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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 06/26/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1, 3-5, 13 and 15-18 has /have been amended, claim 22 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-22 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 1-22 are as follow.
The previous Claim Objections and 112 (b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's explanation and amendment to the claims with no new matter added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 13 recites the limitation “the corresponding one of the at least one or more heating elements” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the one or more of the heating elements” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the one or more of the heating elements” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the one or more of the heating elements” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently be names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbey (EP 1 020 686 A1) in view of SAPORETTI et al. (US 2020/0128630 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Hilbey discloses a cooktop system (see Fig 1), comprising:
a cooktop including one or more heating elements spaced apart along a cooktop surface (cooking surface has four burners 3-6 spaced apart along a cooktop surface, [0010], Fig 1) and one or more control elements (four control means 7-10, [0011], Fig 1) that control power delivered to each of the one or more heating elements, the one or more control elements are adjustable to provide a plurality of power levels to each of the one or more heating elements (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]), the one or more control elements are positioned along a front surface of the cooktop (four control means 7-10 are positioned along a front surface of the cooktop, Fig 1) and the one or more heating elements are spaced apart along the cooktop surface between the front surface and a rear surface of the cooktop opposite the front surface (burners 3-6 are spaced apart along the cooktop surface between the front surface and a rear surface of the cooktop opposite the front surface, Fig 1); and
one or more light elements of the cooktop surface (indicator lights 11-14, [0013], Fig 1), each light element of the one or more light elements spaced apart along the cooktop surface from the one or more control elements with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (each indicator light 11-14 spaced apart along the cooktop surface from the one or more control elements 7-10 with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements, Figs 1-2) and between a front surface of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and the front surface of the cooktop (indicator light 11-14 between a front surface of the corresponding one of the four burners 3-6 and the front surface of the cooktop, Fig 1), the one or more light elements configured to illuminate at a plurality of power indication stages that correspond to the plurality of power levels (apparent speed of movement of the light points can be used to visualize the level of power control of the focus, [0022], Fig 3);
wherein, responsive to an adjustment of at least one of the one or more control elements to select a power level from the plurality of power levels of at least one of the one or more heating elements, the cooktop system is configured to activate a corresponding one of the one or more light elements positioned at the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements to illuminate a power indication stage of the plurality of power indication stages that corresponds to the power level of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (a one-second increment period is used to visualize a low power control level and a shorter period to visualize a higher power control level, [0022], Fig 3).
Hilbey discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the one or more light elements of a cooktop surface (“the one or more light elements of a cooktop surface” taught by Hilbey already); and each light element of the one or more light elements positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (“the one or more heating elements” taught already by Hilbey);
SAPORETTI et al. further teach a cooktop system (see Title), and one or more light elements (an optical system 10, [0035], Figs 1-2) of a cooktop surface (a cooktop surface including top plate 3 and a support portion 5, [0034-0035], Fig 1), each light element of the one or more light elements (Note: “each light element of the one or more light elements” taught by Hilbey already) positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (optical system 10 positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding heating element- coil 2, [0034], Fig 2. Note: “the one or more heating elements” taught by Hilbey already);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Hilbey with SAPORETTI et al.’s further teaching of one or more light elements of the cooktop surface; each light element of the one or more light elements positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements; because SAPORETTI et al. teach, in Para. [0005], of providing excellent light indicators in the center of the heater with enhanced information content in order to improve the usability of the induction hob.
Claim 2, wherein the one or more light elements are light bars (light bar 20, [0015], Fig 2, Hilbey).
Claim 3, wherein the plurality of power indication stages (Note: “the plurality of power indication stages” taught by Hilbey already) incrementally and symmetrically extend further outwardly towards a right side and a left side of the cooktop from a center portion of each of the one or more light elements (light guide 13.1 may extend form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at the one or more control elements (Note: “to adjustments at the one or more control elements” taught by Hilbey already) to increase a power level of the plurality of power levels supplied to one or more of the one or more heating elements (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey), wherein the center portion of each of the light elements is aligned with a center of each of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (see Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.).
Claim 4, wherein the plurality of power indication stages (Note: “the plurality of power indication stages” taught by Hilbey already) incrementally and symmetrically retract inwardly towards the center portion from outer portions of each of the one or more light elements (light guide 13.1 may extend form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at the one or more control elements (Note: “to adjustments at the one or more control elements” taught by Hilbey already) to decrease a power level of the plurality of power levels supplied to one or more of the one or more heating elements (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey).
Claim 5, wherein the one or more light elements are horizontal light bars positioned visually below each of the one or more heating elements when viewed from above the cooktop system (The line can be any shape, [0013], details see Figs 1-3, Hilbey), and the one or more light elements are parallel to the front surface of the cooktop (each front end of indicator light 11-14 are parallel to the front surface of the cooktop, Fig 1).
Claim 6, wherein the plurality of power indication stages are symmetrical on both sides of the center portion (Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.).
Claim 7, wherein the light bars are curved light bars positioned visually below each of the one or more heating elements (The line can be any shape, [0013], details see Figs 1-3, Hilbey).
Claim 8, wherein the plurality of power indication stages includes four power indication stages for each one of the one or more light elements (a one-second increment period is used to visualize a low power control level and a shorter period to visualize a higher power control level, [0022], Hilbey; clearly, the light elements capable of “includes four power indication stages” as claimed).
Claim 10, wherein each of the one or more light elements is individually responsive to one of the one or more control elements (four indicator lights 11 to 14 are located on the hob… the second end of which is located in the vicinity of the control panel close to the control means with which it is associated, [0013], Figs 1 and 3, Hilbey).
Claim 11, wherein the one or more heating elements are induction heating elements (an induction hob, [0018], Hilbey).
Claim 12, wherein the one or more light elements are configured to be visible to a user of the cooktop system when one or more items of cookware are positioned above the one or more heating elements of the cooktop system (lights visible by transparency under a transparent hearth plate 23 made for example of glass or glass-ceramic… each indicator light 11 to 14 is produced by means of a light bar 20, [0014-0015], Figs 1-3, Hilbey).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Hilbey disclose a method of displaying a plurality of power levels of a cooktop (display means is a light indicator… the temperature of the hearth, the power control level of the hearth, [0005], Fig 1), the method comprising:
positioning one or more light elements (indicator lights 11-14, [0013], Fig 1) of a cooktop surface visually with respect to a corresponding one of one or more heating elements of the cooktop (cooking surface has four burners 3-6, [0010], Fig 1), the one or more light elements are spaced apart along the cooktop surface from one or more control elements (four control means 7-10, [0011], Fig 1), the one or more light elements include a plurality of power indication stages that correspond to the plurality of power levels of each of the one or more heating elements (apparent speed of movement of the light points can be used to visualize the level of power control of the focus, [0022], Fig 3), each of the one or more light elements extends in a direction parallel to the one or more light elements (see Fig 1);
activating at least one of the one or more heating elements by actuating a corresponding one of the one or more control elements (four control means 7-10, each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Fig 1);
illuminating the one or more light elements at each of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements that are activated (a one-second increment period is used to visualize a low power control level and a shorter period to visualize a higher power control level, [0022], Fig 3); and
adjusting the corresponding one of the at least one or more heating elements activated during the activating step to a power level of the plurality of power levels (the power control level of the fireplace given by the user using the control means, the temperature of the fireplace, [0020]); and
Hilbey discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the method comprising: positioning one or more light elements (Note: “the one or more light elements” taught by Hilbey already) of a cooktop surface at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of one or more heating elements (Note: “one or more heating elements” taught by Hilbey already) of the cooktop;
SAPORETTI et al. further teach a cooktop system (see Title), and one or more light elements (an optical system 10, [0035], Figs 1-2) of a cooktop surface (a cooktop surface including top plate 3 and a support portion 5, [0034-0035], Fig 1), and a method comprising: positioning one or more light elements of a cooktop surface (an induction cooking device 1, [0034]; light source 11, [0035], Figs 1-2. Note: “the one or more light elements of a cooktop surface” taught by Hilbey already) at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of one or more heating elements (light source 11 positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding heating element- coil 2, [0034], Fig 2. coil 2, [0034], Fig 2. Note: “one or more heating elements” taught by Hilbey already) of the cooktop;
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add method of Hilbey with SAPORETTI et al.’s further teaching of a method comprising: positioning one or more light elements of a cooktop surface at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of one or more heating elements of the cooktop; because SAPORETTI et al. teach, in Para. [0005], of providing excellent light indicators in the center of the heater with enhanced information content in order to improve the usability of the induction hob.
Claim 14, wherein the one or more light elements are light bars (light bar 20, [0015], Fig 2, Hilbey).
Claim 15, wherein an adjustment of the power level of the plurality of power levels increases the power level of the plurality of power levels of the one or more heating elements activated during the activating step (four control means 7-10, each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]. Hilbey); and
adjusting the power indication stage of the one or more light elements (Note: “the adjusting the power indication stage of the light element” taught by Hilbey already) includes incrementally extending an illuminated area of the one or more light elements further outwardly from a center portion of the one or more light elements (light guide 13.1 may extend form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at the control element (Note: “the one or more light elements responsive to adjustments at the one or more control elements” taught by Hilbey already) to increase the power level of the plurality of power levels supplied to one or more of the one or more heating elements (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey), wherein the center portion of each of the one or more light elements is aligned with a center of each of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements (see Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.).
Claim 16, wherein an adjustment of a power level of the plurality of power levels decreases the power level of the plurality of power levels of one of the one or more heating elements activated during the activating step (four control means 7-10, each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]. Hilbey); and
adjusting the power indication stage of the one or more light elements (Note: “the adjusting the power indication stage of the light element” taught by Hilbey already) includes incrementally retracting an illuminated area of the one or more light elements inwardly towards the center portion from outer portions of each of the one or more light elements (light guide 13.1… form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at one or more of the one or more control elements (Note: “the light elements responsive to adjustments at the control element” taught by Hilbey already) to decrease the power level of the plurality of power levels supplied to the one or more of the heating elements activated during the activating step (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey).
Claim 17, wherein an adjustment of a power level of the plurality of power levels increases the power level of the plurality of power levels of one of the one or more heating elements activated during the activating step (four control means 7-10, each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]. Hilbey); and
adjusting the power indication stage of the one or more light elements (Note: “the adjusting the power indication stage of the light element” taught by Hilbey already) includes incrementally growing an illuminated area of the one or more light elements outwardly from a first side of the one or more light elements (light guide 13.1… form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at one or more of the one or more control elements (Note: “the light element responsive to adjustments at the one or more control elements” taught by Hilbey already) to increase the power level supplied to the one or more of the heating elements activated during the activating step (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey).
Claim 18, wherein the adjustment of the power level decreases the power level of one of the activated heating elements (four control means 7-10, each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]. Hilbey); and
the adjusting the power indication stage of the light element (Note: “the adjusting the power indication stage of the light element” taught by Hilbey already) includes incrementally retracting an illuminated area of the light element inwardly towards a first side of the light element and away from a second side of each of the light elements (light guide 13.1… form an inner portion of the induction coil 2, [0042], Fig 2, SAPORETTI et al.) responsive to adjustments at the one or more control elements to decrease the power level supplied to one or more of the heating elements activated during the activating step (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011], Hilbey)
Claim 19, wherein the one or more control elements comprises a plurality of control elements (four control means 7-10, [0011], Fig 1, Hilbey), wherein each of the one or more light elements is individually responsive to one of the plurality of control elements (four indicator lights 11 to 14 are located on the hob… the second end of which is located in the vicinity of the control panel close to the control means with which it is associated, [0013], Figs 1 and 3, Hilbey).
Claim 20, wherein the one or more heating elements are induction heating elements (an induction hob, [0018], Hilbey).
Claim 21, wherein the one or more light elements are configured to be visible to a user of cooktop system when one or more items of cookware are positioned above the one or more heating elements of the cooktop system (lights visible by transparency under a transparent hearth plate 23 made for example of glass or glass-ceramic… each indicator light 11 to 14 is produced by means of a light bar 20, [0014-0015], Figs 1-3, Hilbey).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbey in view of SAPORETTI et al. as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Millett (US 2017/0027378 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hilbey in view of SAPORETTI et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 9.
Millett further teaches a cooktop system and apparatus (a heating appliance 16, [0023], Fig 1) including light element (reference numeral 10 generally refers to an indicial light module to) and Claim 9, wherein each one of the one or more light elements (Note: “the one or more light elements” taught by Hilbey already) includes a timer (a control 160 for operating the indicial light module 10 can include a timing function, [0033], Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Hilbey in view of SAPORETTI et al. with Millett’s further teaching of Claim 9; because Millett teaches, in P 2 Col 1 line 40-50, of providing an excellent control panel to provide user with illuminated lights of the actual cool down condition of the cooktop for operational safety purpose.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbey (EP 1 020 686 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 22, Hilbey discloses a cooktop system (see Fig 1), comprising:
a cooktop surface (cooking surface has four burners 3-6 spaced apart along a cooktop surface, [0010], Fig 1) that extends between a front surface and a rear surface of the cooktop (see Fig 1);
a heating element (cooking surface has four burners 3-6 spaced apart along a cooktop surface, [0010], Fig 1) disposed on the cooktop surface.
a control element (four control means 7-10, [0011], Fig 1) positioned on a front surface, the control element controlling power delivered to the heating element, the control element being configured to adjust a power level to the heating element (each of which can control the power level delivered by one of the four burners 3-6, [0011]);
a light bar (light bar 20, [0015], groups of lights L1-Ln-1, [0022]. Fig 3Fig 2) positioned adjacent to and generally parallel to one side of the heating element on the cooktop (see Fig 1), the light bar being spaced apart from the control element (see Fig 1),
wherein, responsive to an adjustment of the control element, the cooktop system is configured to expand a length the light bar as the power level of the heating element is increased or contract the length of the light bar as the power level of the heating element is decreased (the power control level of the fireplace given by the user using the control means, the temperature of the fireplace, [0020], The apparent speed of movement of the light points can be used to visualize the level of power control of the focus, [0022], Fig 3, Hilbey); and
wherein the light bar position remains generally parallel to the one side of the heating element (each front end of indicator light 11-14 position remains generally parallel to the one side of the burners 3-6, Fig 1).
Hilbey do not explicitly disclose that the heating element having a generally rectangular shape; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the heating element having a generally rectangular shape; since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well when the heating element have a shape differently from generally rectangular as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hilbey with further teaching of the heating element having a generally rectangular shape; because Hilbey teaches, in Para. [0003], of providing user with visibility of the connection between the hearth and the control means associated with it improved operational convenience during processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Office Action recognizes
that, "Hilbey ... does not disclose one or more light elements of a cooktop surface; and each light element of the one or more light elements positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements." Office Action, pp. 10-11. The Office Action relies on Saporetti for these claimed features. Nothing in Saporetti discloses that the light source 11 is "spaced apart along the cooktop surface from the one or more control elements and positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and between a front surface of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and the front surface of the cooktop," as recited in claim 1. (Emphases added). The Office's rejections are deficient for multiple reasons. First, the Office's assumption used for rejecting the current claims is factually flawed. The Office contends that Saporetti teaches "using one or more light elements positioned at and
centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements" because light source 11 is allegedly positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding heating element (coil 2, [0034]). Off Action at 11. This interpretation, however, not only mischaracterizes Saporetti's disclosure but also runs directly counter to the very purpose of Saporetti's invention. Saporetti expressly identifies-and seeks to overcome-a problem in the prior art in which a "cooking hob comprises a cooking zone element with a central cut-out below which said illumination device is arranged in order to illuminate the centre portion of a cooking zone[.]"
Saporetti, [0003]. Saporetti explains that this "known technical solution is disadvantageous because based on the central light indicator, the size and extent of the cooking zone element is not derivable." To address this deficiency, Saporetti's invention is directed to using "light deflecting means 12" "configured to change the propagation direction of light provided by said light source 11," such that "light emitted at the opening 12.1 is provided into said light guide 13.1." Saporetti, [0037], [0042]. Critically, the light deflecting means 12 is expressly "adapted to prevent a direct light transmission from the light source 11 to the top plate." Saporetti, [0037]. Indeed, it is Saporetti's light guiding means 13.1-not its light source-that illuminates the cooktop. And as shown in FIG. 2, those light guides 13.1 are "radially arranged" in "a spoke-like arrangement," and therefore are not "positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements." Accordingly, the proposed combination
of Hilbey and Saporetti thus fails to suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Second, even if one were to assume that Saporetti' s light source illuminated light at a central opening 2.1 in the center of the induction coil (which it does not), the light source would
not be "spaced apart along the cooktop surface from the one or more control elements and positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and between a front surface of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and the front surface of the cooktop," as recited in claim 1. (Emphases added). Saporetti states, "[t]he light source 11 may be arranged in the area of the opening 2.1 of the induction coil 2," and, "[a]dvantageously, the light source 11 may be arranged in the centre or essentially in the centre of the opening 2.1 of the induction coil 2." Saporetti ,i [0036]. So if the proposed combination includes both the display means 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Hilbey and
additionally includes the light source 11 of Saporetti (which Applicant disputes as a workable combination), the combined light elements still lack that each light element is "spaced apart along the cooktop surface from the one or more control elements and positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and between a front surface of the corresponding one of the one or more heating elements and the front surface of the cooktop," as recited in claim 1. (Emphases added)”, and “the proposed combination is flawed for the following reasons. First, the Office's proposed combination is legally flawed because it appears to modify Hilbey's light elements such that some or all of them are repositioned to the location taught by Saporetti-that is, Hilbey's indicator lights 11-14 would be fully or partially realigned with the center opening of burners 3-6 (see Hilbey, FIG. 1) based on Saporetti's placement of light source 11 (see Saporetti, FIG. 2). Such a modification, however, would defeat the very purpose of Hilbey's invention. Hilbey expressly states that "[t]he aim of the invention is to improve the visibility of the connection between the focal point[, such as focal points 3-6,] and the control means associated with it." Hilbey at [0003] (Espacenet, machine translation). Because claim 1 requires "each light element" to be "centered visually" with respect to its respective burner, the proposed combination would require relocating each ofHilbey's indicator lights 11-14 to the central area of each corresponding burner 3-6. Doing so, however, would directly undermine Hilbey's stated purpose of "making it possible to view the connection between a control means and the hob that it controls." Hilbey at [0013] (translated)(emphasis added). And because the proposed combination would render Hilbey unsuitable for its intended purpose, the combination is fatally flawed. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." See MPEP 2143.01.V (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Second, the proposed combination is legally flawed because the Office's purported motivation completely ignores that the same information content was already supplied by the primary reference being modified (i.e., Hilbey). Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention."). In fact, the addition of the light source 11 of Saporetti to the display means 11, 12, 13, and 14 ofHilbey would provide the same information content because Hilbey's purpose for the display means 11, 12, 13, and 14 is for, "showing the connection between the control means (7, 8, 9, 10) and the cooking hearth (3, 4, 5, 6)." Hilbey, Abstract. Hilbey further states, "In addition to viewing the connection between a [household] and its control means, the indicator light as described above allows the user to transmit other information relating to the operation of the fireplace such as the level of control in power of the stove given by the user using the control means, the temperature of the fireplace or a malfunction of the fireplace." Hilbey [0020]. Saporetti's light source provides the same information provided by Hilbey, not enhanced information content alleged by the Office Action. The law mandates an "especially strong" inference of nonobviousness where Hilbey's (i.e., the primary reference's) original solution undermines the very reason being proffered as to why Hilbey (as the primary reference) should be modified. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("An inference of nonobviousness is especially strong where the prior art's teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the known elements."); In re SuongHyu Hyon, 679 F.3d at 1366 ("It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only as much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.")”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Hilbey (EP 1 020 686 A1) in view of SAPORETTI et al. teach exactly a cooktop system/ a method of displaying a plurality of power levels of a cooktop as claimed under the newly updated Independent Claims 1 and 13 respectively, fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 13 as set forth in this office action shown above. The purpose of bringing in SAPORETTI et al. is to add Hilbey with further teaching of one or more light elements of the cooktop surface; each light element of the one or more light elements positioned at and centered visually with respect to a corresponding one of the one or more heating elements, for the purpose of providing excellent light indicators in the center of the heater with enhanced information content in order to improve the usability of the induction hob (Para. [0005]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references SAPORETTI et al. individually: one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), (See MPEP 2145. IV.). During “examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights