Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips (FR-2398433-A7), hereinafter Philips, in view of Vaupot (US 20220000299 A1) (having foreign priority date of 11/15/2018), hereinafter Vaupot.
Regarding Claim 1: Philips teaches a cooking device (1, grill; Fig. 1; Abstract) (note: the English translation was filed with the non-final office action on 4/12/2024) comprising:
a heating element (5, heating element; Fig. 2 & 4) configured (i.e., capable) for convection heating and steam generation in the cooking device (the heating element is capable of producing convective heat via steam and/or air; the heating element can heat the air in the cooking device or convert the water into steam, resulting in convective heat transfer between the air/steam and the food within the cooking device);
and a water guiding apparatus for use in conjunction with the heating element (5), wherein the water guiding apparatus comprises a water channel configured to guide water along an underside of at least a part of a length of the heating element (Figs 1, 2 and 4 show a groove shaped water channel 9 for the heating element 5 to rest; the water empties out from the water tank 10, flows onto the channel 9, and the channel guides water following the shape of the heating element; see Comment 1 below regarding the “underside limitation”),
wherein during use, the water guiding apparatus is configured to be coupled (i.e., functionally coupled) to the heating element such that at least one of the water guiding apparatus and the guided water is in direct contact with the heating element to allow heat transfer from the heating element to the water for generating the steam (the water is guided into the channel 9, so that it makes intimate contact with the heating element to create steam), wherein the heating element is aligned with the water guiding apparatus when the water guiding apparatus is coupled to the heating element (see Figs 2 and 4 showing where the outline of the heating element 5 matches the outline of the water channel 9; therefore, the two align when looking downward from above the heating element).
Comment 1. Figure 3 (see below) shows a gap for water between an underside of at least a part of a length of the heating element 5 and the water channel 9. Moreover, it would have been obvious to have a water gap between the underside of a substantial length of the heating element 5 and the water channel 9, in order to maximize heat transfer from the heating element to the water.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Philips
Phillips fails to disclose:
a fan, arranged adjacent to the heating element, configured to enable an air flow in the cooking device for the convection heating.
However, Vaupot teaches a steam cooking device, comprising: a fan (Fig. 1, 24), arranged adjacent to a heating element (Fig. 1, 18), configured to enable an air flow in the cooking device for the convection heating. The fan helps circulate the steam and provide a uniform heating environment in the food chamber (para. 52).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Phillips to include a fan, arranged adjacent to the heating element, configured to enable an air flow in the cooking device for the convection heating (in the combination, the fan can be positioned on the left wall, when viewing from the front, adjacent the heating element 5 of Phillips; the combination can also include a second heating element positioned adjacent the fan, similar to what is taught in Vaupot). The motivation to combine is to help circulate the steam in the heating chamber (Phillips, 2), resulting in improved moisture distribution on the food item, and improved heat temperature in the heating chamber, resulting in more even cooking.
Regarding Claim 4: Philips teaches a cooking device of claim 1, wherein the water guiding apparatus further comprises a plate element (Fig. 1, 8) configured to align with the heating element (5) when the water guiding apparatus is coupled to the heating element (Fig. 1 shows the border of plate 8 following the contour of the heating element and channel 9), wherein the plate element is configured to contain the water to be guided along at least a part of the heating element (the plate 8 and channel 9 serve as a water reservoir; the heating element 5 along with the plate 8 would contain the water within the boundaries of plate 8 when the water is filled below the top of the heating element)
Regarding Claim 6: Philips teaches a cooking device of claim 1, wherein the water channel (9) is further configured to at least partially accommodate the at least the part of the length of the heating element (5) (see Fig. 4), such that when the water guiding apparatus is coupled (i.e., functionally coupled) to the heating element (the channel 9 works in conjunction with the heating element 5), water is guided along the underside of the at least the part of the length of the heating element (Fig. 3 shows a gap between the heating element and the channel 9 where water can flow).
Regarding Claim 7: Philips teaches a cooking device of claim 4, wherein the plate element (Fig. 1 shows a plate element 8 that is formed on both sides of the channel 9) is arranged such that it is located directly underneath the heating element (the portion of the plate, adjacent the left sidewall when looking at Fig. 1, would be located directly underneath the electrical connection ends of the heating element 5, as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10: Philips teaches wherein the plate element (9) and the heating element (5) are held in place when the plate element is aligned with the heating element (the heating element 5 is held in place by the side wall and the plate element 9 is held in place by the heating element when the plate element is aligned with the heating element, as shown by Fig. 3)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips (FR-2398433-A7), hereinafter Philips in view of Vaupot (US 20220000299 A1), hereinafter Vaupot, and in view of Philips II (US 20100012644 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Philips fails to disclose wherein the plate element is removably attachable to the heating element. However, Philips II teaches a cooking device wherein the plate element (Fig. 5, 16) is removably attachable (via spacers 70; see Figs. 4, 5, and para. 35) to the heating element (28). The spacers (70) secure and support the heating element, and prevent vibration of the heating element caused by the fan (para. 35).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Philips wherein the plate element is removably attachable to the heating element, so that the heating element is secured, supported, and inhibited from vibrating.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips (FR-2398433-A7), hereinafter Philips in view of Vaupot (US 20220000299 A1), hereinafter Vaupot, and in view of Kim et al. (US-20180070596-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 14: Philips fails to disclose wherein the cooking device is configured to control the heating element based on at least one of a user input and a rate of water flow at the water guiding apparatus.
Kim teaches a cooking device (1, cooking apparatus; Fig. 1 ) with a control unit (400, controller; Fig. 9) configured to control the heating element based on at least one of a user input (Par. 0146, ‘the controller 400 may control the cooking room heater 500’) and a rate of water flow at the water guiding apparatus (350, pump assembly; Fig. 9) (Par 0155, ‘the control unit 400 may control the pump assembly 350 to supply a predetermined amount of water to the inside of the cooking chamber 11 a’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the control unit of Philips to have the capabilities of the control unit of Kim (i.e., modifying the control unit of Philips to control the heating element based on at least one of a user input and a rate of water flow at the water guiding apparatus similar to that of Kim). Being able to control the heating and rate of water would allow the user to set specific settings to be able to cook various food stuff.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philips (FR-2398433-A7), hereinafter Philips in view of Vaupot (US 20220000299 A1), hereinafter Vaupot, and in view of Lee et al. (KR-20170149646-A), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 15: Philips does not disclose wherein the cooking device is configured to collect lime scale from the water guiding apparatus.
Lee teaches a boiler (1, boiler; Fig. 1) further comprising a lime scale collection unit (30, scale collection; Fig. 1) connected to the water guiding apparatus (221, water supply path; Fig. 1), the lime scale collection unit (30) being configured to collect lime scale from the water guiding apparatus (221) (Abstract; Fig. 1).
Note: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (MPEP 2141.01(a)). In this case, Philips and Lee are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of heating water and collecting lime scale.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the lime scale collection unit of Lee into the cooking device of Philips, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined cooking device would yield predictable results of heating water and collecting lime scale.
Even in the context of a cooking device having a lime scale collection unit Lee combined would perform the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the lime scale collection unit would be the same as if one had used the lime scale collection unit of Lee and the cooking device of Philips into a combined cooking device that is heating water and collecting lime scale.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooking device of Philips by implementing the lime scale collection unit of Lee (i.e., modifying the water guiding apparatus of Philips to connect to the lime scale collection unit of Lee). Having as lime scale collection unit would help prevent lime scale buildup thus prolonging the life of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts on page 6 the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Please see Comment 1 in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant asserts on page 6 the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
962
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Figs 2 and 4 showing where the outline of the heating element 5 matches the outline of the water channel 9; therefore, the two align when looking downward from above the heating element. If the heating element 5 and water channel 9 are out of alignment, then the heating element would not fit properly within the water channel.
Applicant asserts on pages 7 and 8 the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
273
960
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
Convective heating involves heat transfer using a gas. The generated steam is a gas and it transfers heat to the food.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571-272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762