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
The amendment filed on or after October 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 17 is withdrawn by applicant. Applicant’s amendments to claims 5-6, 11, and 13 are considered. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The drawing objection should be withdrawn in view of the details provided in Figures 2-5: The examiner agrees with this assertion. The drawing objection is withdrawn accordingly.
Conrad fails to disclose any of the plurality of air movers is configured to conduce air flow through a shielding unit: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. As set forth in previous correspondence, Conrad teaches a shielding unit (Figure 16 and 17 Element 224 shows a shielding unit “IR shield” [00170-00171] that is positioned between each of the infrared light sources of the infrared lighting unit and the cooking chamber); a first air guiding unit (Figure 4 “First Air Guiding Unit” identified in the specs as “air movers” [00153]) configured to conduce air flow through the shielding unit (Figure 4 Element 124 shows a first air guiding unit “air movers” [00153]. As cited, the fans of the prior art are positioned in such a manner that air travels toward and through the identified shielding units which reads on the limitations of the claim of conducing air through the shield. As a result, the original grounds of rejection is are sustained.
The technical purpose of the shielding unit “so as to reduce the amount of unwanted smoke and emissions” … is not explicitly addressed by Conrad: This argument introduces limitations that are not present in the claims and is not found to be persuasive. The structure of the shielding unit and the air guiding movements are present in Conrad and would thus be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have the capacity to reduce the amount of unwanted smoke and emissions. See MPEP Section 2112.01 section I. The original grounds of rejection is are sustained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“one or more infrared light sources configured to provide infrared radiation to the food item received in the cooking chamber” (in Claim 1). In light of the specifications, the infrared light sources will be interpreted as any structure that provides infrared radiation to the cooking chamber.
“a first air guiding unit configured to conduce air flow through the shielding unit” (in Claim 1). In light of the specifications, the first air guiding unit will be interpreted as any structure configured to conduce air flow through the shielding unit if the invention.
“a second air guiding unit configured to circulate hot air inside the cooking apparatus to heat the food item received inside the cooking chamber” (in Claim 1) In light of the specifications, the second air guiding unit will be interpreted as any structure configured to circulate hot air in the cooking chamber.
“a heating unit comprising one or more heating elements configured to heat air flow inside the cooking apparatus to create hot air circulation” (in Claim 2). In light of the specifications, the heating unit will be interpreted as any structure configured to heat air flow inside the cooking apparatus.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad (WO 2019/069193 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
620
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
609
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
816
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
668
952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Conrad teaches a cooking apparatus (Figure 4 All Elements) comprising: a cooking chamber (Figure 4 “Cooking Chambers”) configured to receive a food item (Figure 4 further shows that the chambers are configured to receive a food item “chamber…for receiving and holding food for cooking” [00118]); an infrared lighting unit (“Infrared…[ lighting] elements”[00155] are shown in Figure 4 Elements 120.1 and 120.2) comprising one or more infrared light sources (“Infrared…[ lighting] elements”[00155] are shown in Figure 4 Elements 120.1 and 120.2) configured to provide infrared radiation to the food item received in the cooking chamber (“Infrared…[lighting] elements”…generate heat…[to] cooking zone” [00155]. The heat in question would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as infrared radiation. Figure 4 further shows that the infrared light sources are configured to provide infrared radiation to the cooking chamber), the infrared lighting unit being positioned such that the food item is exposed to infrared radiation from the one or more infrared light sources (“Infrared…[lighting] elements”…generate heat…[to] cooking zone” [00155] in which the food in question sits. Figure 4 further shows that the lighting is positioned such that the food item is exposed the light sources); a shielding unit (Figure 16 and 17 Element 224 shows a shielding unit “IR shield [that] may be movable mounted from a retracted position…made of any material effective to block or resist/reduce the transmission of infrared radiation. For example…aluminum, aluminized steel, or low iron glass” [00170-00171]) comprising one or more shielding elements respectively positioned between each of the one or more infrared light sources of the infrared lighting unit and the cooking chamber (Figure 16 and 17 Element 224 shows a shielding unit “IR shield” [00170-00171] that is positioned between each of the infrared light sources of the infrared lighting unit and the cooking chamber); a first air guiding unit (Figure 4 “First Air Guiding Unit” identified in the specs as “air movers” [00153]) configured to conduce air flow through the shielding unit (Figure 4 Element 124 shows a first air guiding unit “air movers” [00153]); and a second air guiding unit (Figure 4 “Second Air Guiding Unit” identified in the specs as “air movers” [00153]) configured to circulate hot air inside the cooking apparatus to heat the food item received inside the cooking chamber (The prior art further teaches that the “air mover” [is] positioned to circulate [hot] air through the cooking zone” [00153] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the food item in the cooking chamber)
Regarding Claim 2: Conrad further teaches that the cooking apparatus further comprises a heating unit (“Infrared heating [unit]” [00155] shown in Figure 4 Element 120.3) comprising one or more heating elements configured to heat air flow inside the cooking apparatus to create hot air circulation (Figure 4 Element 120.3 further shows that the “heating element” 120.3 [00153] is configured to …generate heat” [00155] inside the apparatus to create hot air circulation.)
Regarding Claim 3: Conrad further teaches that the heating unit (“Infrared heating [unit]” [00155] shown in Figure 4 Element 120.3) is positioned so as to correspond to the configuration of the second air guiding unit (Figure 4 “Second Air Guiding Unit”) such that heated air generated at the heating unit is conducted by the second air guiding unit to heat the food item received inside the cooking chamber ( Figure 4 further shows that the heating unit is positioned so as to correspond to the configuration of the second air guiding unit (Figure 4“second air guiding unit”) such that heated air generated at the heating unit is conducted by the second air guiding unit to heat the food item received inside the cooking chamber)
Regarding Claim 4: Conrad further teaches that the first air guiding unit (Figure 4 “First Air Guiding Unit”) comprises a first fan (Figure 4 Element 132 “First Fan”) and a first air duct arrangement configured to conduce air flow towards the shielding unit (Figure 4 “First air duct arrangement”).
Regarding Claim 5: Conrad further teaches that second air guiding unit (Figure 4 “Second Air Guiding Unit”) comprises a second fan (Figure 4 “Second Fan”) and a second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Air Duct Arrangement”), the second fan being configured to conduce air flow from the cooking chamber towards the second air duct arrangement (The prior art further teaches that the “air mover” [is] positioned to circulate [hot] air through the cooking zone” [00153] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to conduce air flow from the cooking chamber towards the second air duct arrangement. This arrangement is further exemplified by Figure 4)
Regarding Claim 6: Conrad further teaches that the one or more heating elements (“Infrared heating [unit]” [00155] shown in Figure 4 Element 120.3) are configured to heat the air from the cooking chamber in the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 further shows that the “heating element” 120.3 [00153] is configured to …generate heat” [00155] inside the apparatus to heat the air from the cooking chamber in the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Sir Duct Arrangement)).
Regarding Claim 7: Conrad further teaches that the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Sir Duct Arrangement) is configured to facilitate air flow towards the food item received in the cooking chamber (Figure 4 further shows that the second air duct arrangement is configured to facilitate air flow towards the food item received in the cooking chamber)
Regarding Claim 8: Conrad further teaches that the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Sir Duct Arrangement) is perpendicular to an axis of symmetry which intersects the one or more infrared light sources (Figure 4 further shows that the second air duct arrangement is perpendicular to an axis of symmetry which intersects the infrared light sources)
Regarding Claim 9: Conrad additionally teaches that the one or more shielding elements (“IR Shield” [00170] Figure 17 Element 224) are arranged in the first air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “First Air Duct Arrangement”) of the first air guiding unit (Figure 17 Element 224 shows an optional “IR shield [that] may be permanently or removable connected to the cooking receptacle” [00170] that may be arranged in the first air duct arrangement of the first air guiding unit) such that air flow from the first fan (Figure 4 “First Fan”) is conduced along the one or more shielding elements (in the placement shown in Figure 17, the arrangement is such that the air flow from the first fan is conduced along the one or more shielding elements)
Regarding Claim 10: Conrad further teaches that the one or more shielding elements (“IR Shield” [00170] Figure 17 Element 224) comprises a first shielding part and a second shielding part (Figure 23 shows shielding elements with a first and second shielding part 224), wherein the first shielding part is positioned between the first air duct arrangement and the respective infrared light source (Figure 23 shows that the first shielding part is positioned between the first air duct arrangement and the respective infrared light source), and wherein the second shielding part is positioned between the first air duct arrangement and the cooking chamber (Figure 23 further shows that the second shielding part is positioned between the first air duct arrangement and the cooking chamber)
Regarding Claim 11: Conrad further teaches that at least one of the first shielding part and the second shielding part (Figure 23 shows shielding elements with a first and second shielding part 224) of each respective shielding element (The prior art teaches that the “IR shield may be…removable” [00170]”, which in the context of Figure 23, in which multiple shielding elements are shown, indicates that the shielding elements are configured to be removable from the rest of the respective shielding elements)
Regarding Claim 12: Conrad further teaches that the one or more shielding elements (“IR Shield” [00170] Figure 17 Element 224) comprise material having a permeability level to infrared radiation above a predetermined threshold (The prior art teaches that the “IR shield may be made of any material effective to [control] the transmission of infrared radiation…[such as] aluminum, aluminized steel or low iron glass [00171]” which one of ordinary skill in the art to be material with a permeability level that enable the shield to hold IR above a predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 13: Conrad further teaches that the one or more infrared light sources (“Infrared…[lighting] elements”[00155] are shown in Figure 22 Elements 120) comprises a first infrared light source (Figure 22 “First Infrared Light Source) and a second infrared light source (Figure 22 “Second Infrared Light Source), the first infrared light source being positioned such that the first infrared light source corresponds to a first side of the cooking apparatus (Figure 22 further shows that the first light source corresponds to a first side) and the second infrared light source being positioned such that the second infrared light source corresponds to a second side of the cooking apparatus (Figure 22 further shows that the first light source corresponds to a first side), and wherein the first side is opposite to the second side (Figure 22 further shows that the first side is opposite to the second side).
Regarding Claim 14: Conrad further teaches that each of the one or more infrared light sources (“Infrared…[ lighting] elements”[00155] are shown in Figure 4 Elements 120.1 and 120.2) is configured such that each of the one or more infrared light sources provides infrared radiation towards the food item received in the cooking chamber in a tilted angle (Figure 4 shows the Infrared Light sources 120.1 and 120.2wherein each source provides infrared radiation towards the food item received in the cooking chamber in a tilted angle).
Regarding Claim 15: Conrad further teaches that the infrared lighting unit (“Infrared…[ lighting] elements”[00155] are shown in Figure 4 Elements 120.1 and 120.2) is configured such that, in a self- cleaning mode of the cooking apparatus (The prior art teaches a “self-cleaning function” [00238] that makes use of a controller), the one or more infrared light sources are configured to operate for a predetermined time period in order to increase a temperature at the respective one or more shielding elements (The controller that operates the self-cleaning function and operation of the infrared heating elements could easily be programed such that the infrared light sources would be configured to operate for a predetermined time period in order to increase a temperature at the respective one or more shielding elements and thus, this intended use could easily be achieved with the invention of Conrad)
Regarding Claim 16: Conrad further teaches that second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Air Duct Arrangement”) is configured to facilitate air flow towards one or more walls of the cooking chamber (Figure 4 further shows that the second air duct arrangement is configured to facilitate air flow towards one or more walls of the cooking chamber), and wherein the one or more walls of the cooking chamber are at least partly air- permeable (Figure 4 Element 184 forms a wall of the cooking chamber that may be “a perforated sheet of metal, of a wire, mesh rack” [01154] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be at least partly air permeable).
Regarding Claim 18: Conrad further teaches that the cooking apparatus further comprises a housing (Figure 4 “Housing”), wherein the housing has a bottom side (Figure 4 “Housing Bottom Side”) which forms a part of the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 “Second Air Duct Arrangement”) that adopts a specific shape so as to further facilitate air flow in the second air duct arrangement (Figure 4 further shows that the housing has a bottom side which forms a part of the second air duct arrangement that adopts a specific shape so as to further facilitate air flow in the second air duct arrangement).
Regarding Claim 19: Conrad further teaches that an aperture (Figure 85 “Aperture”) is provided at a housing (Figure 4 “Housing”) of the cooking apparatus (Figure 85 “Housing of the Cooking Apparatus”) so as to allow additional air flow along the shielding unit so as to facilitate cooling down of the shielding unit (Figure 85 shows the aperture in the housing that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to facilitate the cooking down of the shielding unit).
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights