Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/28/2026 are entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (EP 0732549 A2) in view of Flesch (CN 101356409 A).
Regarding claim 1, Braun teaches a device for heating cooking goods (FIG. 3, the oven displayed), the device comprising: a housing (FIG. 3, the exterior shell of the oven), which surrounds a receiving space (FIG. 3, cooking chamber 14) for receiving the cooking goods to be heated, which comprises: a closable opening (FIG. 3, the opening at the door 16) for loading the receiving space with cooking goods, and, separately therefrom, at least one fresh air inlet (FIG. 3, air slots 48) and at least one fluid outlet in which exhaust air is actively extracted or pumped from the receiving space and then through the at least one fluid outlet (FIG. 3, exhaust pipe 56), a heating device (FIG. 3, heating elements 28) for one of direct or indirect transfer of thermal energy to the cooking goods to be heated, and a controllable ventilation (FIG. 3, the assembly on the right side of the cooing chamber 14) device comprising: at least one fan (FIG. 3, fan 32) for generating a volume flow, a flow guide system (FIG, 3, the walls of the compartment housing the fan 32 and the passageway 13) arranged outside the receiving space in the housing, for guiding at least one of an air flow with fresh air sucked into the housing and/or an air flow with the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space, at least one filter module (FIG. 3, filter 68) for purification of the exhaust air, at least one extraction controller (FIG. 3, control device 58) for controlling the extraction of the exhaust air from the receiving space, at least one inlet controller (FIG. 3, actuating device 50) for controlling a fresh air supply through the at least one fresh air inlet to the receiving space, wherein the ventilation device allows at least three different function modes: a first function mode in which an active fresh air supply to the receiving space is prevented (FIG. 3, when the actuating device 50 is closed), a second function mode, in which both a supply of fresh air to the receiving space and a supply of fresh air to the air flow of the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space is enabled (FIG. 3, where the actuating device 50 is open and air from passageway 14 is allowed to enter fan 80 and mix with the exhaust air).
Braun fails to teach at least one supply controller for controlling a supply of the air flow of the fresh air sucked into the housing to the air flow of the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space, a third function mode in which a supply of fresh air to the air flow of the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space is prevented.
However, Flesch teaches at least one supply controller (FIG. 2, the door of steam port 24) for controlling a supply of the air flow of the fresh air sucked into the housing to the air flow of the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space, a third function mode in which a supply of fresh air to the air flow of the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space is prevented (when the door is closed).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Braun by making it so the entrance to the fan 80 from the passageway 13 is covered by a flap unit, as taught by Flesch, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Flesch with these aforementioned teachings of Gunter with the motivation of giving the user the option to have all incoming fresh air go into the cooking chamber to flush out contaminated air.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches that at least one of the extraction controller, the inlet controller and the supply or more controller are steplessly controllable (Braun, FIG. 3, the actuating device 50 is controllable to open and close (with continuous motion)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches that at least two or more of the extraction controller, the inlet controller and the supply controller are directly or indirectly coupled to each other (Braun, FIG. 3, control device 58 and actuating device 50 are connected by control lines 60).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches that at least one or more of the extraction controller, the inlet controller and the supply controller has a regulatable actuator (Braun, FIG. 3, the actuating device 50 is powered by actuators that may be controlled (i.e., regulated)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches at least one filter module with at least one odor filter for the purification of exhaust air (Braun, FIG. 11, the assembly includes odor filter 62a).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches a filter module for the purification of the exhaust air, wherein the filter module is configured to be replaced without tools from the front side of the housing (Braun, FIG. 4, catalytic converters 86, which are accessible through the door and reduce odor along with filter 68).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Braun and Flesch teaches that a filter module for the purification of the exhaust air, wherein the filter module is arranged in the flow guide system and upstream of the fan in the direction of flow (Braun, FIG. 4, catalytic converters 86, which are upstream of the fan 80).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Braun and Flesch fails to teach that the fan for generating a volume flow is controllable in a range of 1 m3/h to 200 m3/h.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the blower 37 move air between 1 and 200 m3/h, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Braun teaches a fan 80 that transports a reasonable amount of air), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that volumetric flow rate is a result effective variable because it affects the convective heat exchange rate between heated air and food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fan 80 move air between 1 and 200 m3/h, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun and Flesch as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 11 above, and further in view of Hofer (AT 413176 B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Braun and Flesch fails to teach that the supply controller for controlling the fresh air supply through the at least one fresh air inlet to the receiving space is coupled in a signal-transmitting manner to a sensor device in the receiving space.
However, Hofer teaches that the supply controller for controlling the fresh air supply through the at least one fresh air inlet to the receiving space is coupled in a signal-transmitting manner to a sensor device in the receiving space (FIG. 1, transmitter 8 sends temperature data of the oven to the controller 16, which controls a valve).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Braun by controlling the valve of actuating device 50 via a transmitter and controller, as taught by Hofer, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Braun with these aforementioned teachings of Hofer with the motivation of automating the process.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Braun and Flesch fails to teach that a door for closing the opening for loading the receiving space with cooking goods is coupled in a signal-transmitting manner to a locking device which permits or prevents an opening of the door depending on one or more parameters.
However, Hofer teaches that a door for closing the opening for loading the receiving space with cooking goods is coupled in a signal-transmitting manner to a locking device which permits or prevents an opening of the door depending on one or more parameters (FIG. 1, transmitter 8 controls an opened/closed state (i.e., opening) of a valve based on temperature data).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Braun by controlling access to the opening of the cooing chamber 14 via a transmitter and controller, as taught by Hofer, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Braun with these aforementioned teachings of Hofer with the motivation of automating the process.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun and Flesch as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 11 above, and further in view of Hillman et al. (EP 1530901 A1; hereinafter Hillman).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Braun and Flesch fails to teach that a condensation device for condensing water vapor contained in the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space is arranged on the outlet side of the fluid outlet of the receiving space.
However, Hillman teaches that a device for the condensation of water vapor contained in the exhaust air extracted from the receiving space is arranged on the outlet side of the fluid outlet of the receiving space (FIG. 1, condensation recovery unit 1 is attached to an exhaust duct of an oven).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Braun by adding a condensation recovery unit, as taught by Hillman, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Knost with these aforementioned teachings of Hillman with the motivation of recovering condensation for either use in the oven or for drainage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762