US 11098905

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for USPTO records and any litigation/appeal activity.

Let me do two more checks: one for any PTAB/IPR or district court case, and one for the CAFC docket itself.

Search scope and limitations (read first)

I do not have direct credentialed access to USPTO Patent Public Search/PatentCenter or to the Federal Circuit's docket system (CM/ECF). What I could do is run open web searches against patent databases (Google Patents, Justia, EPO/Espacenet references) and general legal-news/docket reporting. Findings below are grounded in those results plus the authoritative full text supplied. Where I could not confirm something, I say so rather than guessing.

---

1. Identifiers and bibliographic data for US 11,098,905

These values match across the Google Patents full text and the independent Justia listing (patents.justia.com/patent/11098905), with no contradicting search results.

2. Abstract (as granted)

If hobs are integrated into built-in furniture, the temperature in/on the built-in furniture must not exceed permissible limits. The patent proposes fastening a temperature sensor in the hob housing by means of a heat-conducting retaining element, arranged on the hob housing so that substantially the heat output into the worktop is transmitted via the retaining element to the temperature sensor.

3. Plain-language overview of the claims

Important structural note: the granted patent has 11 claims, and only claim 1 is independent. Claims 2–11 all depend from claim 1. The specification describes a separate method aspect ("a method for controlling a hob installed in a worktop … monitoring a temperature of the worktop … reducing a power of the hob when the temperature exceeds a temperature threshold value"), but that method is not presented as a claim in the granted claim set — it appears only in the disclosure. (Some secondary summaries reproduce the method language, which can give the false impression it is claimed.)

Independent Claim 1 — "A hob for installation in a worktop"

Plain-language breakdown. A hob must have all of:

1. A hob housing — the metal/structural box that holds the heating elements and electronics.
2. A profiled element attached to the hob housing and configured to be in thermally conducting contact with the worktop — this is the trim/profile piece that bears against the cut-out edge in the worktop; heat from the worktop reaches it.
3. A thermally insulating bracket attached to the hob housing — e.g., the silicon bracket of the embodiment (Figs. 1, 4, 5; item 102/402/502).
4. A heat-conducting retaining element fixed to the thermally insulating bracket and in thermally conducting contact with the profiled element, where the bracket prevents the retaining element from directly contacting the hob housing — i.e., heat flows worktop → profiled element → retaining element (e.g., metal U-profile) → sensor, while the insulating bracket blocks a parallel path from the (hot) hob housing into the retaining element.
5. A temperature sensor in thermally conducting contact with the retaining element, the retaining element fastening the sensor in the hob housing and being arranged to transmit the heat output into the worktop to the sensor.

So the core of the monopoly is the specific thermal train: profiled element → conductive retaining element → sensor, with thermal isolation of the retaining element from the hob housing via an insulating bracket. Claim 1 is a structural apparatus claim; it is not limited to a particular control algorithm or threshold.

Dependent claims (for completeness)

• 2 — retaining element attached to a top side of an external wall of the hob housing.
• 3 — profiled element connects the hob plate to the hob housing and aligns the housing in the worktop cut-out.
• 4 — profiled element contacts the underside of the hob plate.
• 5 — retaining element is a U-profile with two limbs spanning the upper edge of the hob housing and a connecting supporting surface on which the profiled element rests.
• 6 — retaining element attached in a projecting tab of the hob housing.
• 7 — sensor is a resistance temperature sensor.
• 8 — sensor is an NTC sensor.
• 9 — a plurality of such sensors and retaining elements.
• 10 — the thermally insulating bracket exerts a spring force in the direction of the retaining element that fixes it in place.
• 11 — a hob plate attached to the housing, with the sensor located remotely from and not contacting the hob plate.

Essentially, claims 2–11 add mounting/geometry and sensor-type specifics around the claim 1 thermal-path concept.

4. CAFC 2026 docket and litigation search — result

I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, IPR/PTAB proceeding, or district-court case involving US 11,098,905. Targeted searches for the number in combination with "CAFC 2026," "appeal," "IPR," "PTAB," and "district court" returned only unrelated matters. The CAFC/BSH-related 2025–2026 activity that dominates the search results concerns a different matter entirely — BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB, C-339/22 (CJEU, Feb. 25, 2025) regarding European patent EP 1,434,512 (cross-border patent jurisdiction), and the related U.S. anti-suit-injunction dispute in BMW v. Onesta — none of which involve US 11,098,905.

Caveat, stated explicitly: this is an absence of evidence from open web sources, not proof of absence. A docket that is newly filed, sealed, or not yet indexed by general web search could exist without appearing in these results. A definitive check would require a direct PatentCenter/PTAB (P-TACTS) and Federal Circuit CM/ECF docket query by patent number, which I cannot run here. If you need that confirmation, treat it as an open item.

5. Residual uncertainties

• Grant date: Google Patents reports issue/publication as 2021-08-24, while the legal-events log shows the "patented case" recordation on 2021-08-04. I report both rather than reconciling them, per the instruction not to auto-correct identifiers/dates.
• Expiration 2039-08-27 is a database assumption (filing + 20 years + assumed term adjustment), not an adjudicated term.
• Spanish counterpart: ES 2713382 A1 published 2019-05-21 and is listed by Google as withdrawn/not active; I did not independently verify its current legal status at OEPM.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11098905 across patent litigation databases.

The first result is a false positive — that case involves patent 11,098,015, not 11,098,905. Let me run more targeted searches.

Answer: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,098,905

No litigation asserting or otherwise involving U.S. Patent No. 11,098,905 was identified in any of the sources searched.

I searched patent-litigation-focused sources (including Unified Patents portal material, litigation aggregators, CourtListener/PACER-adjacent records, and general patent-litigation reporting) using the patent number, the title, and the assignee (BSH Hausgeräte GmbH, the original and current assignee per the face of the patent). None returned a case naming this patent.

Important note on search results (strict-identifier caution)

Several searches returned false positives that must not be attributed to US 11,098,905. Per the strict rule to interpret identifiers literally, I flag these expressly:

• ACQIS LLC v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., W.D. Tex., No. 6:23-cv-00264 (filed 2023-04-10). The patents asserted were 10,047,053; 10,174,017; 11,040,006; 11,040,032; 11,098,015; 6,720,001; and 9,000,021. The number 11,098,015 is a different patent from 11,098,905 — this is a transposition, not the patent at issue. This case is not about US 11,098,905.
• Various "…905 patent" hits (e.g., Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC; the Sony/Fujifilm ITC matter) refer to U.S. Patent No. 6,211,905 and other '905 patents — not 11,098,905.
• A BSH Hausgeräte v. Arcelik A / Beko infringement action is pending at the UPC (Case UPC_CFI_770/2025, filed 2025-08-20), which involves BSH Hausgeräte as plaintiff. However, the sources I retrieved did not identify which BSH patent(s) are asserted, and I could not confirm that US 11,098,905 is among them. I therefore cannot represent that this case involves the patent at issue. Treat it as a potential lead only, not a confirmed match.

Summary table

As to the patent itself (for context, not litigation)

• US 11,098,905 B2 ("Hob with overheat control device"), application US 16/162,452, filed 2018-10-17, granted 2021-08-24, assigned to BSH Hausgeräte GmbH.
• Priority: Spanish application P201731339, filed 2017-11-20 (published as ES2713382A1, noted as "not active / withdrawn").
• Legal status per the patent's Google Patents page: Active, adjusted expiration 2039-08-27; a 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2025-02-10.
• No PTAB (IPR/PGR), reexam, or CAFC proceeding tied to this patent was found in the searches either.

Caveats and confidence

• Confidence: moderate-to-high that no litigation exists as of the search date, but I cannot rule out very recent filings, sealed actions, or dockets not indexed by the public sources I could reach. Patent-litigation databases (Docket Navigator, Lex Machina) and PACER/CM-ECF would be the definitive check; the free sources available here are incomplete.
• I did not obtain a confirmed hit, so I will not state that any specific case exists. If you have a lead case name or court, I can try to verify it against a specific docket.

If you'd like, I can attempt a more targeted follow-up focused on (a) BSH Hausgeräte's U.S. district-court dockets since 2021, or (b) the UPC_CFI_770/2025 case to determine whether US 11,098,905 is among the asserted patents.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — US 11,098,905 B2

Patent: US 11,098,905 B2 — Hob with overheat control device
Patent Owner: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, DE)
Application: 16/162,452 · Filed 2018-10-17 · Priority 2017-11-20 (ES P201731339) · Granted 2021-08-24 · Adjusted expiration 2039-08-27
Independent claims: 1 only (claims 2–11 depend from claim 1) — 11 claims total
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11098905/en

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) list supplied with this task — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 11,098,905. There is therefore no proceeding that is active, no claim cancelled, no claim sustained, no settlement, and no institution denial to report. My independent web searches (queries run on 2026-09-29 covering US11098905 PTAB inter partes review, "11098905" IPR petition BSH Hausgeraete, and variations pairing the patent number with PTAB case-number prefixes) surfaced no PTAB paper, PTAB E2E docket, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. I also found no indication of a Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator challenge.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is not "hardened" by having survived IPRs — it is simply untested at the PTAB. That is materially different from either extreme. A defendant cannot point to a cancelled claim, and equally cannot point to an FWD that validated claim 1. The defensible ground for the defendant is the patent's own prosecution history and the art of record (detailed below), not any AIA outcome. Note the practical asymmetry: US 11,098,905 is a BSH product patent, not an assertion-vehicle patent. Absent a litigation campaign, the absence of IPRs here is expected rather than a signal that the patent is bulletproof.

Caveats on the negative finding. (1) ODP ingest can lag; a very recently filed petition would not yet appear, and I found nothing to contradict the ODP result. (2) The ODP block covers AIA trials only — it does not purport to list ex parte reexaminations or reissues, and I have not independently verified whether any reexamination request has been filed against this patent. Treat that as an open item to confirm via Patent Center, not as a confirmed negative. (3) The patent's Spanish priority counterpart ES 2713382 A1 is listed on Google Patents as not_active / "Withdrawn" — that is a national prosecution outcome, not an invalidation of the US claims, and should not be over-read.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None. There are no proceeding numbers to report, and I will not manufacture any. The requested subsections — Type / Filed / Status / Judge panel / Petition grounds / Institution decision / Final Written Decision / Settlement / Appeal / Defensive value — have no content for this patent.

For completeness on what does exist in the family's adversarial history, so you are not misled by search noise: European oppositions and EPO Board of Appeal decisions exist for other BSH cooktop patents — e.g. T 2256/22 (EP 3 518 618), T 0773/23, and the appeal concerning EP 2 543 232 reported dismissed by the EPO on 2025-02-17 (MLex). Those are separate patents and have no estoppel or preclusive effect on US 11,098,905. Do not cite them as if they were invalidity findings against this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 11 claims are UNTESTED. Claims 1–11 stand as granted; there is no cancellation, no narrowing amendment ordered by the Board, and no certificate of correction or disclaimer of record apparent from the authoritative text. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is the whole case: it recites a hob housing; a profiled element attached to the hob housing and in thermally conducting contact with the worktop; a thermally insulating bracket attached to the hob housing; a heat-conducting retaining element fixed to the bracket and in thermally conducting contact with the profiled element, with the bracket preventing the retaining element from directly contacting the hob housing; and a temperature sensor in thermally conducting contact with the retaining element, the retaining element arranged to transmit heat output into the worktop to the sensor. Every asserted theory today rises or falls on that thermal-path architecture. Dependent claim 10 (bracket exerts a spring force fixing the retaining element) and claim 11 (sensor located remotely from, and not contacting, the hob plate) were added as claim-drafting refinements and are the natural fallback positions.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) estoppel is zero, because no petitioner exists. With no IPR/PGR petitioner, no party is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground in a district court or ITC forum. For a defendant now facing assertion, the entire prior-art space remains open — with one important caveat that is not estoppel but is worth planning around: the art of record already considered by the Examiner (see below) is the art most likely to draw a § 325(d) discretionary-denial fight and the Advanced Bionics / Becton, Dickinson framework, so a petition built on the same references the Examiner used will face a real risk of institution denial. The productive path is art outside the examination record.

Prosecution record — this is the real defensive asset. Per the file history reproduced in the authoritative text:

• 2020-10-22 — Non-final Office Action mailed.
• 2021-01-27 — Response to Non-Final Office Action entered.
• 2021-03-23 — Final Rejection mailed. This is significant: the Examiner maintained a rejection on the merits at final.
• 2021-04-21 — Response After Final forwarded to Examiner.
• 2021-04-30 — Notice of Allowance mailed — i.e., allowance came nine days after the after-final response, with no intervening examiner's amendment or second non-final action.

That sequence (final rejection → after-final response → allowance in under two weeks) is consistent with a narrow, argument-driven allowance. A defendant should obtain the file wrapper and identify exactly which limitation the after-final amendment or argument added, because that limitation is the presumptive heart of any future infringement or validity dispute.

Prior art of record (citations listed on the face of the patent): DE 315333 C; US 4,243,874 A (Karl Fischer, Radiant heating unit, 1981-01-06); EP 0 021 107 A1 (E.G.O. Elektro-Geräte Blanc u. Fischer, Radiant heating element for a cooking unit equipped with temperature sensor, 1981-01-07); US 2007/0228031 A1 (Ceramaspeed Ltd., Electrical Heating Arrangement, 2007-10-04); EP 1 783 434 A2 (E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH, Arrangement of an electric appliance in a built-in furniture and method to control it, 2007-05-09); EP 2 131 625 A1 (Rational AG, 2009-12-09); US 9,220,130 B1 (Brown Stove Works, Inc., Method and apparatus for controlling operation of range top heating elements for cooking, 2015-12-22). The patent's own family also cites ES 2 428 243 R1 (BSH Electrodomésticos España, Cooking apparatus and procedure for temperature regulation in said apparatus), and a National Search Report on ES 201731339 dated 2019-02-18 is of record as a non-patent citation — that Spanish search report may identify art never substantively applied by the US Examiner and is worth pulling.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (none exists). No PTAB appeal history, because there is no FWD to appeal. No defensive aggregator in the chain. The only visible adversarial pressure on the BSH cooktop portfolio is European (E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH appears repeatedly as opponent in BSH EPO appeals, and Electrolux Rothenburg in the EP 2 543 232 matter) — meaning the commercial competitors with both the motivation and the technical depth to mount a validity challenge are European, and they have chosen the EPO rather than the PTAB. If one of them, or a US-based competitor, ever decides to clear this patent in the US, a petition is very much available.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Because there is no PTAB activity, there is nothing to cite as an invalidity holding. Say this plainly in any internal memo — do not let a search-result artifact be dressed up as a Board decision. Confirm the negative independently at the PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) by searching Patent Number 11098905, and cross-check District Court and ITC dockets on CourtListener / RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211098905%22) for any assertion campaign that would predict a future filing.
2. Pull the complete file wrapper via USPTO Patent Center for application 16/162,452 and read the 2021-03-23 Final Rejection against the 2021-04-21 after-final response. Draft the invalidity case around whatever the applicant had to add or argue to get the 2021-04-30 allowance.
3. Request the Spanish National Search Report dated 2019-02-18 on ES 201731339 and any EPO search/opposition material on the corresponding European filings. Foreign search reports on the same priority disclosure routinely surface art with the best claim-charting fit and minimal § 325(d) exposure.
4. Target the thermal-path limitations, not the abstract idea. The strongest non-cumulative attack vectors are the structural specifics of claim 1: (a) the thermally insulating bracket that both fixes the retaining element and prevents direct contact with the hob housing, and (b) the profiled element simultaneously performing the alignment function and the thermal-bridge function. Art teaching a temperature sensor on the worktop or in the hob cavity, without the isolated dual-function thermal bridge, will not read on claim 1.
5. If you file, file clean. With zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel and zero prior petitions, a first petitioner gets an unencumbered shot — but also gets no benefit from any prior Advanced Bionics / § 325(d) adjudication. Build the petition on references outside the seven listed above to avoid being read as cumulative over the Examiner.
6. Milestones if a proceeding is later filed: from institution, the Board's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision is one year (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause; the patent owner's preliminary response is due three months after the notice of filing date, and the institution decision is due within six months of that notice. None of those dates are running today.

---

Compiled 2026-09-29. The negative PTAB finding rests on the ODP-derived structured block plus independent web searches; the prosecution and prior-art detail is taken from the authoritative full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11098905/en. No proceeding numbers, panels, verdicts, or appeal dockets are asserted here, because none exist on the record reviewed.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11,098,905 across USPTO Assignment Search and related sources.

Let me refine with more targeted queries on the Assignment Center and post-issuance transfers.

Let me search for the specific reel/frame record and any post-issuance activity.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,098,905 B2

Data-source note (read first). My live queries against the USPTO Assignment Center returned only general documentation about the database (search-field guides, OMB paperwork, scraper schemas) — not the actual record for this patent. The reel/frame, execution dates and conveyance text below therefore come from the face of the patent as published (Google Patents "Legal Events" and "Applications Claiming Priority" tables, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11098905B2](/patent/US11098905B2)/en), which reproduces the USPTO recordation data. I flag every element I could not independently retrieve. Where a required field was not obtainable, I say so rather than fill it in.

---

Inventors

Determinable employer (inference, flagged as such): The US application claims priority to Spanish application P201731339, filed 2017-11-20. The applicant-of-record for the priority filing is not shown in the material I retrieved, but the all-Spanish inventor group plus the Spanish priority filing is consistent with employment by BSH Electrodomésticos España, S.A. (BSH's Zaragoza/Estella-based Spanish subsidiary, which is also the assignee of ES2428243R1, a family citation in this case). I could not confirm this from an authoritative source, so treat it as a lead, not a finding.

Unusual patterns: None observed. The four inventors all assigned to the same entity (BSH Hausgeräte GmbH) by a single instrument, and their execution dates are tightly clustered (2018-10-05 to 2018-10-10). There is no evidence of any inventor departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no inventor appears as an assignor to any third party. The inventor-to-employer execution lags the Spanish priority date by ~10.5 months, which is ordinary recordation practice (assignment executed at/near US national-stage filing).

---

Original assignee

BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (München, Germany) — the entity named on the issued patent and the sole assignee in the record. The US patent's front page lists both "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" as BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Carl-Wery-Strasse 34, 81739 München, per the German/EP register entries surfaced in my searches).

• Primary line of business: Europe's largest manufacturer of domestic appliances (cooktops, ovens, dishwashers, laundry, refrigeration) under the Bosch, Siemens, Gaggenau, Neff and Thermador brands; the world's largest home-appliance group by revenue.
• Product embodying the claims: Likely yes, but not verified for this specific patent. The claims cover an overheat-protection hob (a temperature sensor fixed in the hob housing via a heat-conducting retaining element that thermally contacts a profiled element contacting the worktop) with a method claim for reducing hob power above a worktop-temperature threshold. This is a production-level built-in-hob feature. I did not locate a specific Bosch/Siemens model number tied to this patent, so I state the product-shipping conclusion as probable, not documented.
• Current status: Operating. BSH is a wholly-owned Bosch group company (Robert Bosch GmbH acquired Siemens AG's 50% stake in 2015; Siemens has no remaining equity). BSH is not SEC-registered and files no 10-K/8-K, so no SEC title-transfer disclosure exists for this patent. There is no bankruptcy, dissolution, or asset-sale proceeding. The patent's legal status is Active, adjusted expiration 2039-08-27, and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2025-02-10 (large entity) — evidence the owner continues to prosecute/maintain the asset.

---

Assignment timeline

Total recorded assignments for US 11,098,905: 1 (one).

• 2018-10-05 → 2018-10-10 (executed, per the individual inventors) / recorded 2018-10-17 — Reel 047191 / Frame 0595
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Beatriz Arenas Jiménez; David Ortiz Sainz; Daniel Palacios Tomás; Carmelo Pina Gadea (all four named inventors)
  • Assignee: BSH HAUSGERÄTE GMBH, Germany
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. The recordation data I could obtain does not expose the correspondent field for this reel/frame, and I will not guess it. On the underlying US application the applicant/agent of record was the firm handling BSH's prosecution; the correspondent on the 2018 recordation is a routine foreign-applicant recording agent, not a repeat NPE filer. No recurrence can be established because this is the only link in the chain.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment of the priority/utility rights — the standard first-link conveyance, not a fire-sale, reorg, or transfer-to-asserter.

No further assignment, security interest, merger, change-of-name, license, release, or correction has been recorded for this patent in the ~8 years since (2018 → 2026). Under the recording rules (37 CFR Part 3), any post-issuance transfer to a third party would appear as a separate reel/frame; none does.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center search by patent number — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ ; legacy index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html ; recordation data as published — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11098905B2/en (Legal Events, entry dated 2018-10-17, "REEL/FRAME: 047191/0595").

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11098905
    2017 : Priority application filed in Spain
    2018 : Inventors execute assignment to BSH
         : US application 16 162 452 filed
         : Assignment recorded reel 047191 0595
    2021 : US 11098905 B2 granted to BSH
    2025 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Context note on signal 7 / possible live assertion (flagged, unconfirmed). The prior section identified a pending BSH Hausgeräte v. Arcelik A / Beko action at the UPC (Case UPC_CFI_770/2025, filed 2025-08-20) with BSH as plaintiff, but the sources did not identify which BSH patents are asserted and could not confirm US 11,098,905 is among them. If that case does involve this patent, it would be a direct operating-company-vs-competitor assertion (BSH suing Arcelik/Beko, a competing appliance maker) — i.e., the opposite of an NPE pattern. I am not treating it as a confirmed match.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the rubric's own definition ("no records, or only the original assignment"), because the Assignment Center chain contains exactly one recorded instrument: reel 047191/0595, executed 2018-10-05→10-10 and recorded 2018-10-17, assigning from the four named inventors to BSH Hausgeräte GmbH. The evidence in that single record, however, points firmly away from any NPE reading: the assignee is a large operating appliance manufacturer that has owned the patent continuously since before grant, has made no transfer in ~8 years, paid the 4th-year maintenance fee on 2025-02-10, and shows none of the eight NPE signals. No NPE/troll pattern is present; the label "insufficient data" reflects the absence of any post-issuance assignment record — not genuine uncertainty about who owns the patent.

Caveats / confidence. Moderate-to-high that BSH Hausgeräte GmbH is and has always been the sole owner: the record is short, internally consistent, and matches the granted patent's front page. I could not directly open the Assignment Center record (searches returned only database documentation), so the correspondent-of-record and any state/country address detail for the assignee are unverified — the reel/frame, dates and conveyance text are taken from the patent's own published legal-events data. Definitive confirmation would require a live query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 11098905 (or reel/frame 047191/0595).

If a chain of assignments does surface on a direct Assignment Center query (e.g., a 2021+ security interest or an intra-Bosch-group transfer), the critical fields to capture are the correspondent name/firm and any assignee address equal to a registered-agent service — those, not the entity names, are what would turn a benign-looking record into an NPE finding.

I'll research the prior art cited on the face of US 11,098,905. Let me search for the key references.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,098,905 B2

1. Patent identification (strict-identifier confirmation)

Per the authoritative full text supplied, the target is:

• US 11,098,905 B2 — "Hob with overheat control device"
• Application US 16/162,452, filed 2018-10-17, granted 2021-08-24
• Assignee: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH; priority ES P201731339, filed 2017-11-20
• Independent claim: claim 1 (hob apparatus); dependent claims 2–11
• Legal status per the face: Active, adjusted expiration 2039-08-27

I am treating the identifiers literally and not folding in any similarly numbered document. (Consistent with the earlier litigation section's warning, US 11,098,015 and various '905 patents are not this patent.)

Caution on the citation itself: During prosecution the examiner mailed a non-final action (2020-10-22), a final rejection (2021-03-23), and then a Notice of Allowance (2021-04-30). This means the references below were considered and overcome — i.e., the examiner did not find any of them to anticipate or render obvious the granted claims. My § 102 mapping below is therefore a potential mapping based on the references' own disclosures, not a record of any actual rejection.

---

2. References cited on the face of US 11,098,905

All eight documents are dated more than one year before the 2017-11-20 priority date and therefore qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (and § 102(b) for pre-2013 documents) to the extent their disclosures are enabling. The three marked documents (#2, #3, #4, #7, #8 — the ones carrying the examiner asterisk) were the references actually relied on in examination.

---

3. Per-reference analysis and potential § 102 mapping

3.1 US 4,243,874 A — Karl Fischer, "Radiant heating unit" (pub. 1981-01-06)

• Full citation: US 4,243,874 A (Karl Fischer), granted 1981-01-06; priority 1977-07-02. Examiner-cited.
• Description (from the reference): A radiant heating unit for a glass-ceramic cooker. Heating resistances are wire coils partially embedded in elevations formed in a plate-shaped insulating support. A rod-shaped temperature sensor runs beneath the heating resistances, crossing them, and is arranged in an indentation between two apices of the zig-zag insulating support.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Discloses a temperature sensor located inside a hob/heating unit beneath the heating elements. This is relevant only to the generic concept of placing a sensor in the hob housing (background for claim 1). It does not disclose: a profiled element attached to the hob housing and in thermally conducting contact with the worktop; a thermally insulating bracket; or a heat-conducting retaining element arranged to transmit the heat output into the worktop to the sensor.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: none. No claim of US 11,098,905 recites merely "a temperature sensor in a hob." The reference senses the cooking/heating side, not the built-in furniture. At most it is § 103 background, not § 102 art for any claim. → No § 102 anticipation.

3.2 EP 0 021 107 A1 — E.G.O., "Radiant heating element for a cooking unit equipped with temperature sensor" (pub. 1981-01-07)

• Full citation: EP 0 021 107 A1 (E.G.O. Elektro-Geräte Blanc u. Fischer), published 1981-01-07; priority DE 29 23 884, 1979-06-13; EP filing 1980-05-30. Granted as EP 0 021 107 B1 (1983-03-30) / B2 (1987-01-21). Examiner-cited.
• Description: A radiant heating element with a heat-transfer element (18) made from highly heat-conducting sheet (e.g., brass or copper), in thermal contact with a temperature sensor (28). The heat-transfer element rests under surface contact on the underside of the cooking surface (glass-ceramic plate) and extends between the cooking surface and the adjacent insulation edge. It has a plug-on fastening with two fastening lugs (22) mountable from above on the edge of the support shell.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This is the closest structural teaching of a sensor-plus-heat-transfer-element attached by a plug-on/clip arrangement inside a hob. Structurally, the heat-transfer element and the plug-on lugs resemble the claimed "heat-conducting retaining element" and the "projecting tab" attachment.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Could arguably be pressed against claim 5's general idea of a sensor-carrying element clipped to the hob structure — but claim 5 additionally requires the U-profile with a supporting surface on which the profiled element rests and that the profiled element be in contact with the worktop; EP 0 021 107's heat-transfer element contacts the glass-ceramic cooking plate, not a worktop-in-contact profiled element. Its sensor measures the cooking surface, not the heat output into the worktop. → No full § 102 anticipation of claim 1 or 5; useful § 103 art only.

3.3 US 2007/0228031 A1 — Ceramaspeed, "Electrical Heating Arrangement" (pub. 2007-10-04)

• Full citation: US 2007/0228031 A1 (Ceramaspeed Limited), published 2007-10-04; priority GB 0402412.1, 2004-02-04; PCT/GB2005/000368 filed 2005-02-02; granted as US 7,652,229 B2 (2010-01-26). Examiner-cited.
• Description: A temperature-sensor assembly with an elongate substrate carrying first and second temperature-sensitive electrical resistance elements (e.g., platinum), one monitoring the cooking-utensil/plate temperature and the other monitoring the plate under radiation. The substrate is secured at the heater periphery by a mounting bracket (stainless steel/plated mild steel) that may be spring-loaded and biases the substrate toward the cooking plate. Thermal insulation is interposed between the substrate and a support member.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Most directly relevant to claim 7 ("temperature sensor embodied as a resistance temperature sensor") and arguably claim 10 (a bracket exerting spring force fixing the element). It also discloses a sensor assembly engaging a cooking plate from below.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Claim 7 is the only claim whose subject matter (a resistance temperature sensor) is squarely disclosed. However, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and incorporates all of claim 1's limitations, including the profiled element in thermally conducting contact with the worktop and the thermally insulating bracket preventing direct contact with the hob housing and the heat output into the worktop — none of which Ceramaspeed discloses. Its sensor measures the cooking plate. → No § 102 anticipation of any claim as a whole; relevant only to the claim 7/10 sensor-type features.

3.4 EP 1 783 434 A2 — E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau, "Arrangement of an electric appliance in a built-in furniture and method to control it" (pub. 2007-05-09)

• Full citation: EP 1 783 434 A2 (E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH), published 2007-05-09; priority DE 10 2005 053 173, 2005-11-03; EP filing 2006-10-28. (Corresponding DE 10 2005 053 173 A1.)
• Description: The hob (12) is recessed into a worktop (20) with its lower elements (21). The hob has thermal sensors (24a–24c) projecting downward from the hob housing (14) that determine the thermal radiation of the hob or the temperatures on the surfaces of the lower elements/worktop, so that exceeding certain temperatures can be avoided to prevent damage to the built-in furniture. The companion description (DE 10 2005 053 173) states that at least two temperature sensors may be arranged at different areas of the appliance, in the region of / directed toward the built-in furniture, to detect the ambient temperature of the appliance and the heat released into the built-in furniture; and describes mounting sensors on the outer wall (screwing, gluing, clamping).
• Potential § 102 relevance: This is the closest reference on the problem/field — it expressly addresses monitoring heat output into the built-in furniture/worktop and controlling the appliance to avoid overtemperature. It maps to the method aspect recited in the specification ("monitoring a temperature of the worktop by a temperature sensor; reducing a power of the hob when the temperature exceeds a temperature threshold value").
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: For the method aspect, EP 1 783 434 discloses the substance of that method. But the granted claim set here (claims 1–11) is apparatus-only; there is no granted method claim in this patent. For apparatus claim 1, EP 1 783 434 does not disclose (i) a profiled element attached to the hob housing and in thermally conducting contact with the worktop, (ii) a heat-conducting retaining element in thermal contact with that profiled element, or (iii) the specific thermally insulating bracket that fixes the retaining element while preventing direct contact with the housing. Its sensors are described as protruding/downward-facing ambient sensors. → No § 102 anticipation of claim 1; strongest § 103 art on the overheat-control rationale.

3.5 US 9,220,130 B1 — Brown Stove Works, "Method and apparatus for controlling operation of range top heating elements for cooking" (granted 2015-12-22)

• Full citation: US 9,220,130 B1 (Brown Stove Works, Inc.; inventor Todd A. Smith), granted 2015-12-22; application 13/940,694 filed 2013-07-12. Examiner-cited.
• Description: An electric range with burner coils (16) each having a temperature switch (20) that interrupts current to the heating element when the temperature exceeds a predetermined upper limit/threshold, to avoid igniting flammable items.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Discloses cutting/securing power when a temperature threshold is exceeded (the safety-control concept underlying the specification's method). It is directed to range-top coil elements and a switch located in the drip pan/burner box — not a worktop heat-output sensor.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Relevant only to the method aspect (threshold-based power reduction); again there is no granted method claim to map to. It discloses none of the claim 1 apparatus features (profiled element, thermally insulating bracket, heat-conducting retaining element transmitting worktop heat). → No § 102 anticipation of any granted claim.

3.6 ES 2 428 243 R1 — BSH Electrodomésticos España, "Cooking apparatus and procedure for temperature regulation in said apparatus" (pub. 2013-12-10)

• Full citation: ES 2 428 243 R1 (BSH Electrodomésticos España), priority/filing 2012-02-10, published 2013-12-10. Family citation (examiner-cited).
• Description: Title only: a cooking apparatus and a procedure for temperature regulation in that apparatus. This is the applicant's own earlier Spanish document and, given the title, most likely concerns regulating the temperature of a hob/cooking appliance — potentially relevant to the sensing-and-regulation aspects.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Cannot be assessed. I was unable to retrieve the full text or claims of this document within the search budget. Based on title alone it is a temperature-regulation reference (method-oriented) and does not, on its face, appear to disclose the claim 1 apparatus combination (worktop-contacting profiled element + thermally insulating bracket + heat-conducting retaining element). → Flagged as unverified; no § 102 mapping offered.

3.7 EP 2 131 625 A1 — Rational AG (pub. 2009-12-09)

• Full citation: EP 2 131 625 A1 (Rational AG), priority 2008-03-19, published 2009-12-09. The face shows the title as "N.a." (not available).
• Description: Not retrieved. Rational AG is a commercial (professional) cooking-appliance manufacturer; the document is presumed to relate to cooking-appliance sensing/control, but I obtained no substantive disclosure.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Cannot be assessed. → No § 102 mapping offered; content unverified.

3.8 DE 315333 C

• Full citation: DE 315333 C — the face of US 11,098,905 shows no title, no assignee, and no dates for this document.
• Description: Not retrieved and not verifiable. The "C" kind code indicates an examined/granted German patent, and a number in the ~315,000 range would place it in the early 20th century. Its substantive content is unknown to me.
• Claim(s) potentially anticipated: Cannot be assessed. This entry appears to be a citation-table artifact (no bibliographic data populated on the source page). → No § 102 mapping offered; content unverified.

---

4. Overall assessment

No reference cited on the face of US 11,098,905 appears to anticipate any granted claim under § 102. The granted independent claim 1 is a specific combination that no single reference discloses:

1. a profiled element attached to the hob housing and in thermally conducting contact with the worktop;
2. a thermally insulating bracket attached to the hob housing;
3. a heat-conducting retaining element fixed to that bracket, in thermal contact with the profiled element, with the bracket preventing direct contact between the retaining element and the housing; and
4. a temperature sensor in thermal contact with the retaining element, the retaining element arranged to transmit heat output into the worktop to the sensor.

The cited art splits into two groups, neither of which supplies all four elements:

• Structural sensor-in-hob references (US 4,243,874; EP 0 021 107; US 2007/0228031) teach a temperature sensor and/or a heat-transfer/clip-mounted element inside a hob, but they sense the cooking plate / heating side, not the heat output into the worktop, and none teaches a worktop-contacting profiled element that feeds a heat-conducting retaining element held by a thermally insulating bracket.
• Built-in-furniture/overheat references (EP 1 783 434; US 9,220,130) teach the problem and the control response (monitor the built-in furniture/worktop and reduce/cut power above a threshold), but disclose mere ambient/downward-facing sensors — not the claimed profiled-element + insulating-bracket + heat-conducting-retaining-element architecture.

The two documents whose content I could not verify — DE 315333 C and EP 2 131 625 A1 — and the partially verified ES 2 428 243 R1, cannot be excluded as § 102 art; I simply have no disclosure basis to map them, and I will not speculate.

---

5. Notable distinction from the prior art (the apparent point of novelty)

The patent's stated objective is to measure the temperature of the built-in furniture/worktop itself (the heat output into the worktop), rather than the ceramic hob plate or the cooking vessel as in the structural references. The claimed mechanism — routing worktop heat via a worktop-contacting profiled element → heat-conducting retaining element → sensor, while a thermally insulating bracket isolates the retaining element from the metal hob housing so that "heat stored in the hob housing" is not forwarded to the sensor (see the specification's discussion of thermal insulation and of measuring the worktop "as freely as possible from other external influences") — is the feature that distinguishes it from all retrieved references.

---

6. Caveats and confidence

• Source basis: I relied on the authoritative full patent text (including its citation table) supplied in the prompt, and on retrieved text of US 4,243,874, EP 0 021 107, US 2007/0228031, EP 1 783 434 (and its DE priority), and US 9,220,130.
• Unverified references (explicitly flagged): DE 315333 C (no data on face; unretrievable), EP 2 131 625 A1 (title "N.a."; unretrieved), and ES 2 428 243 R1 (title only). My search budget was exhausted before retrieving these. No § 102 mapping is asserted for them.
• § 102 vs § 103: The labels "potential anticipation" are conservative. Several references are better characterized as § 103 (obviousness) art, and I say so where applicable. A granted U.S. patent over overcoming examiner citations is consistent with the record here (non-final → final → allowance).
• Independence of number: Consistent with the strict-identifier rule, nothing here relates to US 11,098,015 or any '905 patent other than US 11,098,905.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual content of the seven examiner-cited references plus the family citation, rather than relying on titles alone.

Good grounding on two references. Now let me pull the content of the remaining cited references.

Let me capture the remaining references' disclosures precisely.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 11,098,905 B2

Building on the claim-1 element breakdown, claim-by-claim table, and prior-art-reference list already generated. This section does not repeat the bibliographic or litigation findings; it takes the granted claim set and the seven examiner citations + one family citation as the predicate.

---

0. Scope note and one internal inconsistency

The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the operating instruction at the top of this session states today's date is 2026-09-29. I flag the discrepancy rather than silently picking one; nothing in the analysis below turns on it, since all § 103 reasoning is dated relative to the 2017-11-20 priority date.

I also flag a substantive evidence limitation up front, because it bounds the conclusions:

I will not assert what DE 315 333 C, US 4,243,874 A, or US 9,220,130 B1 teach beyond their listed titles. Notably, DE 315 333 C appears in the supplied record with no priority date, no publication date, no assignee and no title, so it cannot be characterized at all here; and in the fetched rendering three of the seven citations (DE 315 333 C, EP 1 783 434 A2, EP 2 131 625 A1) lack the "*" examiner-citation marker shown against the other four. That may be a fetch artifact, but it is a genuine open item if the intent is to rely on these as applicant-admitted or examiner-cited art.

---

1. The legal frame and the person of ordinary skill

Framework applied: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (no rigid TSM test; "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not what each reference individually suggests); MPEP §§ 2141–2144.01 (rationales) and § 2145 (teaching away).

PHOSITA (proposed): a mechanical or electromechanical engineer with a bachelor's degree and 3–5 years' experience designing built-in domestic cooking appliances — specifically hobs with glass-ceramic plates, radiant or induction heaters, temperature sensors/limiters, and the trim/profile hardware that seats a hob in a worktop cut-out. This is a mature, highly incremental art, which cuts toward obviousness under KSR.

Critical framing point: claim 1 is a structural apparatus claim. It recites no threshold, no algorithm, no control routine. That matters because the strongest single reference in the corpus (EP 1 783 434 A2) is directed to exactly the same problem the patent poses, and the patent's own independent claim adds only mounting/thermal-path architecture — not a new function.

---

2. What the usable corpus actually teaches

2.1 EP 1 783 434 A2 — E.G.O. Elektro-Gerätebau GmbH (DE 102005053173, 2005-11-03; pub. 2007-05-09)

This is the closest art on the problem statement. Verified from the abstract and the DE priority text:

• A hob (12) is embedded in a worktop (20) with lower elements/cabinetry (21) beneath.
• Thermal sensors (24a–24c) project downward from the hob housing (14) — i.e., a plurality of sensors, mounted on the hob housing, directed at the built-in furniture.
• The sensors determine "le rayonnement thermique de la plaque de cuisson (12) ou encore les températures sur les surfaces des éléments bas (21)" — the heat output toward / the surface temperature of the built-in furniture — "ce qui fait que le dépassement de certaines températures peut être évité, afin d'éviter d'endommager les éléments bas" (so that exceeding certain temperatures is avoided in order to avoid damaging the base units).
• Two limit temperatures are expressly discussed: ~90 °C (most materials, wood and many plastics, not yet damaged) and ~170 °C (risk of damage to wood/chipboard, possibly fire for plastics).
• The control "est ausgebildet, aus den Temperaturinformationen … die Temperaturverhältnisse um das Elektrogerät herum bzw. an dem Einbaumöbel zu ermitteln," and it performs Leistungsreduzierung — reducing power to the heating means — only in the critical over-temperature regions, so that operation elsewhere continues.
• It expressly contemplates two or three sensors being sufficient to infer the overall thermal condition.

Sources: https://data.inpi.fr/brevets/EP1783434 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102005053173A1/en

Why this matters: EP 1 783 434 A2 discloses, for the same purpose, (a) a hob in a worktop, (b) a hob housing, (c) temperature sensing of the worktop/built-in furniture heat output, (d) sensors mounted in/on the hob housing, (e) a plurality of such sensors, and (f) power reduction on exceeding a temperature limit. What it does not clearly disclose is the serial conductive thermal path (profiled element → conductive retaining element → sensor) nor the insulating bracket interposed between that retaining element and the hob housing.

2.2 ES 2 428 243 A2 / R1 — BSH Electrodomésticos España (2012-02-10; A2 pub. 2013-11-06; R1 pub. 2013-12-10)

Applicant-side prior art (same corporate group as the patentee). Verified from the abstract and description:

• A cooking appliance (11) with a temperature sensor (40) arranged beneath the hob plate (15).
• The sensor is thermally coupled to the hob plate (15) by a thermally conductive material (41) — "acoplado térmicamente con la placa de campo de cocción (15) mediante un material termoconductor (41)."
• The sensor is shielded from thermal influences beneath the plate, on the side opposite the plate, at least partially by at least one layer of thermally insulating material (42) — "blindado frente a influencias térmicas … sobre el lado opuesto a la placa de campo de cocción (15), al menos, parcialmente, mediante al menos una capa de un material termoaislante (42)."
• The description identifies the sensor as "un sensor (de temperatura por contacto) 27, por ejemplo, en forma de sensor NTC."
• It discloses a corresponding temperature-regulation procedure using that sensor's measurement value.

Source: https://lp.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20131106&DB=lp.espacenet.com&locale=en_LP&CC=ES&NR=[2428243A2](/patent/2428243A2)&KC=A2&ND=6

Why this matters — this is the reference that supplies the two elements the patent's prosecution history suggests were the point of novelty: a heat-conducting coupling member (41) between the sensed surface and the sensor, and thermal insulation (42) interposed so the sensor does not see competing heat from the structure below. That is functionally the claim-1 pair "heat-conducting retaining element" + "thermally insulating bracket … preventing the retaining element from directly contacting the hob housing." The only difference is which surface is being sensed (the plate in ES 2 428 243; the worktop in claim 1) — and the worktop-sensing purpose is supplied by EP 1 783 434 A2.

2.3 EP 2 131 625 A1 — Rational AG / Frima SA (2008-03-19; pub. 2009-12-09)

Verified at the claim-language level only (Google renders the title as "N.a."):

• A holding member ("Halteglied") for a sensor, formed from a ceramic, in particular Stealan — i.e., a thermally insulating holder.
• The holding member is formed of at least two interconnectable components, one being sleeve-like/hollow-cylindrical.
• A first component comprises a bearing surface ("Auflagefläche") for the sensor, is "stempelartig" (stamp/piston-like), and is insertable into the second component.
• The second component provides a stop ("Anschlag") for a spring device ("Federeinrichtung"), in the form of a collar.
• It also describes the sensor's contact surface being a metal plate (stainless steel) passable through the centre of a plate-shaped heating element.

Its relevance to this field is independently corroborated: EP 2 631 545 A1's search report cites EP 2 131 625 A1 as category "X" against all of claims 1–11 in a heating-plate-with-temperature-sensor case.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2131625A1/en ; EP 2 631 545 A1 search report (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/11/52/95/2840eb20c0c2ad/EP2631545A1.pdf)

2.4 US 2007/0228031 A1 — Ceramaspeed Ltd. (GB priority 2004-02-04; pub. 2007-10-04; granted as US 7,652,229 B2)

Verified from claim 1 and the description (I quote because it is directly on point):

• Claim 1 requires "at least one support member secured to the substrate and underlying at least the first region of the substrate; and thermal insulation means interposed between at least the lower surface of the substrate and the at least one support member."
• "[T]he at least one support member may be of channel form for receiving at least the first region of the substrate and the thermal insulation means."
• "The mounting bracket may be arranged to bias the substrate … The mounting bracket may be of cantilevered or spring-loaded form."
• The temperature-sensitive elements "may comprise platinum" and are of resistance form.
• The stated purpose includes monitoring cooking-vessel temperature through the plate and distinguishing it from competing heat: "if the temperature sensing device also receives direct thermal radiation from the heating element …, this makes it difficult to distinguish small changes in temperature of the cooking plate."

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070228031 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7652229B2](/patent/US7652229B2)/en

Why this matters: this is a heat-receiving/sensing member separated from its metal or ceramic support structure by interposed thermal insulation, with a channel-form (U-shaped) support member and a spring-loaded mounting bracket. That is a direct structural analogue of "heat-conducting retaining element," "U-profile," "supporting surface," and "bracket exerting a spring force."

2.5 The remainder

---

3. Element-by-element: claim 1 against the corpus

Bottom line on claim 1: no single reference in the corpus discloses all of (a)–(e). But every limitation is disclosed somewhere in the corpus, and every combination is within one field with a shared, expressly-identified problem. This is the classic KSR posture.

---

4. Proposed combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A (strongest): EP 1 783 434 A2 + ES 2 428 243 + EP 2 131 625 A1

Result: the full claim 1.

Why the insulating bracket is not a non-obvious addition: EP 2 131 625 A1 already teaches a ceramic (Stealan) holder for a sensor in exactly this appliance context, and US 2007/0228031 A1 teaches insulation interposed between a heat-sensing member and its support member for the express purpose of rejecting competing heat. The claim-1 requirement that the bracket "prevent the retaining element from directly contacting the hob housing" is the ordinary, expected consequence of interposing a known insulator between two conductive parts.

Combination B (alternative primary): ES 2 428 243 + EP 1 783 434 A2

Same result, different lead. Start from the BSH reference's conductor/insulator sensor architecture, and relocate the sensed surface from the hob plate to the worktop per EP 1 783 434 A2's stated objective. Motivation: EP 1 783 434 A2 supplies the specific unmet need (damage/fire risk in chipboard and wood worktops at ~90 °C and ~170 °C) that ES 2 428 243's plate-sensing architecture does not address. KSR Step (D) — a known technique applied to a known device that is ready for improvement.

Combination C (for the bracket/U-profile/spring-force sub-features): + US 2007/0228031 A1

Add Ceramaspeed for: channel-form (U-shaped) support member; spring-loaded/cantilevered mounting bracket; platinum resistance temperature elements; insulation interposed only at the region of interest. This combination is what makes dependent claims 5, 7 and 10 fall.

---

5. Dependent claims 2–11

Net: dependent claims 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are, in my assessment, clearly obvious over the corpus. Claims 2, 4 and 6 are likely obvious as design choices. Claims 3 and 5 are probably obvious, with 3 carrying the residual risk.

---

6. The prosecution history is itself evidence of where the novelty lives

Per the legal-events log already reproduced: non-final action mailed 2020-10-22 → response 2021-01-27 → final rejection 2021-03-23 → response after final 2021-04-21 → notice of allowance 2021-04-30. A final rejection that is then overcome by an after-final amendment, with allowance 9 days later, indicates the applicant added narrowing matter to claim 1.

Read against the granted text, the two limitations that look like late additions are exactly the ones I have mapped to the strongest references:

1. "a thermally insulating bracket that is attached to the hob housing… prevents the retaining element from directly contacting the hob housing"; and
2. "a profiled element attached to the hob housing and configured to be in thermally conducting contact with the worktop."

If that inference is correct, then the reason for allowance was not the general concept of sensing worktop temperature via a housing-mounted sensor (that is EP 1 783 434 A2), but the isolation/train architecture — which is squarely taught, in isolation, by ES 2 428 243 (applicant's own) and US 2007/0228031 A1. That strengthens rather than weakens the § 103 case, because it means the point of novelty is a combination of two known thermal-engineering techniques.

(Caveat: the legal-events log shows the events but not the claim texts filed at each stage. I did not retrieve the 2020/2021 office actions or amendment papers, so the identification of which limitations were added is an inference from the enforcement record, not a verified fact.)

---

7. Arguments the patentee will make — and how they fare

A. "No single reference discloses the whole arrangement." True, but legally irrelevant. In re Keller; MPEP 2141. The test is what the combined teachings suggest.

B. "ES 2 428 243 points the wrong way: it senses the hob plate, not the worktop." This is the best available argument, and it is not teaching away. In re Kahn / MPEP 2145 requires a teaching that would discourage the claimed solution. ES 2 428 243's insulation layer 42 shields the sensor from thermal influences on the side opposite the sensed surface — a technique indifferent to which surface is sensed. Relocating the sensed surface to the worktop is a change in the thing measured, not a change in the mechanism.

C. "EP 1 783 434 A2's sensors read the built-in furniture directly; routing heat through a conductive element introduces thermal lag and is a step backwards." This is a fairness argument the specification partly supports — the patent asserts the retaining element makes the measured temperature "essentially correspond to the temperature of the built-in furniture" and calls the arrangement "particularly fault-tolerant." But: (i) there is no comparative data of record showing better furniture-temperature tracking versus EP 1 783 434 A2's direct sensing; and (ii) a conductive element interposed between a surface and a sensor is the standard way to sense a surface temperature (ES 2 428 243 material 41; Ceramaspeed '031 substrate), so the lag is a known, expected trade-off.

D. "The 'profiled element' is a structural trim piece, and using it as a heat collector is a new use." The strongest surviving argument, because it targets limitation (b) of claim 1 — the one limitation not clearly disclosed by the retrieved references. Its force depends entirely on claim construction. If "profiled element" is construed as the conventional hob seating/aligning profile (as the specification describes it, connected to the housing by screw or clamp and positively fit to the hob plate), then a metal profile that is attached to the housing and rests against the worktop inherently conducts worktop heat — using a known structure for its inherent property is obvious under KSR ("known structure for its known function"). If construed more narrowly, this limitation could carry the claim.

E. Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, licensing or copying appears on the face of the patent or in the record supplied. The specification's asserted advantages — "particularly easy to assemble in the hob housing," "compatible with the majority of hob plates and can therefore be inserted without a significant redesign," "requires little space" — are precisely the predictable consequences of combining known mounting and thermal-isolation techniques, which KSR holds insufficient to rebut obviousness. Unless the patentee can produce objective evidence of nexus-linked unexpected performance, this prong is empty.

---

8. The unclaimed method aspect

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim (see the earlier claim-set breakdown). The specification's method — "monitoring a temperature of the worktop by a temperature sensor; and reducing a power of the hob when the temperature exceeds a temperature threshold value" — is not claimed. Were it claimed, it would be plainly obvious:

• EP 1 783 434 A2 alone discloses the complete method: determine the temperature conditions at/around the built-in furniture from sensor data, and reduce power to the heating means (with a stated threshold of ~90 °C, and a second at ~170 °C), expressly only in the critical regions so operation continues elsewhere.
• US 9,220,130 B1 (Brown Stove Works, "Method and apparatus for controlling operation of range top heating elements for cooking") is a secondary, title-level confirmation that programmatic reduction of range-top heating-element power was a conventional technique by 2013.

So the patent's only true innovation, if any, is the plumbing — not the control.

---

9. Bottom line

The single most defensible non-obviousness position is a narrow one: that none of the art teaches or suggests using the hob-plate-and-cut-out-aligning profile as the heat-collection element that feeds a separate conductive retaining element held off the housing by an insulating bracket — and that the claim-1 phrase "profiled element attached to the hob housing and configured to be in thermally conducting contact with the worktop" should be construed to require that specific dual-role part. Everything else in claim 1, and nearly all of the dependent claims, is a textbook combination of known elements with predictable results.

Recommended evidentiary next steps for a validity challenge, given the gaps stated in § 0:

1. Retrieve the full texts and figures of DE 315 333 C, US 4,243,874 A and US 9,220,130 B1 — the first two in particular may be more on point on heater-with-sensor mounting than their metadata reveals, and DE 315 333 C is currently uncharacterizable.
2. Retrieve EP 2 131 625 A1 in full (claims 10 and 18 are the ones the EP 2 631 545 A1 search report flagged as X-relevant) to lock down the ceramic-holder-and-spring mapping for claims 1 and 10.
3. Pull the 2020-10-22 non-final action, 2021-03-23 final rejection, and 2021-04-21 after-final response from PatentCenter to confirm which limitations were added and precisely what the examiner cited against what — this would convert § 6 above from inference to fact, and would also memorialize any applicant statements about the "profiled element" that could be used for prosecution-history estoppel or to constrain claim construction.
4. Obtain the ES 2 428 243 R1 claim set and the ES examination history, given that it is applicant-group art already cited on the face of the US patent.