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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113028396 (Fang hereinafter) in view of US EP 0551235 (Dubois hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Fang teaches a gas stove top that discloses a support frame for a cooking vessel (Figures 1 and 8 show the supports on 201 for holding a cooking vessel); a burner crown with a burner cap configured to shape and position a flame of the burner module (Burner crown 102 in Figure 8); and an overflow bowl having a transition rim for forming a transition to an upper surface of a cover plate of the cooking hob (Bowl 202 with rim 203 to the cover plate forming the top of the cooking area), wherein an air duct for admitting primary air for the flame of the burner module is established between the burner crown and the overflow bowl (Air duct shown with the arrows in Figures 7 and 8).
Fang is silent with respect to a cross-section of the air duct for the primary air is arranged at least partially below the upper surface of the cover plate.
However, Dubois teaches a gas burner on a cooking surface that discloses a cross-section of the air duct for the primary air is arranged at least partially below the upper surface of the cover plate (Figures 2b and 2c shows the airflow for the burner coming from under the cooking surface 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the burner of Fang with the inset height of Dubois to have an aesthetically pleasing design while still providing the required airflow.
Regarding claim 2, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that an upper duct wall of the air duct for the primary air is arranged in a plane with the transition rim of the overflow bowl (Entry point of the air for Fang as modified y the entry point for the air in Figure 2c of Dubois placing the air duct at a portion of the equivalent transition rim of 70 at 50 in Dubois).
Regarding claim 3, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the upper duct wall of the air duct for the primary air is formed by the burner crown (Dubois Figure 2c shows the upper wall of the duct forming 50 would be part of the burner crown 102 of Fang)
Regarding claim 4, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that a lower duct wall of the air duct for the primary air is formed by the overflow bowl (Resultant combination would feature a lower portion of the air duct formed in Dubois to a part of the bowl of Fang).
Regarding claim 5, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 4 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the overflow bowl has a gutter which is arranged between the transition rim and the lower duct wall (Gutter formed below the lower wall of the duct of Dubois as applied to Fang), wherein the gutter is arranged lower relative to the upper surface of the cover plate than the transition rim and the lower duct wall (Evident from Figure 2c of Dubois as applied to Fang).
Regarding claim 6, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the air duct is formed circumferentially around the burner crown (Evident from Fang Figures 1, 7, and 8)
Regarding claim 7, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that a surface normal of an inlet opening from the air duct for the primary air has an upwardly pointing vector portion.
However, Dubois teaches a different amendment of a gas burner that would disclose a surface normal of an inlet opening from the air duct for the primary air has an upwardly pointing vector portion (Figure 2a with the opening at 11 for airflow 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Fang and Dubois with the vertical airflow openings of Dubois’ other embodiment to allow for minimal chance for surface pollutants such as liquid to flow into the airways.
Regarding claim 9, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose an inlet opening from the air duct for the primary air has a first cross section area (Opening for 50 in Figure 2c of Dubois as applied to Fang) and a narrowest duct section of the air duct for the primary air below the burner crown has a second cross section area (Evident from Dubois Figure 2c), wherein the first cross section area is larger than the second cross section area (Figure 2c of Dubois).
Regarding claim 10, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose an inlet opening is formed by the air duct for the primary air between the burner crown and the support frame (Evident from Figures 7-8 of Fang and Figure 2c of Dubois).
Regarding claim 11, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the support frame comprises a circumferential ring to which a plurality of support ribs are attached, wherein the circumferential ring is arranged within the overflow bowl (Ring 201 as seen in Figures 7 and 8 of Fang).
Regarding claim 12, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 11 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the circumferential ring is arranged below a plane of the transition rim of the overflow bowl, up to a maximum adjacent thereto (Resultant combination where the support ring 201 features a portion that would be below the surface of the transition ring to make the combination with Dubois possible).
Regarding claim 13, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the support frame and the burner crown are removable and the overflow bowl is fixed to the cover plate (Evident form Figures 7 and 8 of Fang).
Regarding claim 14, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose a cover plate with an upper surface (See Combination outline above in claim 1); at least one burner module according to claim 1, of which a transition is formed by means of the transition rim of the overflow bowl to the upper surface of the cover plate (Evident from Figures 1, 7, and 8 of fang with Figure 2c of Dubois for at least one burner to be present); and a number of gas burners corresponding to a number of said at least one burner modules (Evident Fang Figures 1, 7, and 8), which is assigned to a respective opening in the cover plate and can be supplied with primary air via the air duct of the respective burner module (Duct 50 of Dubois as applied to Fang).
Regarding claim 15, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that between the upper surface of the cover plate and the overflow bowl, an elevation is formed by means of the transition rim with a direction of extension out of the upper surface, wherein the cover plate and the overflow bowl are formed in one piece ().
Regarding claim 16, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose a lower duct wall of the air duct for the primary air is formed by the overflow bowl (Evident combination of Figure2c as applied to Fang Figures 7 and 8), wherein the overflow bowl has a gutter which is arranged between the transition rim and the lower duct wall (Gutter formed below the lower wall of the duct of Dubois as applied to Fang and the transition rim of Fang), and wherein the circumferential ring is arranged in the gutter (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the circumferential ring of Fang is within the bounds of the gutter formed by the combination).
Regarding claim 17, Fang teaches a gas stove top that discloses a cover plate having an upper surface (Top surface for the burners of Figure 1, 7, and 8 to be mounted to); and a burner module comprising: a support frame configured to support a cooking vessel thereon (Figures 1 and 8 show the supports on 201 for holding a cooking vessel);a burner crown with a burner cap configured to shape and position a flame of the burner module (Burner crown 102 in Figure 8), said burner crown having a first duct wall (Duct wall below 102 for allowing airflow into the crown); and an overflow bowl having a transition rim that forms a transition to the upper surface of the cover plate (Bowl 202 with rim 203 to the cover plate forming the top of the cooking area), said overflow bowl having a second duct wall disposed beneath and facing said first duct wall (Duct for the airflow with the lower wall in Figures 8), said first duct wall being arranged in a plane with the transition rim (Evident from Figure 8 of Fang), wherein an air duct for admitting primary air for the flame of the burner module is at least partially defined between the first duct wall and the second duct wall and formed around the burner crown (Evident from Figure 8 of Fang).
Fang is silent with respect to a cross-section of the air duct is arranged at least partially below the upper surface of the cover plate, wherein the overflow bowl has a gutter disposed laterally between the transition rim and the second duct wall, said gutter being recessed with respect to each of the transition rim and the second duct wall.
However, Dubois teaches a gas burner on a cooking surface that discloses a cross-section of the air duct for the primary air is arranged at least partially below the upper surface of the cover plate (Figures 2b and 2c shows the airflow for the burner coming from under the cooking surface 30). The resultant combination would be such that the overflow bowl has a gutter disposed laterally between the transition rim and the second duct wall (Gutter formed below the lower wall of the duct of Dubois as applied to Fang), said gutter being recessed with respect to each of the transition rim and the second duct wall (Evident from the lowered position taught by Dubois and the structure shown in Figure 7 of Fang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the burner of Fang with the inset height of Dubois to have an aesthetically pleasing design while still providing the required airflow.
Regarding claim 18, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose said air duct has an inlet opening formed between the burner crown and the support frame (Opening for 50 in Figure 2c of Dubois as applied to Fang), said inlet opening having a first cross-sectional area (Evident from Dubois Figure 2c), wherein a narrowest section of the air duct beneath the burner crown has a second cross-sectional area, and wherein the first cross-sectional area is greater than the second cross-sectional area (Figure 2c of Dubois as applied to Fang).
Regarding claim 19, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose
Regarding claim 20, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the support frame comprises a circumferential ring and a plurality of support ribs (Circumferential ring 201 with support ribs shown in Figures 1 and 7 of Fang), wherein said plurality of support ribs are attached to and project outwards from said circumferential ring (Evident from Figures 1 and 7 of Fang), and wherein said circumferential ring is disposed within said gutter (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the circumferential ring of Fang is within the bounds of the gutter formed by the combination).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113028396 (Fang) in view of US EP 0551235 (Dubois) and further in view of US 2003/0140918 (Taplan hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 7 but are silent with respect that the surface normal of the inlet opening is aligned perpendicular to the cover plate in use.
However, Taplan teaches a cooking top that discloses an air inlet with a surface normal of the inlet opening is aligned perpendicular to the cover plate in use ().
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Fang and Dubois with the teachings of Taplan to make the air inlets vertical to minimize the chance of blockage while being away from the burners.
Regarding claim 19, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 but are silent with respect to a surface normal of said inlet opening has an upwardly pointing vector portion and is aligned perpendicular to the cover plate.
However, Taplan teaches a cooking top that discloses an air inlet with a surface normal of the inlet opening is aligned perpendicular to the cover plate in use ().
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Fang and Dubois with the teachings of Taplan to make the air inlets vertical to minimize the chance of blockage while being away from the burners.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113028396 (Fang) in view of US EP 0551235 (Dubois) and further in view of US 3488137 (Naganuma hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Fang’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Fang and Dubois would further disclose that the upper surface of the cover plate and the overflow bowl, an elevation is formed by means of the transition rim with a direction of extension out of the upper surface (Evident from Fang Figures 7 and 8 with Figure 2c of Dubois).
Fang is silent with respect that the cover plate and the overflow bowl are formed in one piece.
However, Naganuma teaches a gas burner (Figures 1 and 2) that discloses a cover plate and an overflow bowl are formed in one piece (Figure 2 shows the equivalent top cover bowl 1 as one piece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modular construction of Fang with the unitary construction of Naganuma to allow for easier assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0049109 and US 9151494 each disclose a burner design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights