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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the microwave must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36, 39 and 42, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without describing any structure of the microwave oven or baking oven and how the low smoke point oil would be used in the heating chamber of these devices , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Claims 36, 39 and 42 recite, the enclosed cooking chamber is a microwave oven or baking oven. However, there is no structure to indicate how the device would work if it is a microwave oven. It is not clear how the oil and the non-oxygenated gas would work in a microwave oven. The pot and deep fryer are apparent as these devices would be directly filled with oil with the food placed in the oil. However, it is not apparent how a microwave oven or baking oven would be filled with oil for cooking food.
The microwave oven is cited at the very end of the specification and appears to be an afterthought.
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 36, 39 and 42, 44 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 36, 39 and 42, 44 recite, the enclosed cooking chamber is a microwave oven or baking oven. However, there is no structure to indicate how the device would work if it is a microwave oven. It is not clear how the oil and the non-oxygenated gas would work in a microwave oven. The pot and deep fryer are apparent as these devices would be directly filled with oil with the food placed in the oil. However it is not apparent how a microwave oven or baking oven would be filled with oil for cooking food.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24, 31, 32, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolton et al (US 3,708,311).
Regarding claim 22, Bolton discloses an apparatus for cooking (process for frying in which pieces of potatoes are passed into a stream of hot frying oil, See Abstract) with low smoke point oils (no structure specific to low smoke point oils is claimed), comprising: a heating chamber (the frying section containing the stream of oil is a closed channel partly filled with oil and the heating chambers comprise first part 10 and second part 11, See Column 2, lines 23-28 and Column 3, Lines 18-22);
a heat source (heat exchangers 18 and 21 provide heat, See Column 3, Lines 39-43));
a source of non-oxygenated gas, the source operably connected to the heating chamber (inert gas such as nitrogen or CO2 is provided for flushing the heating chamber of O2, See Column 2, Lines 28-32;
the heating chamber capable of being cleared of oxygen to below a LOC for substances being heated by the heat source, such clearing accomplished by replacing atmospheric air with the source of non-oxygenated gas. (space above the frying oil may thus be kept substantially free of oxygen, for example partly by the steam and water vapor evolved in the early stages of frying and partly by flushing with an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, col. 2, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 24, as the heating chamber is flushed of any oxygen and filled with nitrogen or carbon dioxide the N or O2 gas will be in constant flow while the device is in use.
Regarding claim 31, Bolton discloses, A method of cooking a food item using a low smoke point oil, comprising: placing the food item and the low smoke point oil in a heating chamber (process for frying in which pieces of potatoes are passed into a stream of hot frying oil, See Abstract); introducing a non-oxygenated gas into the heating chamber to reduce oxygen concentration in the heating chamber to below a limiting oxygen concentration (LOC) for the low smoke point oil (inert gas such as nitrogen or CO2 is provided for flushing the heating chamber of O2, See Column 2, Lines 28-32); and heating the low smoke point oil in the heating chamber to cook the food item. (The food is cooked by heating the hot oil via heat exchangers 18 and 21. See Abstract and Column 3)
Regarding claim 32, the gas is nitrogen. See Column 2, Lines 28-32.
Regarding claim 40, no structure or steps in a method are claimed. The limitations of claim 40 seem to be stating an inherent property or fact.
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) 22, 23, 25, 34, 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001).
Regarding claim 22, Bolton discloses an apparatus for cooking (process for frying in which pieces of potatoes are passed into a stream of hot frying oil, See Abstract) with low smoke point oils (no structure specific to low smoke point oils is claimed), comprising: a heating chamber (the frying section containing the stream of oil is a closed channel partly filled with oil and the heating chambers comprise first part 10 and second part 11, See Column 2, lines 23-28 and Column 3, Lines 18-22);
a heat source (heat exchangers 18 and 21 provide heat, See Column 3, Lines 39-43));
a source of non-oxygenated gas, the source operably connected to the heating chamber (inert gas such as nitrogen or CO2 is provided for flushing the heating chamber of O2, See Column 2, Lines 28-32;
the heating chamber capable of being cleared of oxygen to below a LOC for substances being heated by the heat source, such clearing accomplished by replacing atmospheric air with the source of non-oxygenated gas. (space above the frying oil may thus be kept substantially free of oxygen, for example partly by the steam and water vapor evolved in the early stages of frying and partly by flushing with an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, col. 2, lines 28-32).
Bolton provides a non-oxygenated gas. The claim is broad enough to include the gas being provided in Bolton as any mention of introducing nitrogen or CO2 is considered to meet the limitations of the claim. However, Bolton is not clear if the gas is a dedicated source, such as a gas container which is connected to the device at all times. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract). Ishikura discloses gas feed means 85 feeds an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide into the processing tank 1 at predetermined period starting from the preparatory stage for cooking; there are two methods, one for feeding compressed gas into the processing tank 1, and the other for evacuating the processing tank 1 to seal a gas therein, col. 7, lines 12-19) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to prevent the ingress of oxygen and thereby prevent oxidation of the food.
Regarding Claim 23, Bolton discloses the apparatus of claim 22, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating chamber is a pot. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract) and teaches wherein the heating chamber is a pot (fried food producing apparatus shown in Fig. 1 comprises a processing tank 1 in the form of a horizontal cylindrical chamber, and an oil feed device 40 attached to the processing tank 1, col. 5, lines 22-25, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to provide greater control over the cooking conditions and thereby ensure that the food is cooked to the desired consistency. Regarding Claim 25, Bolton discloses the apparatus of claim 22, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating chamber is sealed after being filled with non-oxygenated gas. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract) and teaches wherein the heating chamber is sealed after being filled with non-oxygenated gas (gas feed means 85 feeds an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide into the processing tank 1 at predetermined period starting from the preparatory stage for cooking; there are two methods, one for feeding compressed gas into the processing tank 1, and the other for evacuating the processing tank 1 to seal a gas therein, col. 7, lines 12-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to prevent the ingress of oxygen and thereby prevent oxidation of the food.
Regarding Claim 34, Bolton discloses the apparatus of claim 31, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating chamber is sealed after being filled with non-oxygenated gas. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract) and teaches wherein the heating chamber is sealed after being filled with non-oxygenated gas (gas feed means 85 feeds an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide into the processing tank 1 at predetermined period starting from the preparatory stage for cooking; there are two methods, one for feeding compressed gas into the processing tank 1, and the other for evacuating the processing tank 1 to seal a gas therein, col. 7, lines 12-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to prevent the ingress of oxygen and thereby prevent oxidation of the food.
Regarding claim 37, the oil is heated to 1300 degrees C, which would be above the smoke point for cooking oils or coconut oil. Coconut oil has roughly the same smoke point as canola oil
Regarding claim 38, Bolton discloses deep frying the food item.
Regarding claim 40, no structure or steps in a method are claimed. The limitations of claim 40 seem to be stating an inherent property or fact.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001) and Kines et al (US 2007/0082112).
The teachings of Bolton have been discussed above. Bolton fails to disclose the oil is coconut oil or MCT oil. However, Kines discloses using MCT oil or blend with MCT for deep frying. (See Paragraphs [0017] and [0041]). It would have been obvious to adapt Bolton in view of Kines to provide the MCT oil as Kines discloses MCT as an obvious variant for use in cooking.
Claim(s) 35-36, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001) and Carcano (US 2018/0249855).
The teachings of Bolton have been discussed above. Bolton fails to disclose the heating chamber comprises a pot having a gasketed lid and an inlet configured to admit the non-oxygenated gas.
Bolton fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating chamber is a pot. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract) and teaches wherein the heating chamber is a pot (fried food producing apparatus shown in Fig. 1 comprises a processing tank 1 in the form of a horizontal cylindrical chamber, and an oil feed device 40 attached to the processing tank 1, col. 5, lines 22-25, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to provide greater control over the cooking conditions and thereby ensure that the food is cooked to the desired consistency.
Ishikura discloses a sealed lid but fails to specifically disclose a gasket. Carcano discloses a gasketed seal 142 (See Paragraph [0031]) for the opening to a door to the cooking chamber/heating chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton in view of Carcano to provide the gasket for an air tight seal to the chamber.
Regarding claims 36, 39 Bolton fails to disclose the heating chamber being a microwave or baking in an oven. However, Carcano discloses a combination oven with a microwave or regular oven. It would have been obvious to adapt Bolton in view of Carcano as Carcano discloses a microwave oven or regular oven are obvious variant for cooking food.
Regarding claim 36, as the door or lid is not opened immediately, the food would be allowed to cool before the oven is opened. This limitation is not positively recited as an active step in a method and a predetermined temperature is not defined. It could be considered something the user does as a preference as nothing is preventing the door from being opened, such as a safety device in claim 41.
Claim(s) 41, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001) and Donarski (US 2014/0048058).
Regarding claim 41, Bolton discloses an apparatus for cooking (process for frying in which pieces of potatoes are passed into a stream of hot frying oil, See Abstract) with low smoke point oils (no structure specific to low smoke point oils is claimed), comprising: a heating chamber (the frying section containing the stream of oil is a closed channel partly filled with oil and the heating chambers comprise first part 10 and second part 11, See Column 2, lines 23-28 and Column 3, Lines 18-22);
a heat source (heat exchangers 18 and 21 provide heat, See Column 3, Lines 39-43));
a source of non-oxygenated gas, the source operably connected to the heating chamber (inert gas such as nitrogen or CO2 is provided for flushing the heating chamber of O2, See Column 2, Lines 28-32;
the heating chamber capable of being cleared of oxygen to below a LOC for substances being heated by the heat source, such clearing accomplished by replacing atmospheric air with the source of non-oxygenated gas. (space above the frying oil may thus be kept substantially free of oxygen, for example partly by the steam and water vapor evolved in the early stages of frying and partly by flushing with an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, col. 2, lines 28-32).
Bolton provides a non-oxygenated gas. The claim is broad enough to include the gas being provided in Bolton as any mention of introducing nitrogen or CO2 is considered to meet the limitations of the claim. However, Bolton is not clear if the gas is a dedicated source, such as a gas container which is connected to the device at all times. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract). Ishikura discloses gas feed means 85 feeds an inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide into the processing tank 1 at predetermined period starting from the preparatory stage for cooking; there are two methods, one for feeding compressed gas into the processing tank 1, and the other for evacuating the processing tank 1 to seal a gas therein, col. 7, lines 12-19) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to prevent the ingress of oxygen and thereby prevent oxidation of the food.
Bolton fails to disclose a safety mechanism configured to prevent opening of the cooking chamber while the interior of the cooking chamber is above a predetermined temperature.
Donarski discloses a device for cooking food in a heating chamber with a door, equivalent to a lid, having a door lock 64 which only opens when the temperature in the cooking cavity is less than a predetermined temperature. The cooking cavity will remain closed until the temperature drops. (See Paragraph [0037])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Donarski to provide the door lock or safety mechanism for preventing the user from opening the door until the temperature is lower than a set point.
Regarding claim 43, Bolton discloses nitrogen which is a non-polar gas.
Claim(s) 42, 44, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001), Donarski (US 2014/0048058) and Carcano (US 2018/0249855).
The teachings of Bolton have been discussed above. Bolton fails to disclose the heating chamber comprises a pot having a gasketed lid and an inlet configured to admit the non-oxygenated gas.
Bolton fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating chamber is a pot. Ishikura is in the field of food frying systems (object of the present invention is to mass-produce fried food, abstract) and teaches wherein the heating chamber is a pot (fried food producing apparatus shown in Fig. 1 comprises a processing tank 1 in the form of a horizontal cylindrical chamber, and an oil feed device 40 attached to the processing tank 1, col. 5, lines 22-25, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton with the teaching of Ishikura. The motivation would be to provide greater control over the cooking conditions and thereby ensure that the food is cooked to the desired consistency.
Ishikura discloses a sealed lid but fails to specifically disclose a gasket. Carcano discloses a gasketed seal 142 (See Paragraph [0031]) for the opening to a door to the cooking chamber/heating chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bolton in view of Carcano to provide the gasket for an air tight seal to the chamber.
Regarding claims 42, 46, Bolton fails to disclose the heating chamber being a microwave or baking in an oven. However, Carcano discloses a combination oven with a microwave or regular oven. It would have been obvious to adapt Bolton in view of Carcano as Carcano discloses a microwave oven or regular oven are obvious variant for cooking food.
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolton et al (US 3,708,311) in view of Ishikura et al (US 5,721,001), Donarski (US 2014/0048058) and Bedetti et al (US 2002/0124737)
Regarding claim 45, Bolton discloses a stirrer which may be provided but fails to disclose the stirring device extending through a sealed passage.
Bedetti discloses a device, in the same area, having a pot and lid, with the lid having a sealed passage 26a with a stirring device (The definition of kitchen utensil includes all types of ladles, slotted spatulas, spoons, forks and the like used for stirring and/or removing the food during cooking or heating. extending through it, See Paragraph [0007]) Fig 5 shows the utensil (Paragraph [0022]) extending through the lid. It would have been obvious to adapt Bolton in view of Bedetti to provide the stirring device extending through a sealed passage for stirring food while the lid remains closed and under pressure of to retain heat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/12/2025