in the regulator to receive the fixing protrusion while the shaft is positioned at the first shaft position, wherein, based on the knob being moved toward the control panel, the shaft is moved to the second shaft position (considered design choice, see MPEP 2144.04). The limitation in italics is considered design choice because Lewis shows a shaft having a flat surface (18) which functions in a similar manner as the fixing protrusion and since this is the only function of the fixing protrusion in pairing with the fixing groove, no criticality is given by the claim limitations in italics.
{cl. 17} The cooking apparatus of claim 16, wherein the knob is movable between a first knob position in which rotation is prevented, and a second knob position moved in a first direction from the first knob position, the button is movable in a direction different from the first direction between a first button position in which the pin is locked by the stopper to prevent the rotation of the knob, and a second button position in which the pin is unlocked from the stopper, and based on the knob being at the second knob position and the button being at the second button position, the knob is rotated to operate the heat source [see FIGs 7 and 10, col 3, line 24-65].
Lewis, however, does not show the left-to-right direction of the button as claimed. The “left-to-right direction” is interpreted as a sliding movement, and depending on what plane the button is viewed from will, a sliding button will suffice.
Therefore, Starr makes up for these deficiencies by teaching a control knob (120) for an oven control (see FIG 1A) utilizing a locking pin/post (136) and
{cl. 1} a button (132) movably couplable to the knob in a left-to-right direction [see FIG 7, paragraph 0053-0055].
Starr further teaches:
{cl. 7} The cooking apparatus of claim 3, wherein the button (40, 132) comprises: a first pressing portion and a second pressing portion arranged in one direction; a first rack (58) extending from the first pressing portion toward the second pressing portion; a second rack extending from the second pressing portion toward the first pressing portion; and a pinion (50) disposed between the first rack and the second rack so as to be rotatable based on the first pressing portion and the second pressing portion being pressed [see FIG 5, paragraph 0035-0042].
{cl. 3} The cooking apparatus of claim 2, wherein the locking pin (136) is movable between a first pin position in which the rotation of the knob is locked by being accommodated in the anti-rotation portion and a second pin position in which the rotation of the knob is unlocked by being deviated from the anti-rotation portion, and the anti-rotation portion includes a stopper groove [paragraph 0052 with reference to “inserted into a corresponding hole…”] in which the locking pin is accommodated at the first pin position of the locking pin, and while the button is moved in the left-to-right direction, the locking pin is moved from the first pin position to the second pin position to allow the locking pin to be deviated from the stopper groove [see FIG 7, paragraph 0052-0057].
{cl. 8} The cooking apparatus of claim 7, wherein the button further includes a spring (48, 172) disposed between the first pressing portion and the second pressing portion to press the first pressing portion and the second pressing portion [see FIG 5, paragraph 0036-0037].
{cl. 11} The cooking apparatus of claim 7, wherein the knob includes a receiving space (130) configured to receive the button, and the first pressing portion and the second pressing portion are exposed from the receiving space to be pressed [see FIGs 2 and 7, paragraph 0052-0057].
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 apparatus of Lewis with the teachings of Starr because Starr provides a known safety mechanism that prevents unwanted rotation but still allows for easy use of the control knob. The modification involves replacing/substituting the push button (33) of Lewis with the sliding button of Starr.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15 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. The prior art modifications needed in order to obtain the scope of claims 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15 require impermissible hindsight reasoning is changes would be made to secondary references, or the claims contain allowable subject matter from dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 is recommended for review to distinguish over art not applied in the above rejections, as the remaining references show a variety of similarities that are apparent at least from the figures.
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
10/14/2026
Prosecution Insights