DETAILED ACTION
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 amendment filed on 11/09/2025 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112b rejection has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the first reflector and further reflector that “in Van Zutphen, these portions – the parabolic portion and the straight portion belong to a single continuous reflector and are not separate reflectors arranged adjacent to each other” (Page 1 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11/09/2025). For purposes of clarity, Annotated Figure 7c of Van Zutphen will be provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Van Zutphen Figure 7c; the first reflector, further reflector, and planar mirror are all labeled and reflections are indicated from each section to show how each reflector/mirror redirect radiation toward the portions of the food support member
It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first reflector and further reflector are positioned adjacent to each other. Applicant states that the reflector is a single continuous reflector and not separate reflects arranged next to each other. However, Van Zutphen does not explicitly teach that the reflector is a single continuous reflector. Van Zutphen does refer to the reflector as a single unit. However, the Office notes that the applicant similarly refers to their plurality of reflectors as a singular reflector arrangement (Page 2 of applicant’s specifications filed 04/11/2022). Similarly to how the applicant’s reflector arrangement comprises a plurality of reflectors positioned adjacent to one another, the reflector of Van Zutphen is not limited to a continuous reflector and could reasonably be considered a plurality of adjacent reflectors attached to one another. The applicant also does not make it clear in the claim language that the “further reflector” and “first reflector” cannot be connected nor formed together such as to form a larger reflector. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, having two connected reflectors reasonably reads upon having two reflectors being positioned adjacent to one another, as DICT Development Group defines the word “adjacent” as “Lying near, close, or contiguous” (emphasis added). The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having the reflectors be separate would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice compared with having them be connected.
Applicant further argues that “Van Zutphen’s portions do not redirect radiation specifically towards different regions of the food support unit. Instead, Van Zutphen’s clearly indicates in paragraph [0042] and figure 7c that the objective of the upper, parabolic shape is to achieve a homogeneous distribution of heat while that of the lower, straight surface is merely to block rays that would otherwise be directed towards the drip tray or an opposite reflector. Neither of these regions of the reflector 210 are arranged to redirect rays at different regions of the food support unit” (Page 2 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11/09/2025). For purposes of clarity, Annotated Figure 7c of Van Zutphen will again be provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Van Zutphen Figure 7c; the first reflector, further reflector, and planar mirror are all labeled and reflections are indicated from each section to show how each reflector/mirror redirect radiation toward the portions of the food support member
As indicated by the arrows from each reflector section, each of Van Zutphen’s portions does appropriate direct the infrared radiation towards different regions of the food support member. Namely, the first reflector redirects infrared radiation towards an end region distal to the infrared radiation source arrangement, the further reflector adjacent to the first reflector redirects infrared radiation towards a center region of the food support member, and (as stated in Claim 9) the planar mirror is arranged to redirect a portion of the infrared radiation toward an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement. The objection taught by Van Zutphen for each of the section is moot as a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, since the structure of Van Zutphen is fully capable of redirecting at least a portion of the infrared radiation to the specified portions of the food support member, the claim limitations are met.
The applicant further argues regarding Home that “However, both these surfaces coordinate as a single reflector to direct the radiation uniformly across the roasting grate. They are not separate reflectors that direct radiation to different regions of the roasting grate, in the manner independent claim 1 requires” (Page 3 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11/09/2025) and “Furthermore, Home’s parabolic reflectors are part of a single integral reflector assembly (41), not separate reflective bodies arranged adjacent one another, as claimed in independent claim 1” (Page 4 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11/09/2025). An annotated Figure 5 of Home will be provided below for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
461
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Home Figure 5; first portion and further portion are both labeled along with the labeling distal and center regions of the food support member to which the first and further portions redirect radiation towards
The applicant’s argument is similar to that against Van Zutphen above and the Office responds similarly noting that in Home, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it apparent that the first reflector and further reflector are positioned adjacent to each other. The applicant and Home both refer to the reflector as single component but, similarly to the applicant, the component of Home is not limited to a single continuous reflector arrangement and can reasonably consist of a plurality of reflectors positioned adjacent to one another. The applicant also does not make it clear in the claim language that the “further reflector” and “first reflector” cannot be connected nor formed together such as to form a larger reflector. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, having two connected reflectors reasonably reads upon having two reflectors being positioned adjacent to one another, as DICT Development Group defines the word “adjacent” as “Lying near, close, or contiguous” (emphasis added). The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having the reflectors be separate would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice compared with having them be connected. As can be seen in Annotated Home Figure 5, the different sections do redirect radiation to different section of the food support structure.
The applicant further argues that “fig. 5 of Home clearly illustrates that radiation reflected from both upper and lower surfaces is directed towards a central yet overlapping region on the roasting grating. This is contradictory to independent claim 1 that requires the radiation from the first and further reflectors to towards different and discrete regions on the food support member – the claimed “distal” and “central” regions, respectively” (Pages 3-4 of Applicant’s remarks filed 11/09/2025). However, the Office notes that the applicant’s defined regions of what area is “central”, “distal”, and “proximate” are terms which are encompass broad scope when applied to prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation. For purposes of clarity, another annotated Figure 5 of Home is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
461
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Home Figure 5; first portion and further portion are both labeled along with the labeling distal and center regions of the food support member to which the first and further portions redirect radiation towards
Annotated Home Figure 5 provides a reasonable interpretation of the prior art in view of what constitutes a distal end region and center region. In this interpretation, the first portion redirects at least a portion of the radiation to the distal end region while the further portion redirects at least a portion of the radiation toward the center region. It should be noted that the current claim language does not limit the reflections such that the first reflector solely reflects radiation towards an end region. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, it only requires that the first reflector is capable of reflecting at least a portion of radiation towards an end region in addition to any other region it could be redirecting radiation towards. The applicant appears to be arguing that the portions reflect radiation to portions which are distinct, and which other portions do not reflect radiation to. However, such a narrow interpretation is not required under broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language. The Office encourages the applicant to further limit the claim language such as to require this limitation should they wish for the claims to be interpreted in this manner
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a planar mirror arranged to a third redirect part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement” should be “a planar mirror arranged to a third part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement” to match with the amendments to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1) teaches a radiation grill apparatus comprising a housing having opposing sides and a food support member on said housing (Figure 5a, grill unit 1 having radiation unit housing 250 and a food support member 100), the housing comprising:
an infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 1 Paragraph 92, IR radiation heater 220) along one of said opposing sides and arranged to direct a portion of infrared radiation onto the food support member such as to create a heat distribution across the food support member (Paragraph 93, radiation unit 200 is configured to provide IR radiation in a direction of the radiation side 102 of the grill grid 100);
a drip collection member facing the food support member (Figure 1a Paragraph 93-94, drip tray 300 which collects lipid droplets from the food); and
a reflector arrangement arranged to redirect a further portion of said infrared radiation onto the food support member (Figures 1 and 7c Paragraph 92, reflector 210 which reflects the IR radiation onto the radiation side of the grill grid 110); wherein,
PNG
media_image1.png
732
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Zutphen Figure 7c; the first reflector, further reflector, and planar mirror are all labeled and reflections are indicated from each section to show how each reflector/mirror redirect radiation toward the portions of the food support member
the reflector arrangement comprises a first reflector arranged to redirect a first part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member distal to the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 7c, top part of the reflector 210 reflects infrared radiation from the radiation unit toward the right distal end of the grill grid; Van Zutphen Annotated Figure 7c, the first reflector, further reflector, and planar mirror are all labeled and reflections are indicated from each section to show how each reflector/mirror redirect radiation toward the portions of the food support member); and
the reflector arrangement further comprises a further reflector arranged adjacent to an end point of the first reflector distal to said food support member, said further reflector being arranged to redirect a second part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards a central region of the food support member (Figure 7c, part of the reflector 210 just below the closest to the drip tray face 301 reflects part of the infrared radiation toward the central region of the grill grid; Van Zutphen Annotated Figure 7c, the first reflector, further reflector, and planar mirror are all labeled and reflections are indicated from each section to show how each reflector/mirror redirect radiation toward the portions of the food support member).
Regarding claim 2, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the reflector arrangement (100) is dimensioned such that the drip collection member is shielded from direct exposure to the infrared radiation by the reflector arrangement (Paragraph 109, beams re prevented from hitting the opposite reflector such as to prevent them from being reflected downward to reach the drip tray; Figures 7b-7c Paragraph 132, no direct radiation ends up in the drip tray).
Regarding claim 3, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the reflector arrangement is dimensioned such that the reflector arrangement does not interfere with drip collection by said drip collection member (Paragraph 130, radiation units are at the left and right side such that dripping liquid falls on the drip tray face and be collected via collection means 303 into the reservoir 302).
Regarding claim 4, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the first reflector is parabolic which has a shape defined relative to an axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and an end point of the food support member distal to said infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 7c, reflector has a parabolic top portion which has an axis which extends through the radiation heater and a part of the grill surface)
Regarding claim 5, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 4, wherein
said shape obeys the equation y2 = 2 p*x, in which x is the axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and the end point of the food support member distal to said infrared radiation source arrangement, y is an axis perpendicular to said x-axis, and p is a constant defining an aperture of the first parabolic reflector (Paragraph 46, upper reflector part having a parabolic shape; the general equation of a parabola is
y
=
a
x
-
h
2
+
k
wherein (h,k) represents the vertex of the parabola; the equation y2 = 2 p*x is simply a 90 degree geometric rotation of the equation
y
=
a
x
2
; thus, since the reflectors of VAN ZUTPHEN are characterized as “parabolic”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the parabolic parts of the reflectors would follow the general equation of a parabola).
Regarding claim 6, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the first parabolic-reflector is dimensioned such that an end point of the first parabolic reflector proximal to the food support member does not block direct illumination by the infrared radiation source arrangement of any part of a surface of the food support member facing the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 7c Paragraph 46, upper reflector part having a parabolic shape and clearly does not block any illumination of the food support member).
Regarding claim 7, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the further reflector is parabolic which has a shape obeying the equation y'2 = 2 p' *x', in which x' is an axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and a point of minimum intensity of the heat distribution across the food support member produced by the infrared radiation source arrangement and the first reflector, y' is an axis perpendicular to said x'-axis, and p' is a constant defining an aperture of the further parabolic reflector (Paragraph 46, upper reflector part having a parabolic shape; the general equation of a parabola is
y
=
a
x
-
h
2
+
k
wherein (h,k) represents the vertex of the parabola; the equation y2 = 2 p*x is simply a 90 degree geometric rotation of the equation
y
=
a
x
2
; thus, since the reflectors of VAN ZUTPHEN are characterized as “parabolic”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the parabolic parts of the reflectors would follow the general equation of a parabola).
Regarding claim 8, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 7, wherein
the further parabolic reflector is dimensioned such as to block direct illumination of the drip collection member by the infrared radiation source arrangement (Paragraph 41, at least a part of the reflector is dimensioned such as to block direct illumination of the drip tray).
Regarding claim 9, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the reflector arrangement further comprises a planar mirror arranged to a third redirect part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 7c, straight lower reflector reflects radiation to the left distal part of the food support member 100).
Regarding claim 10, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 9, wherein
the planar mirror is arranged such that the further reflector is located in between the first reflector and the planar mirror (Figure 7c Paragraph 132, part of the reflector 210 just below the closest to the drip tray face 301 is located between the top part of the reflector and the straight lower reflector).
Regarding claim 11, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the infrared radiation source arrangement comprises one or more discrete infrared radiation sources (Figure 7c Paragraph 92, one or more IR radiation heater 220).
Regarding claim 12, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the housing further comprises a cavity housing the infrared radiation source arrangement and the reflector arrangement (100) arranged around part of said infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 5a, radiation unit housing 250 comprises a radiation housing cavity 251 configure to host the radiation unit 200).
Regarding claim 13, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the reflector arrangement comprises a plurality of reflector portions (Figure 7c, reflector comprises a reflector with a straight lower reflector part and a part with a parabolic shape).
Regarding claim 14, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 13, wherein
the plurality of reflector portions are discrete reflector elements (Figure 3a, plurality of radiation units 200 which are discrete elements).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of a separate structure instead of a one-piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having a single reflector be comprised of multiple discrete reflector portions would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice. TAKITA (WO 2007102206 A1) also teaches the use of discrete reflector entities for reflecting radiation from a radiation source onto a cooking surface.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (Experimental and numerical analysis of a parabolic reflector with a radiant heat source, 2014, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology).
Regarding claim 15, VAN ZUTPHEN teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Paragraph 43 of VAN ZUTPHEN teach that reflectors are intended to provide an even distribution of the IR radiation over the radiation side of the food support unit. It is known in the art that the wider the entrance width, which is affected by the curvature, a reflector has that the wider the temperature distribution is generated as evidenced by Page 6 Results and Discussion of Lee (Experimental and numerical analysis of a parabolic reflector with a radiant heat source, 2014, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology). It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify VAN ZUTPHEN so that a degree of curvature of the first reflector is in a range of 1/8 * L to 3/8 * L, where L is the width of the food support member, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II). This routine experimentation would have been done to find the correct curvature and entrance width of the reflectors such as to reduce the number of random reflections before the energy intersects with the foodstuff to be cooked while also ensuring uniform heating to the foodstuff.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichelberger (US 4441015 A) in view of HOME (US 20120024166 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eichelberger (US 4441015 A) teaches a radiation grill apparatus comprising a housing having opposing sides and a food support member on said housing (Figures 3-3a, grill having opposite sides wherein a rotating spit/cooking grill is located within), the housing comprising:
an infrared radiation source arrangement (elongated heater rods 44a) along one of said opposing sides (Figure 3a, one side of the container 30 includes elongated heater rod 44a) and arranged to direct a portion of infrared radiation onto the food support member such as to create a heat distribution across the food support member (Column 5 Lines 42-50, reflectors 44 act as reflectors for the cylindrical elongated parallel rods such that virtually all radiation produced by the lamps will be focused on the foodstuff supported on a rack or spit at the center of the cavity);
a drip collection member facing the food support member (Column 5 Lines 61-65, large space between the rods at the bottom of the oven container which is free to receive a drip pan 45d which can receive drippings from meat which is being broiled within the oven container); and
a reflector arrangement arranged to redirect a further portion of said infrared radiation onto the food support member (Figure 3 Column 12 Lines 5-19, reflector cooperate with the heat rods such that the provide uniform heating across the foodstuff); wherein,
the reflector arrangement is arranged to direct part of the infrared radiation toward a central and a distal region of the food support member (Figure 3a, infrared radiation is directed toward to an area including a center and a distal part of the foodstuff)
Eichelberger fails to explicitly teach:
the reflector arrangement comprises a first reflector arranged to redirect a first part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member distal to the infrared radiation source arrangement; and
the reflector arrangement further comprises a further reflector arranged adjacent to an end point of the first reflector distal to said food support member, said further reflector being arranged to redirect a second part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards a central region of the food support member.
HOME (US 20120024166 A1) teaches a smoke-free roaster including parabolic shaped reflectors, wherein:
PNG
media_image2.png
461
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Home Figure 5; first portion and further portion are both labeled along with the labeling distal and center regions of the food support member to which the first and further portions redirect radiation towards
the reflector arrangement comprises a first reflector arranged to redirect a first part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member distal to the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figures 4-5, bottom parabolic curve of the reflector assembly 41 reflects at least some of the infrared radiation toward a distal part of the roasting grating; Annotated Home Figure 5, first portion and further portion are both labeled along with the labeling distal and center regions of the food support member to which the first and further portions redirect radiation towards); and
the reflector arrangement further comprises a further reflector arranged adjacent to an end point of the first reflector distal to said food support member, said further reflector being arranged to redirect a second part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards a central region of the food support member (Figures 4-5, upper parabolic curve of the reflector assembly 41 reflects at least some of the infrared radiation toward a central part of the roasting grating; Annotated Home Figure 5, first portion and further portion are both labeled along with the labeling distal and center regions of the food support member to which the first and further portions redirect radiation towards).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eichelberger with HOME and have the have the one part of the reflector direct the infrared radiation toward an end region of a food support member distal to the infrared radiation source arrangement and another part of the reflector direct the infrared radiation toward a central region of the food support member. This would have been done to provide a smoke-free roaster which has advantages of increased surface area for heat transfer (HOME Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the reflector arrangement is dimensioned such that the reflector arrangement does not interfere with drip collection by said drip collection member (Column 12 Lines 5-8, grease dripping from the foodstuff will not drip onto the heating rods but rather will fall into a catch pan 45d).
Regarding claim 4, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the first reflector is parabolic which has a shape defined relative to an axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and an end point of the food support member distal to said infrared radiation source arrangement the first reflector is parabolic which has a shape defined relative to an axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and an end point of the food support member distal to said infrared radiation source arrangement (Column 5 Lines 22-30, parabolic reflectors have their central axis intersecting a point approximately in the center of the oven such as to focus the infrared radiation on foodstuff placed on a spit which would have a plurality of endpoints also approximately in the center of the oven).
Regarding claim 5, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 4, wherein
said shape obeys the equation y2 = 2 p*x, in which x is the axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and the end point of the food support member distal to said infrared radiation source arrangement, y is an axis perpendicular to said x-axis, and p is a constant defining an aperture of the first parabolic reflector (Column 5 Lines 22-30, parabolic reflectors have their central axis intersecting a point approximately in the center of the oven such as to focus the infrared radiation on foodstuff placed on a spit which would have a plurality of endpoints also approximately in the center of the oven; the general equation of a parabola is
y
=
a
x
-
h
2
+
k
wherein (h,k) represents the vertex of the parabola; the equation y2 = 2 p*x is simply a 90 degree geometric rotation of the equation
y
=
a
x
2
; thus, since the reflectors of Eichelberger are characterized as “parabolic”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the parabolic parts of the reflectors would follow the general equation of a parabola).
Regarding claim 6, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the first parabolic-reflector is dimensioned such that an end point of the first parabolic reflector proximal to the food support member does not block direct illumination by the infrared radiation source arrangement of any part of a surface of the food support member facing the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 3a, the reflectors are clearly shaped such as to not block any direct illumination of any relevant region of the foodstuffs or spit).
Regarding claim 7, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the further reflector is parabolic which has a shape obeying the equation y'2 = 2 p' *x', in which x' is an axis extending through the infrared radiation source arrangement and a point of minimum intensity of the heat distribution (Column 12 Lines 5-19, reflectors and heating rods average out the wave mean distance to eliminate hot spots on the foodstuff to the greatest degree possible such as to provide uniform heating which means that all relevant points on the food support member would reasonably be considered a point of minimum intensity of heat distribution including every other point) across the food support member produced by the infrared radiation source arrangement and the first reflector, y' is an axis perpendicular to said x'-axis, and p' is a constant defining an aperture of the further parabolic reflector (Column 5 Lines 22-30, parabolic reflectors have their central axis intersecting a point approximately in the center of the oven such as to focus the infrared radiation on foodstuff placed on a spit which would have a plurality of endpoints also approximately in the center of the oven; the general equation of a parabola is
y
=
a
x
-
h
2
+
k
wherein (h,k) represents the vertex of the parabola; the equation y2 = 2 p*x is simply a 90 degree geometric rotation of the equation
y
=
a
x
2
; thus, since the reflectors of Eichelberger are characterized as “parabolic”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the parabolic parts of the reflectors would follow the general equation of a parabola).
Regarding claim 8, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 7, wherein
the further parabolic reflector is dimensioned such as to block direct illumination of the drip collection member by the infrared radiation source arrangement (Column 2 Lines 1-5, reflects are dimensioned such as to direct the energy toward the foodstuff which means it is not directed toward the drip tray).
HOME further teaches:
the further parabolic reflector is dimensioned such as to block direct illumination of the drip collection member by the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 6, at least a portion of the parabolic reflector is located between the heating tubes and the grease collection tray which would block direct illumination).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20190200805 A1) teaches blocking direct illumination of the drip tray to prevent smoke generation.
Regarding claim 11, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the infrared radiation source arrangement comprises one or more discrete infrared radiation sources (Figure 3a, plurality of elongated heater rods 44a, 44b, and 44c).
Regarding claim 12, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the housing further comprises a cavity housing the infrared radiation source arrangement and the reflector arrangement arranged around part of said infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 3a Column 5 Lines 38-68, elongated parallel rods 44a, 44b, and 44c are housed within cylindrical cavity 30a).
Regarding claim 13, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the reflector arrangement comprises a plurality of reflector portions (Figure 3a, infrared radiation is directed toward to an area including a center and a distal part of the foodstuff by means of a plurality of reflectors).
Regarding claim 14, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 13, wherein:
the plurality of reflector portions are discrete reflector elements (Figure 3a, plurality of reflectors 44d, 44e, and 44f).
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that the use of a separate structure instead of a one-piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having a single reflector be comprised of multiple discrete reflector portions would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice. TAKITA (WO 2007102206 A1) also teaches the use of discrete reflector entities for reflecting radiation from a radiation source onto a cooking surface.
Claim(s) 2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichelberger (US 4441015 A) in view of HOME (US 20120024166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Eichelberger as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the reflector arrangement is dimensioned such that the drip collection member is shielded from direct exposure to the infrared radiation by the reflector arrangement.
VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1) teaches a radiation grill, wherein:
the reflector arrangement is dimensioned such that the drip collection member is shielded from direct exposure to the infrared radiation by the reflector arrangement (Paragraph 109, beams re prevented from hitting the opposite reflector such as to prevent them from being reflected downward to reach the drip tray; Figures 7b-7c Paragraph 132, no direct radiation ends up in the drip tray).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eichelberger with VAN ZUTPHEN and have the reflector arrangement be dimensioned such that the drip collection member is shielded from direct exposure. This would have been done to prevent smoke creation from when the drip collection member gets too hot (VAN ZUTPHEN Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 9, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Eichelberger as modified fails to teach:
the reflector arrangement further comprises a planar mirror arranged to a third redirect part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement.
VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1) teaches a radiation grill, wherein:
the reflector arrangement further comprises a planar mirror arranged to a third redirect part of said further portion of the infrared radiation towards an end region of the food support member proximal to the infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 7c, straight lower reflector reflects radiation to the left distal part of the food support member 100).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eichelberger with VAN ZUTPHEN and have the reflector arrangement further comprise a planar mirror. This would have been done to prevent the drip tray from getting hot via direct heat (VAN ZUTPHEN Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 10, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 9.
VAN ZUTPHEN further teaches:
the planar mirror is arranged such that the further reflector is located in between the first reflector and the planar mirror (Figure 7c Paragraph 132, part of the reflector 210 just below the closest to the drip tray face 301 is located between the top part of the reflector and the straight lower reflector).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 9.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichelberger (US 4441015 A) in view of HOME (US 20120024166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (Experimental and numerical analysis of a parabolic reflector with a radiant heat source, 2014, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology).
Regarding claim 15, Eichelberger as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Column 12 Lines 5-19 of Eichelberger teach that reflectors cooperate with lamps such as to eliminate hot spots on the foodstuff to the greatest degree possible by providing uniform heating through reducing the number of random reflections before the energy intersects with the foodstuff to be cooked. It is known in the art that the wider the entrance width, which is affected by the curvature, a reflector has that the wider the temperature distribution is generated as evidenced by Page 6 Results and Discussion of Lee (Experimental and numerical analysis of a parabolic reflector with a radiant heat source, 2014, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology). It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eichelberger so that a degree of curvature of the first reflector is in a range of 1/8 * L to 3/8 * L, where L is the width of the food support member, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II). This routine experimentation would have been done to find the correct curvature and entrance width of the reflectors such as to reduce the number of random reflections before the energy intersects with the foodstuff to be cooked while also ensuring uniform heating to the foodstuff.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761