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 .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application in response to the Preliminary-Amendment filed on 10/10/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: (i) claims 1-9, line 1, “Kit” should be “A kit”; (ii) claim 2, line 1, “Kit according to the preceding claim” should be “A kit according to claim 1”; (iii) claims 10-11, line 1, “Assembly” should be “An assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USP 12449137 to Miranda et al (hereinafter Miranda).
Miranda discloses (Claim 1). A kit for the installation of a first and a second recessed appliance, the first appliance 140 having an upper outer surface (defined by a portion of gasket 150), the second appliance 10 having a front outer surface, the kit comprising (such as shown in Figs. 7-8): a front panel 62 having a front surface and connectable with a connecting edge (defined by a portion of gasket 150) of the first appliance 140, a fixing portion 164 connected to the front panel 62 and configured to be fixed to the first appliance 140; wherein the front surface is placed in continuity with the upper outer surface of the first appliance 140 when the front panel 62 is fixed to a piece of furniture; (Claim 2). A kit according to claim 1, wherein the front panel 62 comprises a first end edge configured to be connected with the connecting edge of the first appliance 140; (Claim 3). A kit according to claim 2, wherein the connecting edge has a protrusion 162, the first end edge having a recess 164, counter-shaped to the protrusion 162 to retain the protrusion 162 by interference; (Claim 8). A kit according to claim 1, further comprising the first 140 and/or the second 10 appliance; (Claim 9). A kit according to claim 1, wherein the first appliance 140 is a hob and/or the second appliance 10 is an oven.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda in view of US 2017/0154264 to Harrell.
Miranda discloses all the elements as discussed above including the limitations in (i) Claim 5 of the front surface of the front panel 62 is substantially coplanar with the front outer surface of the second appliance 10 (such as shown in Fig. 2); (ii) Claim 6 of wherein the front panel 62 comprises a second end edge facing a corresponding upper edge of the front outer surface of the second appliance 10, the upper edge of the front outer surface of the second appliance 10 being defined on an openable door 16; (iii) Claim 11 of further comprising the first appliance and/or the second appliance.
The differences being that Miranda fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (a) claim 4; (b) claim 5 of wherein the front panel is configured to be fixed to the furniture; (c) claim 6 of a distance between the second end edge and the upper edge of the front outer surface of the second appliance being between 1 and 50 mm; (d) claim 7; and (e) claim 10.
Regarding (b), (d) claim 7 and (e) claim 10, Harrel shows that it is well known in the art to install a first and a second recessed appliance to a furniture, which is provided with a countertop.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Harrell, to modify Miranda to include the limitations in (b) claim 5 of wherein the front panel is configured to be fixed to the furniture; (d) claim 7 of wherein the furniture is provided with a countertop, the front panel being configured to be fixed to the furniture so that the front surface is substantially coplanar with a front surface of the countertop; and (e) claim 10 of an assembly comprising a piece of furniture and a kit according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second appliance are fixed recessed in the furniture and the front panel is fixed to the furniture so that the front surface is placed in continuity with the upper outer surface of the first appliance with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the assembly.
Regarding (a) and (c), since it is well known in the art that the front panel 62 can come in various sizes, and the gap between the lower edge of the front panel 62 and the upper edge of the front outer surface of the second appliance can be at various distance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miranda to include the limitations in (a) claim 4 of wherein the front panel has a height between 10 and 70 mm; and (c) claim 6 of a distance between the second end edge and the upper edge of the front outer surface of the second appliance being between 1 and 50 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the kit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, DANIEL TROY can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
HVT
March 7, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637