DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/24/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storek et al [US 2011/0117259A1] in view of Lee et al [US 2016/0150906A1] and Alipour et al [US 2014/0251164A1].
Storek et al teach a cooking method comprising a food item in the inner volume of a food container (Figure 1, #10, 21), positioning the food container in a thermal container of a cooking device (Figure 2, #37, 10, 2), receiving a volume of fluid in the food container from the device (Figure 1, #20, 2, 10), a heating element outside the food container and which raises the fluid temperature within the food container (Figure 2, #31), the heating element positioned below, above, surrounding, or on one or more sides of the food container (paragraph 0057), the fluid submerging a food product (Figure 1, #20-21), an outlet of the food container aligned with the drain line of the cooking device (Figure 1, #11-13; Figure 2, #32-33), a conduit separating the food container outlet and drainage container (Figure 1-2, #10-11, 32-33), conveying the fluid into the food container and cooking the food (Figure 10, #1004-1007; paragraph 0133), draining the fluid after the end of a cook time (Figure 10, #1008-1010), the food container alternatively using a side drain embodiment (Figure 5), draining the volume of fluid from the food container by use of a siphoning action in the side drain without the use of a pump by use of tubes or hoses connected by a seal (paragraph 0087), the food container outlet coupled to a drain line (Figure 5, #11, 13A-B), the drain line forming an inverted U-bend (Figure 5, #13A-B), a predetermined cooking time and temperature (Figure 10, #1007-0118; paragraph 0133), and repeated cooking cycles (paragraph 0134).
Storek et al do not explicitly recite an open outlet with fluid in the drain line during cooking, automatically draining the fluid of the inner volume in response to exceeding a fluid threshold volume, the inner volume fluid initiating a syphoning of the food container, a portion of the drain line having a greater height than the threshold volume surface, and draining without a valve (claim 1), as well as conveying a first volume of fluid within the thermal container and contacting the outer surface of the food container and thus heating the second volume of fluid within the food container (claim 1).
Lee et al teach a cooking system comprising a steam generator (Figure 1, #30), the steam generator including an open outlet (Figure 5, #311b), an inverted U-shaped drain line which provided a siphon effect for drainage (Figure 5-8, #33), a first volume of fluid used during operations (Figure 5-6, P; paragraph 0090), a threshold volume level which is maintained during operation (Figure 6, H1), a portion of the drain line having a greater height than the threshold volume (Figure 6, #33), and the steam generator automatically draining (Figure 7-8, #H2) in response to a further addition of fluid which exceeds a threshold volume and produces a syphon effect (paragraph 0101-0102, 0107) without use of a valve (see whole document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed automatic draining features into the invention of Storek et al, in view of Lee et al, since both are directed to cooking systems, since Storek et al already included draining the fluid at the end of cooking due to a siphoning action (paragraph 0087; Figure 5), since cooking systems commonly provided a threshold volume level which is maintained during operation (Figure 6, H1), a portion of the drain line having a greater height than the threshold volume (Figure 6, #33), and the steam generator automatically draining (Figure 7-8, #H2) in response to a further addition of fluid which exceeds a threshold volume and produces a syphon effect (paragraph 0101-0102, 0107) as shown by Lee et al; since the substitution of one known element (ie inverted U-bend syphon) for another (ie outlet valve) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Lee et al taught the syphoning feature was a simple structure with a reduced manufacturing cost (paragraph 0107), and since a U-bend syphon would have provided a convenient and simple means for draining the fluid of Storek et al without the need for operating an automated outlet valve which would require periodic maintenance and replacement.
Alipour et al teach a food preparation appliance (title) comprising a food container holding a food item in its inner volume (Figure 1, #106, 200), a thermal container surrounding the food container (Figure 1, #108), circulating a thermal transfer fluid between the food container and thermal container to heat the food (Figure 1, #114), and the food container having a thermal contact surface (Figure 1, #140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed first fluid circulation features into the invention of Storek et al, in view of Lee et al and Alipour et al, since all are directed to methods of cooking food, since Storek et al already included a heat element below, above, surrounding, or on one or more sides of the food container (Figure 2, #31; paragraph 0057), since cooking systems commonly included a circulating thermal transfer fluid between the thermal container and food container (Figure 1, #106, 114, 108) as shown by Alipour et al, since the use of two heat sources would provided greater flexibility in choosing the mode of heating used by Storek et al, and since the use of two heat sources (ie the heat element of Storek et al and the thermal transfer fluid of Alipour et al) would have enabled faster and more accurate control of the second fluid temperature in the food container of Storek et al, in view of Lee et al and Alipour et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the references did not disclose the volume of fluid contacting the outer surface of the food container. However, Alipour et al teach a food preparation appliance (title) comprising a food container holding a food item in its inner volume (Figure 1, #106, 200), a thermal container surrounding the food container (Figure 1, #108), circulating a thermal transfer fluid between the food container and thermal container (Figure 1, #114), and the food container having a thermal contact surface (Figure 1, #140).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792