DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their October 29, 2025 response to the Office Action filed April 29, 2025. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11 are currently pending in this application.
The amendment to claim 11 has overcome the previous objection and that objection is accordingly withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11, and also 2-3 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11, recite the limitation a “lower hemispherical concave piece”. While the Examiner acknowledges that the originally filed specification recites “the receptacle comprises two concave pieces in the form of hollow hemispheres”, the originally disclosed drawings clearly show a lower portion with cylindrical walls, and not a half-sphere shape, as claimed. Therefore, it is not clear whether the lower portion is intended to be a half-sphere shape or a cylindrical shape or another shape between or similar to these shapes. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the shape of the lower portion disclosed in the figures is intended to be a half-sphere. Since the disclosure does not further elaborate on the intended shape, it is unclear what is meant by the term “hemispherical” in relation to the lower piece, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, “a lower hemispherical concave piece” is interpreted to mean “a lower concave piece”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10147384 by Rosenkranz (hereinafter “Rosenkranz”) in view of US 4474165 to Richardson (hereinafter “Richardson”).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenkranz teaches an oven of refractory material (paragraph [0004], oven made of clay) comprising: a lower concave piece having a wall extending upwardly and ending in an upper edge (Fig 3, see also Examiner Annotated Figure A below, hereinafter “EAF A”); and an upper hemispherical concave piece ending in a lower edge (Fig 3 and EAF A), and being configured to be positioned on top of said lower concave piece so that said lower concave piece and said upper concave piece are joined together at said upper edge and said lower edge (Fig 3).
It is noted that while the upper concave piece shown in Figure 3 of Rosenkranz appears to be generally hemispherical, Rosenkranz does not explicitly disclose that the upper concave piece is hemispherical. However, Rosenkranz does disclose that the shape of the oven components are “freely selectable” and “variations in form are possible” (paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the upper concave piece of Rosenkranz hemispherical. It is evident that a hemispherical upper piece would perform equally as well and would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Examiner further notes that, while Applicant’s specification describes advantages of the claimed shape for easy molding and demolding, these advantages would be present in a number of various possible shapes and Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed hemispherical shape in particular. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the upper piece of Rosenkranz to arrive at the claimed limitation.
But Rosenkranz does not teach that mutually coupling tongue-and-groove joints are provided on said upper edge and said lower edge.
However, Richardson teaches an oven (Title) of refractory material (col 1 line 64-67) wherein the sections of refractory material are joined with mutually coupling tongue and groove joints (Fig 1 groove 24 and tongue 23 shown on edges of sections 15 and 14, respectively; col 2 line 66- col 3 line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Rosenkranz by including mutually coupling tongue and groove joints, as taught by Richardson, to join the upper edge of the lower concave pieces and the lower edge of the upper hemispherical concave piece. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the interlocking joint configuration in order to create a stronger joint and to hold the sections securely in place.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 3 of Rosenkranz, showing the upper and lower pieces and the recesses therein.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Richardson further teaches that the sections of refractory material are joined with a refractory binder and the refractory binder comprises a refractory mortar (col 2 line 63-65, fire-resistant mortar, which would be capable of enduring high temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the oven of Rosenkranz with the joints taught by Richardson, to further join the upper edge of the lower concave piece and the lower edge of the upper hemispherical concave piece with a refractory binder comprising a refractory mortar, in addition to the tongue and groove joint, in order to permanently join and seal the upper and lower sections together using a material suitable for enduring the high temperatures of the oven.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7 (same limitations, different dependencies), Rosenkranz further teaches that said upper edge and said lower edge are coplanar with each other, and each of said lower concave piece and said upper hemispherical concave piece comprises a recess in an edge thereof to form an entrance to the oven (Fig 3 and EAF A).
Regarding claim 11, Rosenkranz further teaches that each of said lower concave piece and said upper hemispherical concave piece is a single continuous piece (Fig 3, paragraph [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the lower hemispherical concave piece have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, it is not clear from Applicant’s disclosure that the lower concave piece is intended to be shaped as a half-sphere, since the drawings clearly depict a lower piece with cylindrical walls. Furthermore, Examiner notes that no criticality has been disclosed for the particular shape of the upper and lower pieces. The disclosure presents advantages of the oven pieces in molding and de-molding, but these advantages are not unique to a single shape in particular. The particular hemispherical shape of the upper and/or lower pieces is not given any particular criticality in Applicant’s specification. Furthermore, “concave” is broadly interpreted as “curved inward”, which may be in the shape of an hourglass or bowl, as Applicant’s arguments suggest, but may also be applied to the curved walls of the referenced ovens, which form a hollow, rounded interior space.
Applicant further argues that “Richardson fails to teach the claimed arrangement where the tongue-and-groove joint is used between the upper and lower oven pieces.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Rosenkranz teaches the claimed upper and lower pieces, including the joint between them at the upper edge of the lower piece and the lower edge of the upper piece. Richardson is relied upon to teach the particular joint and method of joining these pieces. The claimed tongue-and-groove joint is a well-known method of joining clay, ceramic, or masonry pieces, as is evidenced by Richardson.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4, 6, 7, and 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3276440 discloses a ceramic oven comprised of a concave, domed upper portion and a concave lower portion which are joined by a tongue-and-groove joint, and wherein the upper and lower portions are each formed of a single, continuous piece.
FR 2392641 which shows an oven similar to the claimed oven of the present invention.
US 20020139364 discloses a ceramic oven having a domed upper portion and a concave lower portion, wherein the upper and lower portion are joined at their edges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762