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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the claim 9 objection has been accepted and the objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed limitation as Van Zutphen shows two infrared radiation heaters (Page 2 of applicant’s remarks filed 01/26/2026). However, under broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the two infrared radiation heaters 220 can be interpreted individually as an infrared radiation source. Furthermore, each of the two infrared radiation heaters 220 are respectively disposed on only one of said sides of the housing in Van Zutphen. Thus, the prior art reasonably reads upon the claim limitation. Furthermore, Figure 7c of Van Zutphen shows that the radiation from a single radiation source reaches the entire food support unit 100.
The applicant argues that the “cited prior art fails to disclose two separate parabolic reflectors” (Page 4 of applicant’s remarks filed 01/26/2026). However, 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 reflector of Van Zutphen be formed from at least two separate parabolic reflectors would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice as there is no criticality to the reflectors being formed separately. Furthermore, the Office notes that having a combination of a plurality of separate reflectors adjacent to one another such as to form a single larger reflector for a cooking device is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 of Zayauskas (US 4535753 A).
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. A new rejection has been made in view of CAMPO (EP 2286701 A1) in view of VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1).
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPO (EP 2286701 A1) in view of VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CAMPO (EP 2286701 A1) teaches a radiation grill (device 1) apparatus comprising a housing (box body 10) having opposing sides (Figure 4A, cooling fan 35 side and cool air inlet side 30) and a food support member on said housing (Paragraph 47, support element 31 for holding food which can be constituted by a grill or of glass), the housing comprising:
an infrared radiation source arrangement (lamp 3c) disposed on only one of said opposing sides of the housing (Figure 4A, lamp 3c is disposed on the cool air inlet side 30 side of the device 1) 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 41, part of the beam from the lamp 3c will directly reach the product; Paragraph 34, heat radiation which has been emitted reaches every point at the same quantity of radiation such as to prevent localized zones with excessive heating);
a drip collection member facing the food support member (Paragraph 47, extractable mobile tray 33 for enabling cleaning of the device wherein the tray receives food resides to be collected); and
a reflector arrangement arranged to redirect a further portion of said infrared radiation onto the food support member (Paragraph 41, parabola 49c is located behind the lamp 3c to reflect the radiating beam toward the product); wherein,
the reflector arrangement comprises a first parabolic reflector (Paragraph 40, respective reflector parabola 29c)
CAMPO fails to explicitly teach:
wherein,
the reflector arrangement comprises a first parabolic 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 parabolic reflector, separate from the first parabolic reflector, arranged adjacent to an end point of the first parabolic reflector distal to said food support member, said further parabolic 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.
VAN ZUTPHEN (US 20160265787 A1) teaches a radiation grill, comprising:
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 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
the reflector arrangement comprises a first parabolic reflector (Paragraph 42, substantially parabolic-shaped surface behind the heater) 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 parabolic reflector (Paragraph 42, substantially parabolic-shaped surface behind the heater), arranged adjacent to an end point of the first parabolic reflector distal to said food support member, said further parabolic 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).
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 CAMPO with Van Zutphen and have the reflector arrangement direct a first part of the infrared radiation to one end using a first reflector part, a second part to the center using a second reflector part, and a third to a second end using a third reflector part. This would have been done to direct radiation toward the food support while preventing direct radiation from ending up in the drip tray (Van Zutphen Paragraph 130).
While CAMPO modified with Van Zutphen fails to explicitly teach that the further parabolic reflector is separate from the first parabolic reflector, 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 further parabolic reflector be separate from the first parabolic reflector would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Furthermore, the Office notes that having a combination of a plurality of separate reflectors adjacent to one another such as to form a single larger reflector for a cooking device is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 of Zayauskas (US 4535753 A).
Regarding claim 2, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Van Zutphen further teaches:
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).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, CAMPO 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 (Figure 4A, reflector element 29c is not positioned between the grid 31 and the extractable tray 33 and would not interfere)
Van Zutphen further teaches:
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).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the first parabolic reflector 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 4A, reflector element 29c has a parabolic shape which has an axis which extends through the lamp and the support element 31 wherein the reflector is angled such as to direct toward an end distal to the source arrangement)
Van Zutphen further teaches:
the first parabolic reflector 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 wherein the reflector is angled such as to direct toward an end distal to the source arrangement)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, CAMPO 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 (Figure 7c Paragraph 41, parabola 49c is located behind the lamp 3c to reflect the radiating beam toward the product; 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 CAMPO are “parabola reflects”, 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)
Van Zutphen further teaches:
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).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, CAMPO 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 4A, reflecting tract 52 does not block any direct illumination by the infrared radiation source).
Van Zutphen further teaches:
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).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Paragraph 34 of CAMPO teaches that it is advantageous that every point of the food product receives the same quantity of radiation such as to prevent localized zones with excessive heating which can cause the product the burn. Paragraph 35 of CAMPO teaches the shaping of the parabola reflectors 29a, 29b play a very important role in preventing localized heating of the product. 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 would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify CAMPO so that the further parabolic reflector 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 parabolic reflector, y' is an axis perpendicular to said x'-axis, and p' is a constant defining an aperture of the further parabolic reflector, 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 adjust the shape of the reflectors to achieve an even distribution of IR radiation and avoid localized zones with excessive heater which can cause the product to burn. The Office further notes that having reflectors cooperate with lamps or heating rods such as to average out wave mean distance is known in the art to be advantageous for eliminating hot spots on the foodstuff as evidenced by Column 12 Lines 5-19 of Eichelberger (US 4441015 A).
Regarding claim 8, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 7.
Van Zutphen 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 (Paragraph 41, at least a part of the reflector is dimensioned such as to block direct illumination of the drip tray).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Van Zutphen further teaches:
the reflector arrangement further comprises a planar mirror arranged to redirect 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 (Zutphen Annotated Figure 7c, straight lower reflector reflects radiation to the left distal part of the food support member 100).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 9.
Van Zutphen further teaches:
the planar mirror is arranged such that the further parabolic reflector is located in between the first parabolic reflector and the planar mirror (Zutphen Annotated 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 1.
Regarding claim 11, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the infrared radiation source arrangement comprises one or more discrete infrared radiation sources (Paragraph 37, heat radiation 4 which is composed of halogen lamps 3c; Paragraph 28, halogen lamp diffuses infrared radiation)
Van Zutphen further teaches:
the infrared radiation source arrangement comprises one or more discrete infrared radiation sources (Figure 7c Paragraph 92, one or more IR radiation heater 220).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, CAMPO 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 (100) arranged around part of said infrared radiation source arrangement (Figure 4A Paragraph 40, halogen lamp 3c is positioned at a focal point of each respective reflector parabola 29c wherein both are placed within a lower cavity of the housing)
Van Zutphen further teaches:
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).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1, wherein
While CAMPO modified with Van Zutphen fails to explicitly teach that “the reflector arrangement comprises a plurality of reflector portions”, 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 reflector arrangement comprises a plurality of reflector portions would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Furthermore, the Office notes that the combination of a plurality of separate reflectors adjacent to one another such as to form a single larger reflector for a cooking device is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 of Zayauskas (US 4535753 A).
Regarding claim 14, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 13.
While CAMPO modified with Van Zutphen fails to explicitly teach that “the plurality of reflector portions are discrete reflector elements”, 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 plurality of reflector portions be discrete reflector elements would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Furthermore, the Office notes that the combination of a plurality of separate reflectors adjacent to one another such as to form a single larger reflector for a cooking device is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 of Zayauskas (US 4535753 A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPO (EP 2286701 A1) in view of 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, CAMPO as modified teaches the radiation grill apparatus of claim 1.
Paragraph 34 of CAMPO teaches that it is advantageous that every point of the food product receives the same quantity of radiation such as to prevent localized zones with excessive heating which can cause the product the burn. Paragraph 35 of CAMPO teaches the shaping of the parabola reflectors 29a, 29b play a very important role in preventing localized heating of the product. 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) that a reflector has, 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 CAMPO so that a degree of curvature of the first parabolic 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
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
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights