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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-21 and 26-27 are pending.
Claims 4, 8, 15 and 22-25 are cancelled.
Claims 12-14 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 27 are newly added.
Claims 12 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 20-21 and 26-27 are examined as follow:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued: Regarding to the 103 rejection over CN1739A in view of Garrison, applicant argued “…At least because Garrison contains no scoop that protrudes outwardly from the rear wall, as required by independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the instant rejection is improper and respectfully requests withdrawal of the instant rejection on at least this basis. Independent claim 1, and the claims dependent thereon, are urged allowable for at least this reason…”, Remark Page 3.
Examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, the scoop of Garrison is as mapping in the rejection, there is not claim languages preventing the interpretation of the whole surface of the “elevated surface #6” and the “marginal flange #7” to be the scoop, for the rear wall would be “step #3” inf fig.1, therefore the Garrison’s scoop of “elevated surface #6 and marginal flange #7” would protrude from the Garrison’s rear wall of “step #3”.
Applicant argued: Regarding argument on
103 Rejection of Claim 3 Over CN1739A in view of Garrison and Wang
103 Rejection of Claim 5 Over CN1739A in view of Garrison and Chen
103 Rejection of Claim 7 Over CN1739A in view of Garrison and McKee
103 Rejection of Claim 11 Over CN1739A in view of Garrison, Shei and McKee504
Examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
The above arguments are already addressed in the responses of “103 rejection over CN1739A in view of Garrison” above.
Applicant argued: Regarding argument on
103 Rejection of Claims 6 and 20-21 Over CN1739A in view of Garrison and Shei
Examiner response: The applicant's arguments above are fully considered as below.
Regarding the argument on claim 6, it is addressed in the respond of “103 rejection over CN1739A in view of Garrison” above.
Regarding claim argument on claim 20, partially addressed in the respond of “103 rejection over CN1739A in view of Garrison” above. The argument of the newly amended limitation “…wherein the scoop does not extend an entire length of the rear wall…” are persuasive, therefore a new ground of rejection is provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, the limitation “…the food receiving area…” should change to “…a food receiving area…”, to avoid possible antecedent basis issue.
In claim 9, the limitation “…the food receiving area…” should change to “…a food receiving area…”, to avoid possible antecedent basis issue.
In claim 20, the limitation “…the food receiving area…” should change to “…a food receiving area…”, to avoid possible antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is encouraged to read and understand the important Examiner note below:
It is expressed that the invention claimed in this application is a tray and not a toaster oven. The limitation cited for the toaster oven would only carry patentable weight by directly affecting the material or structural properties of the claimed tray.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “actuator” in claims 11 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “actuator" coupled with functional language “to open…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “actuator" has been described in Paragraph 000114 cited: “…that moving of the levers signals to the control unit to open or close the vent(s) via an actuator (e.g., an electronic actuator or solenoid or other motor-driven actuator) associated with each of the vents…”. (Examiner note: With such 112f interpretation, tray structurally only need to capable to move a lever or switch).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison.
Regarding claim 1, CN1739A discloses a tray (refer to fig.3) for a toaster oven (refer to fig.2), comprising: a bottom surface (refer to the surface of #21 in fig.3); a front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3); a rear wall (refer to the “rear wall” annotated in fig 3) opposing the front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3); a pair of opposing sidewalls (refer to “sidewall” of tray body #21, annotated in fig.3); a heating element (plate heating element #23 in fig.3 and translation of CN107981739A filed in IDS, page 3 section “Example 2” 1st paragraph cited: “…Different from Embodiment 1, the baking cavity 1 is also provided with a baking tray. The baking tray includes a tray body 21 capable of placing food. The bottom of the tray body 21 is affixed with a graphite sheet 22. The bottom of the graphite sheet is roasted the plate heating element 23 and the two ends of the heating element 23 of the baking plate are electrically connected with the power plug 24, and a temperature probe is arranged in the plate body, as shown in FIG. 3…”) configured to provide heat to the bottom surface (refer to the surface of #21 in fig.3); wherein the tray (refer to fig.3) is generally rectangular in shape (refer to the shape of the tray in fig.3) and is configured to slide and receive into an internal heating compartment of a toaster oven (refer to fig.2), wherein the front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3) is configured for grasping by a user (since the fig.3 tray is removable, therefore the wall is also configured for grasping by a user too, since the side and read are all blocked by the oven wall) to remove the tray (refer to fig.3) from the toaster oven (refer to fig.2) and the scoop (refer to the “peripheral flange” annotated in fig.3) is positioned opposite the front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN1739A does not explicitly disclose a scoop protruding outward from the rear wall; wherein the scoop extending to the bottom surface of the tray, the scoop being positioned at a midpoint along a length of the rear wall.
In the similar field of tray for cooking, Garrison discloses a scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) protruding outward from the rear wall (step #3, fig.1); wherein the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1)extending to the bottom surface (depressed area #4, fig.1) of the tray (skillet #1, fig.1), the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) being positioned at a midpoint (refer to the position of the elevated cooking surface #6, in fig.1) along a length (refer to the length of step #3 in fig.1) of the rear wall (step #3, fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
267
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with wherein the scoop extending to the bottom surface of the tray, the scoop being positioned at a midpoint along a length of the rear wall, as taught by Garrison, in order to provide a drain off the rendered fat to a very considerable extent minimized (refer to Page 1 line 15-19 cited: ‘…It has been found that the disagreeable flavor is contained to a considerable extent in the fat or grease. By draining off the rendered fat the strong flavor is to a very considerable extent minimized…”).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A further discloses the heating element (plate heating element #23 in fig.3 cited above) is positioned in close association with an underside surface (refer to the surface where plate heating element #23 attached in fig.3) of the tray (refer to fig.3).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A does not explicitly disclose the scoop has an opening top and is sloped.
In the similar field of tray for cooking, Garrison further discloses the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) has an opening top (refer as the opening top of surface #6 in fig. 1) and is sloped (refer to the sloped surface of #6 in fig.1)(Examiner note: the rest of the limitation “…so as to direct air from a vent in the rear wall of the toaster oven into the food receiving area…” is considered as intended use, since the claimed apparatus is the tray and not the toaster oven, and the claimed limitation is cited on the tray only, and the tray can be used to any other oven, since Garrison’s skillet discloses all the structural that capable to direct air too, therefore the rejected claim read on modified CN1739A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with the scoop has an opening top and is sloped, as taught by Garrison, in order to provide a drain off the rendered fat to a very considerable extent minimized (refer to Page 1 line 15-19 cited: ‘…It has been found that the disagreeable flavor is contained to a considerable extent in the fat or grease. By draining off the rendered fat the strong flavor is to a very considerable extent minimized…”).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 2, CN1739A further discloses the heating element (plate heating element #23 in fig.3 cited above) includes at least one electrical contact (power plug #24, fig.3) configured to matingly engage a corresponding socket (connection socket #15, fig.2) in a rear wall of the toaster oven (refer to fig.2).
Regarding claim 26, , the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 2, CN1739A does not explicitly disclose the scoop has a width that is generally the same at an upper edge the scoop and the bottom surface of the tray.
In the similar field of tray for cooking, Garrison further discloses the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) has a width that is generally the same at an upper edge (flange #7, fig.1) the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) and the bottom surface (depressed surface #4, fig.1) of the tray (skillet #1, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with the scoop has a width that is generally the same at an upper edge the scoop and the bottom surface of the tray, as taught by Garrison, in order to provide a drain off the rendered fat to a very considerable extent minimized (refer to Page 1 line 15-19 cited: ‘…It has been found that the disagreeable flavor is contained to a considerable extent in the fat or grease. By draining off the rendered fat the strong flavor is to a very considerable extent minimized…”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of Wang (US5938959 previously cited) herein set forth as Wang.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is embedded within the tray.
In the field of tray use in oven, Wang discloses wherein the heating element (heating element #24, fig.2) is embedded within the tray (baking tray #32, lower pan part #70, upper pan part #72 and chamber #74 in fig.2, also refer to Col 8, line 16-19 cited: “…Heating element 96 may be firmly attached to an upper surface of the lower pan part 98, as shown particularly in FIG. 6, or may be embedded in the material of the lower pan part (not shown). An upper pan part 100 with or without steam apertures (not shown) is attachable to lower pan part 98 over heating element 96. Heating element 96 has a pair of male terminals 102 for mating connection to a female outlet or terminal 104 disposed on an inner panel 106 of the oven of FIG. 7…”).
PNG
media_image4.png
452
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with wherein the heating element is embedded within the tray, as taught by Wang, in order to provide improved oven and cooking process (refer to Col 1, line 59-67 cited: “…An object of the present invention is to provide an improved oven and/or an associated cooking process.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide an oven with increased versatility.
Another object of the present invention is to provide an oven wherein heat transfer to a bottom surface of a food product, particularly a food product on a metal tray or pan, is enhanced to thereby so that the bottom surface is cooked to a degree matching that of an upper surface.
An additional object of the present invention is to provide an oven which is useful in a hybrid steaming and baking process wherein a food article is first subjected to steam and subsequently subjected solely to baking…”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 newly cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of Cheng et al (US2017/0223774A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Cheng.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is an infrared heating element.
In the field of heater element for oven, Cheng discloses wherein the heating element is an infrared heating element (refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…a cooking instrument, comprising: a cooking chamber; a support tray adapted to hold food in the cooking chamber; and an infrared-based heating system comprised of a heating element. The heating element is capable of emitting waves according to a particular configuration such that the support tray is substantially transparent to the emitted waves…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s heating element with infrared heating element, as taught by Cheng, in order to provide a commonly and broadly used heating element.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited in the filed IDS) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of Shei (US2004/0020915A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Shei.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A does not explicitly discloses an array of vent openings in opposing sides of the tray.
In the field of tray for warming food, Shei discloses an array of vent openings (openings #194, fig.10) in opposing sides of the tray (tray #103, fig.10).
PNG
media_image5.png
478
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with an array of vent openings in opposing sides of the tray, as taught by Shei, in order to provide a tray that assist in controlling evaporative losses and enhance food quality (refer to Paragraph 0006, cited: “…Among the several objects of this invention will be noted the provision of an oven which is adapted for holding food longer without degradation of the quality of the product, including products having a crust which tends to become soggy or rubbery, such as fried potato products, fried chicken, and rotisserie chicken; and the provision of such an oven which allows evaporative losses to be more closely controlled to enhance food quality …”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of McKee et al (US10684022B2 previously cited) herein set forth as McKee.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A does not explicitly disclose wherein a wire rack received in the food receiving area.
In the field variable volume oven, McKee discloses wherein a wire rack (wire rack #34, fig.2) received in the food receiving area (refer to the surface area of jet plate #42, fig.2).
PNG
media_image6.png
448
383
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with wherein a wire rack received in the food receiving area, as taught by McKee, in order to provide ample airflow to the food product (refer to Col 5 line 33 -39 cited: “…An uppermost component of the shelf assembly 22 is a wire rack 34 having an outer wire element 36 forming a generally rectangular perimeter defining an edge of the shelf assembly 22. The outer wire element 36 supports a set of parallel wire rods 38 between a front and rear edge of the wire element 36 that may support food items while allowing ample airflow therearound.…”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, further in view of Shei (US2004/0020915A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Shei, and further in view of McKee et al (US2016/0356504A1 previously cited) herein set forth as McKee504.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A further discloses a peripheral flange (refer to “peripheral flange” annotated in fig.3) extending outwardly from the peripheral sidewall (refer to “sidewall” of tray body #21, annotated in fig.3) and being configured to receive into opposing slots (tray carrier #2, fig.2) in an internal heating compartment (baking cavity #1, fig.2) of the toaster oven (refer to fig.2) (Examiner note: the rest of the limitation “…at least vent in opposing sidewalls of the internal heating compartment to open the vent to allow air …” is considered as intended use, since CN1739A’s tray discloses all the claimed structural limitation, therefore the rejected claim read on CN1739A’s tray) .
CN1739A does not explicitly discloses the tray has an array of vent openings in the opposing sides of the trays; wherein the peripheral flange is configured to engage an actuator.
In the field of tray for warming food, Shei discloses an array of vent openings (openings #194, fig.10) in opposing sides of the tray (tray #103, fig.10).
PNG
media_image7.png
493
677
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with an array of vent openings in opposing sides of the tray, as taught by Shei, in order to provide a tray that assist in controlling evaporative losses and enhance food quality (refer to Paragraph 0006, cited: “…Among the several objects of this invention will be noted the provision of an oven which is adapted for holding food longer without degradation of the quality of the product, including products having a crust which tends to become soggy or rubbery, such as fried potato products, fried chicken, and rotisserie chicken; and the provision of such an oven which allows evaporative losses to be more closely controlled to enhance food quality …”).
Shei does not disclose wherein the peripheral flange is configured to engage an actuator.
In the field variable volume oven, McKee504 discloses wherein the peripheral flange (flange #102, fig.7B) is configured to engage an actuator (pivot #106 and #108, fig.7B).
PNG
media_image8.png
310
517
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified CN1739A’s peripheral flange with wherein the peripheral flange is configured to engage an actuator, as taught by McKee504, in order to provide the capability to trigger some function related to when the tray is inside the oven (refer to Paragraph 0104 cited: “…After the removal of air plenums 126y and 127x, movable flaps 26yc and 27xc are activated (e.g., drop down) to cover air channels 26y and 27x, respectively. Similarly, after the removal of air plenums 128y and 129x, movable flaps 28yc and 29xc are activated (e.g., drop down) to cover air channels 28y and 29x …”).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited in the filed IDS) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of Pruitt et al (US10842317B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Pruitt.
Regarding claim 20, CN1739A discloses A tray for a toaster oven, comprising: a bottom surface (refer to the surface of #21 in fig.3); a front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3); a rear wall (refer to the “rear wall” annotated in fig 3) opposing the front wall (refer to the wall opposing the “rear wall” annotated in fig.3); a pair of opposing sidewalls (refer to “sidewall” of tray body #21, annotated in fig.3); a peripheral flange (refer to “peripheral flange” annotated in fig.3).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN1739A does not explicitly disclose a scoop protruding from the rear wall of the tray and extending from the peripheral flange to the bottom surface, the scoop being positioned at a midpoint along a length of the rear wall; and an array of vent openings in opposing sides of the tray allowing air to enter the food receiving area from the sides, wherein the scoop does not extend an entire length of the rear wall.
In the similar field of tray for cooking, Garrison discloses a scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) protruding outward from the rear wall (step #3, fig.1); wherein the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1)extending to the bottom surface (depressed area #4, fig.1) of the tray (skillet #1, fig.1), the scoop (elevated cooking surface #6, fig.1) being positioned at a midpoint (refer to the position of the elevated cooking surface #6, in fig.1) along a length (refer to the length of step #3 in fig.1) of the rear wall (step #3, fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
267
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN1739A’s tray with wherein the scoop extending to the bottom surface of the tray, the scoop being positioned at a midpoint along a length of the rear wall, as taught by Garrison, in order to provide a drain off the rendered fat to a very considerable extent minimized (refer to Page 1 line 15-19 cited: ‘…It has been found that the disagreeable flavor is contained to a considerable extent in the fat or grease. By draining off the rendered fat the strong flavor is to a very considerable extent minimized…”).
Garrison does not explicitly disclose an array of vent openings in opposing sides of the tray, wherein the scoop does not extend an entire length of the rear wall.
In the field of tray in a cooker, Pruitt discloses an array of vent openings (#122, fig.17) in opposing sides of the tray (tray #118, fig.17), wherein the scoop (refer to the “scoop” annotated in fig.17) does not extend an entire length (refer to “entire length” annotated in fig.2) of the rear wall (refer to “rear wall” annotated in fig.17).
PNG
media_image9.png
461
584
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified CN1739A’s tray with the scoop does not extend an entire length of the rear wall, as taught by Pruitt, in order to provide a better control on the source dripping direction and also provide hot air to enter into the tray area, such that would reduce spillage and still able to provide hot air venting into the tray..
Regarding claim 21, the modification of CN1739A, Garrison, and Pruitt discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 20, CN1739A further discloses a heating element (plate heating element #23 in fig.3 and translation of CN107981739A filed in IDS, page 3 section “Example 2” 1st paragraph cited: “…Different from Embodiment 1, the baking cavity 1 is also provided with a baking tray. The baking tray includes a tray body 21 capable of placing food. The bottom of the tray body 21 is affixed with a graphite sheet 22. The bottom of the graphite sheet is roasted the plate heating element 23 and the two ends of the heating element 23 of the baking plate are electrically connected with the power plug 24, and a temperature probe is arranged in the plate body, as shown in FIG. 3…”) configured to provide heat to the bottom surface (refer to bottom of tray body #21, fig.3 cited above).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107981739A (previously cited in the filed IDS) herein set forth as CN1739A, in view of Garrison (US1936551 previously cited) herein set forth as Garrison, and further in view of Pruitt et al (US10842317B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Pruitt.
Regarding claim 27, the modification of CN1739A and Garrison discloses all features set forth in claim 1, CN1739A and Garrison does not explicitly disclose the scoop has a width that is less than a distance between the pair of opposing sidewalls.
In the field of tray in a cooker, Pruitt discloses the scoop (refer to the “scoop” annotated in fig.17) has a width that is less than a distance (refer to “entire length” annotated in fig.17) between the pair of opposing sidewalls (refer to the two “side wall” annotated in fig.2).
PNG
media_image10.png
461
584
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified CN1739A’s tray with the scoop does not extend an entire length of the rear wall, as taught by Pruitt, in order to provide a better control on the source dripping direction and also provide hot air to enter into the tray area, such that would reduce spillage and still able to provide hot air venting into the tray..
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.
Upston et al (USD672604S newly cited) discloses a cooking pan that has a scoop that is in the middle point of a sidewall and not in full length.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 March 27th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights