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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/2/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 1/2/26 response to the Office Action dated 9/5/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 3, 10, and 12-18 are amended.
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth 112(a) rejection and the 112(b) rejection of claim 10, so these rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pgs. 12-13, Applicant states that MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (hereafter MKN) does not disclose a condensation device or coolable body. However, this is not an issue because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner and Hsu. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pg. 13, Applicant alleges that Hsu teaches any number of tubes having any desired dimension or configuration may be used, the exact geometric arrangement of the tubes is left open and is not present as technically critical, the figures are schematic, and no particular arrangement is singled out as providing a specific technical effect. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 2 of Hsu shows a non-schematic, geometric arrangement of the tubes that reads on the claims, including “a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another”, as explained on Pgs. 14-15 of the Final Rejection dated 9/5/25. Per MPEP 2125, drawings can be used as prior art. See in particular:
“drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
As explained on Pg. 15 of the Final Rejection dated 9/5/25, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a coolable body that is a station of a condensation device, a pipe package, and is contained in a drawer in order to easily maintain the coolable body (As suggested by Hsu: “The drawer 26 permits removal of the condenser 16 for easy maintenance of the condenser tubes 18 and manifold 23”) and thereby decrease maintenance time and costs and/or increase the reliability of the condensation device. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pg. 14, Applicant states that Hsu does not disclose a hood having two distinct openings or two distinct flows being routed through the same tube-bundle condenser and same sequence of four specific treatment stations. However, this is not an issue because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner and Hsu. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that Hsu’s system is directed to recirculating cooled and partially purified fumes back into the cooking area using a closed or partially closed circulating system rather than treating exhaust air and discharging it away from the appliance like the Applicant’s device (See Pg. 15), 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). As explained on Pgs. 14-15 of the Final Rejection dated 9/5/25, only the structure of the coolable body is brought in from Hsu. Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pg. 15, Applicant states that Hsu does not disclose a third opening for discharging treated exhaust air. However, this is not an issue because this limitation is rejected by MKN. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pgs. 15-16, Applicant states that Hsu does not disclose a 1) four stage treatment device comprising, in this order, a grease separator filter, sponge filter, plasma, and an activated charcoal filter, all arranged downstream of a condenser with the same hood or 2) the same air stream passes through the condenser tubes and then through the above four-stage treatment device. However, this is not an issue because this limitation is rejected by MKN in view of Langner and Hsu. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pg. 16, Applicant states that Langner is directed to a single hot air stream and does not disclose a vapor collecting device with a first opening connected to a cooking space via a ventilation system and a second opening in the region of a door; a pipe-package condenser integrated into such a device; or routing two distinct exhaust flows jointly through such a condenser and then through four specific treatment stations. However, this is not an issue because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner and Hsu. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Examiner notes “a vapor collecting device arranged above a cooking appliance” is not positively recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner notes MKN discloses extractor hood 31 (i.e., vapor collecting device) is arranged above combi steamer 1 (i.e., cooking appliance), as shown in Figure 2. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes the rejection of claim 1 takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made because it relies on the aforementioned prior art. Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
On Pg. 19, Applicant states that Hsu’s internal arrangement remains materially different from the specific combination of a pipe-package condenser and four-stage treatment device recited in claim 2. Again, this is not an issue because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner and Hsu. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In addition, a motivation was provided on Pgs. 14-15 of the Final Rejection dated 9/5/25. Therefore, although this remark has been fully considered, it is not persuasive.
Examiner notes the rejection of claim 2 is maintained for the same or substantially the same reasons as described above for claim 1.
Similarly, the rejection to claim 14 is sustained for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 3-5 and 7-18 are unpatentable at least by their dependencies from rejected claims 1 and 2.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the further grease separator filter is claimed to be both “arranged ahead of or in the first opening” and “ahead of the coolable body in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening” (emphasis added, lines 2-4). However, adequate structure isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Instead, the as-filed specification discloses “grease separator filter 38 is arranged ahead of or in the second opening 14, which filter is arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening 14, in front of the coolable body 22” (Par. 0063). Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to show the claimed limitation. For example, Figure 1 shows grease separator filter 38 arranged ahead of the second opening 14 and ahead of the coolable body 22 in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through second opening 14.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a further grease separator filter arranged ahead of or in the first opening and ahead of the coolable body in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of a further grease separator filter arranged ahead of or in the second opening, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 16.
It appears the claim as presented is a typo because it is inconsistent with the drawings and disclosure. In order to overcome the objection, please amend claim 16, lines 2-3 as follows: “a further grease separator filter is arranged ahead of or in the second
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s understanding that the further grease separator filter recited in claim 16 corresponds to element number 38. This is at least based on the claim set filed 6/26/25 which identifies the first instance of a grease separator filter that is recited in base claim 1 as element number 24.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, a baffle plate is claimed to be both ”arranged ahead of the first opening” and “ahead of a further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening” (emphasis added, lines 2-5). However, adequate structure isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Instead, the as-filed specification discloses “baffle plate 39 is arranged in front of the second opening 14, which plate is arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that streams in through the second opening 14, ahead of the grease separator filter 38 that is arranged in the second opening 14.” (Par. 0063). Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to show the claimed limitation. For example, Figure 1 shows the baffle plate 39 arranged ahead of the second opening 14 and ahead of the further grease separator filter 38 that is arranged in the second opening 14.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a baffle plate arranged ahead of the first opening and ahead of a further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of a baffle plate arranged ahead of the second opening, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 17.
It appears the claim as presented is a typo because it is inconsistent with the drawings and disclosure. In order to overcome the objection, please amend claim 17, line 2 as follows: “wherein a baffle plate is arranged ahead of the second opening”.
Regarding claim 17, the first opening is claimed to be “arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening” (emphasis added, lines 2-4). However, adequate structure isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Instead, the as-filed specification discloses “baffle plate 39 is arranged in front of the second opening 14, which plate is arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that streams in through the second opening 14” (Par. 0063). Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to show the claimed limitation. For example, Figure 3 shows the first opening 12 is arranged on the opposite side of condensation device 16 as second opening 14. It is unclear how first opening 12 could be arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening 14 given 1) air flows in through first opening 12 and up through coolable body 22 and 2) air flows in through second opening 14 and up through coolable body 22.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for the first opening arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of a baffle plate arranged ahead of the second opening, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 17.
It appears the claim as presented is a typo because it is inconsistent with the drawings and disclosure. In order to overcome the objection, please revert the amended limitation back to its original presentation. In other words, please amend claim 17, lines 2-3 as follows: “wherein the baffle plate
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (DE202019100108U1, hereafter MKN) in view of Langner (US2010282594A1) and Hsu (US 5671726 A).
Reference is made to the attached German to English translation of MKN ‘108.
Regarding claim 1, MKN discloses a vapor collecting device (Par. 0001, extractor hood 31) for a cooking appliance (combi steamer 1, Par. 0001)
having at least a first opening (Fig. 2, opening through which arrows 50 pass, “The exhaust air supplied from the cooking chambers 6 and 8 via the exhaust air ducts 44 into the inlet chamber 43 flows forward in the inlet chamber 43 and hits the first filter arrangement 47” and “the exhaust air entering the first filter arrangement 47 according to the arrows 50”, which necessarily means there is an opening, otherwise exhaust air would not be able to enter filter arrangement 47) that can be connected with at least one cooking space of the cooking appliance (Fig. 2, cooking chamber 6) by way of a ventilation system of the appliance (Fig. 2, exhaust air ducts 44), to allow exhaust air from the cooking appliance to flow into the vapor collecting device (“The exhaust air supplied from the cooking chambers 6 and 8 via the exhaust air ducts 44 into the inlet chamber 43 flows forward in the inlet chamber 43 and hits the first filter arrangement 47” and “The two exhaust air ducts 44 from the lower and upper cooking units 7 and 5 are arranged according to Fig. 2 on a rear wall 46 of the combi steamer 1 upwards and open into the extractor hood 31, which is indicated by the small arrows 50.”),
having at least a second opening (Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) into which ambient air (Fig. 2, arrow 54 and “In the front section of the inlet chamber 43, there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52, for ambient air symbolized by arrow 54”) and, if a door (Fig. 2, cooking chamber door 9) of the cooking space is at least partially open, exhaust air can flow in from the cooking appliance (Fig. 2 and “When the cooking chamber door 9 and/or 11 is opened quickly, the possibly humid cooking chamber atmosphere or the hot cooking chamber atmosphere charged with particles and fat droplets suddenly escapes vertically upwards, whereby this escaping and vertically upward flowing massive exhaust air flow can be sucked into the inlet filter and flame protection grease filter 49 for cleaning”), and
having a treatment device for at least partial removal of undesirable substances and/or odors from exhaust air (Fig. 2, first filter assembly 47, pocket filter 53, and activated carbon filter 59), and
having at least a third opening from which the treated exhaust air can flow out of the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, opening 65 and “The outlet opening 65 on the front side 34 of the extractor hood 31, which is inclined obliquely upwards for discharge, represents a preferred embodiment of the outlet opening. Of course, the cleaned air flow can also be discharged directly upwards”),
wherein the exhaust air that flows in through the first opening (Fig. 2, opening through which arrows 50 pass, as explained above) and through the second opening (Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) into the vapor collecting device (extractor hood 31, Par. 0001) flows through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device in the following order:
-a grease separator filter as the first station of the treatment device (Fig. 2, first filter arrangement 47 and "This first filter arrangement 47 is formed from a flame protection/grease filter 49, preferably from a metal grid, and from a sponge filter 51, which has a sponge-like structure."),
-a sponge filter as the second station of the treatment device (Fig. 2, sponge filter 51 and "Behind the flame protection/grease filter 49 there is a sorption filter or Sponge filter 51"),
-an activated charcoal filter as the fourth station of the treatment device ("The fluid flow exiting the pocket filter 53 moves mainly to a further filter arrangement in the form of an activated carbon filter 59". Given pocket filter 53 is the third station and the activated carbon filter 59 is after pocket filter 53, this necessarily means activated carbon filter 59 is the fourth station. See "third filter, which is in the form of a suspended matter filter, for example a glass fiber pocket filter 53”).
However, MKN does not disclose the vapor collecting device having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air, and
wherein the exhaust air that flows in through the first opening and through the second opening into the vapor collecting device flows through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device, one after the other, namely –
-a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device, so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam, wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another,
-a grease separator filter as the first station of the treatment device
-a sponge filter as the second station of the treatment device
-a plasma as the third station of the treatment device
-an activated charcoal filter as the fourth station of the treatment device.
Langner discloses a method of cleaning a hot air stream (Par. 0001 and 0005) similar to the present invention and Langner further discloses it is known for exhaust air (Fig. 2 and “drawn in air stream to be cleaned that enters through the intake opening 2”) to flow through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, cleaning device 1) in the following order:
-a coolable body (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18 and “a heat exchanger 18 is arranged in the area of an intake opening 2 without any stream guide impingement baffles which causes the cooling of the air stream flowing through the intake opening 2”)
- a sponge filter (Fig. 1; open-poured, hydrophilic foam material 8)
-a plasma (Fig. 2, plasma production device 9) for (capable of) sterilization, ionization and/or dissociation ("a suitable plasma production device with the plasma effectively breaking down gaseous organic carbon compounds, among other things, and neutralizing odor nuisances caused by these carbon compounds" and “In an especially advantageous manner the plasma production device forces a dielectric discharge in the air stream to be cleaned, by means of which the odors and especially gaseous organic carbon compounds can be destroyed or broken down and thus can be neutralized” The limitation “for sterilization, ionization, and/or dissociation” is a recitation of functional language. A recitation of the functional 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 functional language, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes “gaseous organic carbon compounds can be destroyed or broken down” disclose the plasma is at least capable of sterilization).
- an activated charcoal filter (Fig. 1, mat of active carbon 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treatment device of MKN to 1) include a coolable body and 2) include a plasma downstream of a coolable body and a sponge filter and upstream of a carbon filter as disclosed by Langner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to 1) include a coolable body and 2) include a plasma downstream of a coolable body and a sponge filter and upstream of a carbon filter in order to 1) cool the exhaust air and thereby increase the longevity and effectiveness of the treatment device (As suggested by Langner: Par. 0005, “If the air stream to be cleaned is a hot air stream, such as those exiting from a hot air steamer, the air stream must be sufficiently cooled off before it comes in contact with the temperature sensitive active carbon”) and 2) create an especially effective cleaning effect (As suggested by Langner: Par. 0016, lines 5-11, “It was found that by using a multi-stage filter device and especially by combining a mechanical filter and separation process like the one based on the open-pored hydrophilic foam material, with plasma cleaning and a subsequent filtering process by means of an absorber material, for example active coal, an especially efficient cleaning effect is obtained”) and thereby decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the vapor collecting device having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air, and
a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device, so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam, wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another.
Hsu discloses a cooking fume treatment apparatus (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Hsu further discloses a vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, hood 10) having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air (Fig. 2, condenser 16 and “The cooking fumes contain water vapor, non-condensable gases and particulate matter, such as grease or smoke carbon. When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), and
a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device (Fig. 2, tubes 18, which are a station of condenser 16 and wherein “When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam (Fig. 2, tubes 18;“Fluid from the condenser tubes 18 flows into and cools the manifold 23. The manifold 23 has a vertical surface defining a first chamber 17 and an opposing second chamber 19. The manifold 23 has a large area on which cooking fumes may condense”; and “The cooking fumes contain water vapor, non-condensable gases and particulate matter, such as grease or smoke carbon. When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another (Fig. 2 shows tubes 18 are long tubes or pipes forming a package or collection of related items and are therefore a ‘pipe package’, that comprises multiple tubes 18 that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coolable body of MKN, as modified above, with a coolable body that is a station of a condensation device, a pipe package, and contained in drawer 26, as disclosed by Hsu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a coolable body that is a station of a condensation device, a pipe package, and contained in a drawer in order to easily maintain the coolable body (As suggested by Hsu: “The drawer 26 permits removal of the condenser 16 for easy maintenance of the condenser tubes 18 and manifold 23”) and thereby decrease maintenance time and costs and/or increase the reliability of the condensation device.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the transitional phrase “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. Examiner didn’t see any indication in the as-filed specification of 7/29/2022 that the Applicant intended for “having” to be exclusive. In addition, “at least a second opening” in line 5 appears to suggest “having” is inclusive, so Examiner interprets “having” as not excluding additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03 (IV).
Regarding claim 2, MKN discloses a vapor collecting device (extractor hood 31, Par. 0001), having a first opening (Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) into which ambient air (Fig. 2, arrow 54 and “In the front section of the inlet chamber 43, there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52, for ambient air symbolized by arrow 54”) and exhaust air can flow into the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2 and “When the cooking chamber door 9 and/or 11 is opened quickly, the possibly humid cooking chamber atmosphere or the hot cooking chamber atmosphere charged with particles and fat droplets suddenly escapes vertically upwards, whereby this escaping and vertically upward flowing massive exhaust air flow can be sucked into the inlet filter and flame protection grease filter 49 for cleaning,
having a treatment device for at least partial removal of undesirable substances and/or odors from exhaust air (Fig. 2, first filter assembly 47, pocket filter 53, and activated carbon filter 59), and
having a second opening from which the treated exhaust air can flow out of the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, opening 65 and “The outlet opening 65 on the front side 34 of the extractor hood 31, which is inclined obliquely upwards for discharge, represents a preferred embodiment of the outlet opening. Of course, the cleaned air flow can also be discharged directly upwards”),
wherein the exhaust air that flows into the vapor collecting device through the first opening (Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) flows through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device in the following order:
-a grease separator filter as the first station of the treatment device (Fig. 2, first filter arrangement 47 and "This first filter arrangement 47 is formed from a flame protection/grease filter 49, preferably from a metal grid, and from a sponge filter 51, which has a sponge-like structure."),
- a sponge filter as the second station of the treatment device,
-a sponge filter as the second station of the treatment device (Fig. 2, sponge filter 51 and "Behind the flame protection/grease filter 49 there is a sorption filter or Sponge filter 51"),
-an activated charcoal filter as the fourth station of the treatment device ("The fluid flow exiting the pocket filter 53 moves mainly to a further filter arrangement in the form of an activated carbon filter 59". Given pocket filter 53 is the third station and the activated carbon filter 59 is after pocket filter 53, this necessarily means activated carbon filter 59 is the fourth station. See "third filter, which is in the form of a suspended matter filter, for example a glass fiber pocket filter 53”).
However, MKN does not disclose a vapor collecting device for a cooktop, exhaust air can flow from the cooktop into the vapor collecting device that is arranged at a distance from the cooktop
the vapor collecting device having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air, and
wherein the exhaust air that flows in through the first opening and through the second opening into the vapor collecting device flows through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device, one after the other, namely –
-a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device, so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam, wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another,
-a grease separator filter as the first station of the treatment device
-a sponge filter as the second station of the treatment device
-a plasma as the third station of the treatment device
-an activated charcoal filter as the fourth station of the treatment device.
Langner discloses a method of cleaning a hot air stream (Par. 0001 and 0005) similar to the present invention and Langner further discloses it is known for exhaust air (Fig. 2 and “drawn in air stream to be cleaned that enters through the intake opening 2”) flows through the following stations arranged within the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, cleaning device 1) in the following order:
-a coolable body (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18 and “a heat exchanger 18 is arranged in the area of an intake opening 2 without any stream guide impingement baffles which causes the cooling of the air stream flowing through the intake opening 2”)
- a sponge filter (Fig. 1; open-poured, hydrophilic foam material 8)
-a plasma (Fig. 2, plasma production device 9) for (capable of) sterilization, ionization and/or dissociation ("a suitable plasma production device with the plasma effectively breaking down gaseous organic carbon compounds, among other things, and neutralizing odor nuisances caused by these carbon compounds" and “In an especially advantageous manner the plasma production device forces a dielectric discharge in the air stream to be cleaned, by means of which the odors and especially gaseous organic carbon compounds can be destroyed or broken down and thus can be neutralized” The limitation “for sterilization, ionization, and/or dissociation” is a recitation of functional language. A recitation of the functional 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 functional language, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes “gaseous organic carbon compounds can be destroyed or broken down” disclose the plasma is at least capable of sterilization).
- an activated charcoal filter (Fig. 1, mat of active carbon 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treatment device of MKN to 1) include a coolable body and 2) include a plasma downstream of a coolable body and a sponge filter and upstream of a carbon filter as disclosed by Langner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to 1) include a coolable body and 2) include a plasma downstream of a coolable body and a sponge filter and upstream of a carbon filter in order to 1) cool the exhaust air and thereby increase the longevity and effectiveness of the treatment device (As suggested by Langner: Par. 0005, “If the air stream to be cleaned is a hot air stream, such as those exiting from a hot air steamer, the air stream must be sufficiently cooled off before it comes in contact with the temperature sensitive active carbon”) and 2) create an especially effective cleaning effect (As suggested by Langner: Par. 0016, lines 5-11, “It was found that by using a multi-stage filter device and especially by combining a mechanical filter and separation process like the one based on the open-pored hydrophilic foam material, with plasma cleaning and a subsequent filtering process by means of an absorber material, for example active coal, an especially efficient cleaning effect is obtained”) and thereby decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose a vapor collecting device for a cooktop, exhaust air can flow from the cooktop into the vapor collecting device that is arranged at a distance from the cooktop, and
the vapor collecting device having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air, and
a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device, so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam, wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another.
Hsu discloses a cooking fume treatment apparatus (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Hsu further discloses a vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, hood 10) for a cooktop (Fig. 1, cooking surface 11. Examiner notes cooking surface 11 can be paired with an oven 80. See “the invention may further include an auxiliary oven 80”), having a first opening (Figs. 1-2, there must necessarily be an opening in hood 10 for the arrows representing airflow to enter hood 10 and flow over the internal components of hood 10, such as the blades 14 of fan 12. See “The fan 12 draws cooking fumes into the hood 10 and directs the fumes downwardly.”) into which ambient air and exhaust air can flow from the cooktop into the vapor collecting device that is arranged at a distance from the cooktop (Fig. 1, ambient air and fumes can flow from cooking surface 11 into hood 10. At least the opening in hood 10 is arranged at a distance from cooking surface 11),
the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2, hood 10) having a condensation device for at least partial removal of aerosols, water droplets and steam from the exhaust air (Fig. 2, condenser 16 and “The cooking fumes contain water vapor, non-condensable gases and particulate matter, such as grease or smoke carbon. When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), and
a coolable body, as a station of the condensation device (Fig. 2, tubes 18, which are a station of condenser 16 and wherein “When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), so as to clean the exhaust air of aerosols and water droplets and to condense out at least part of the steam (Fig. 2, tubes 18; “Fluid from the condenser tubes 18 flows into and cools the manifold 23. The manifold 23 has a vertical surface defining a first chamber 17 and an opposing second chamber 19. The manifold 23 has a large area on which cooking fumes may condense”; and “The cooking fumes contain water vapor, non-condensable gases and particulate matter, such as grease or smoke carbon. When the hot fumes flow across the cool condenser tubes 18, the vapor and particulate matter condense thereon”), wherein the coolable body is a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another (Fig. 2 shows tubes 18 are long tubes or pipes forming a package or collection of related items and are therefore a ‘pipe package’, that comprises multiple tubes 18 that are spaced apart from one another and arranged above and behind one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1) modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to be a vapor collecting device for a cooktop as disclosed by Hsu and 2) substituted the coolable body of MKN, as modified above, with the same of Hsu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a vapor collecting device that can be used with a cooktop to remove particulate matter from the cooktop (As suggested by Hsu: “an object of the invention is to provide a cooking fume purifier that condenses cooking fumes and removes particulate matter therein”) and enhance the safety of the cooktop (As suggested by Hsu: “A further object of the invention is to provide a cooking fume purifier that enhances safety of the cooking area.”) in cooking appliances that have both a cooktop and oven, which would make the vapor collecting device usable in a wider variety of spaces. Regarding 2), the substitution of one known element (the coolable body of MKN) for another (the coolable body of Hsu) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the coolable body disclosed by Hsu would have yielded predicable results, namely condensing cooking fumes. Agrizap, Inc. v Woodstream Corp., 520 F .3d 1337, 86 USP2d 1110 (Fed Cir. 2008). Examiner notes Hsu discloses “The invention may include a heat exchanging core, discussed below, rather than tubes”, which provides further support for the substitutability of the coolable bodies of MKN, as modified above, (heat exchanger) and Hsu (tubes).
NOTE: Examiner notes that the transitional phrase “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. Examiner didn’t see any indication in the as-filed specification of 7/29/2022 that the Applicant intended for “having” to be exclusive. In addition, “at least a second opening” in line 5 appears to suggest “having” is inclusive, so Examiner interprets “having” as not excluding additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03 (IV).
Regarding claim 3, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1, wherein the vapor collecting device (From MKN: extractor hood 31, Par. 0001) has a blower device (From MKN: Fig. 2, fan 63).
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose a blower device is provided between condensation device and treatment device.
Langner further discloses it is known for a blower device (Fig. 2, fans 10) to be provided between a condensation device (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18) and a treatment device (Fig. 2, mat of active carbon 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the order of the blower device, condensation device, and treatment device of MKN, as modified above, to have a blower device after a condensation device but before a treatment device as disclosed by Langner to cool the air exhaust (From Langner: “heat exchanger 18 is arranged in the area of an intake opening 2…which causes the cooling of the air stream flowing through intake opening 2”) before it reaches the treatment device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to cool the exhaust air before it comes in contact with the activated charcoal filter of the treatment device (From Langner: Par. 0005, lines 1-4, “If the air stream to be cleaned is a hot air stream, such as those exiting from a hot air steamer, the air stream must be sufficiently cooled off before it comes in contact with the temperature sensitive active carbon.”) and thereby increase the longevity and effectiveness of the treatment device.
Regarding claim 4, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 3, wherein the blower device is arranged to deflect the exhaust air stream upward (From MKN: Fig. 2, fan 63).
Regarding claim 5, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 3.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the exhaust air stream divides into two partial exhaust air streams behind the blower device, wherein each partial exhaust air stream flows through the treatment device.
Langner further discloses it is known for the exhaust air stream to divide into two partial exhaust air streams (Par. 0027, lines 2-4. Examiner notes a plurality of fans 10 (i.e., blower devices) necessarily means there are at least two partial exhaust air streams behind the fans 10) behind the blower device (Fig. 2, plurality of fans 10), wherein each partial exhaust air stream flows through a treatment device (Fig. 2, mat of active carbon 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blower device of Maier to include multiple fans as disclosed by Langner in order to limit the space requirements as much as possible (From Langner: Par. 0027, lines 1-3, “In order to limit the space requirements as much as possible, the air stream to be cleaned then is deflected by means of a plurality of fans 10 arranged side by side”), decreasing the size of the vapor collecting device overall and thereby making the vapor collecting device usable in a wider variety of spaces.
Regarding claim 7, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1, wherein the coolable body (From Hsu: Fig. 2, tubes 18, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes that although the tubes 18 of Hsu (coolable body of Hsu) is substituted for the heat exchanger 18 of Langner (coolable body of Langner), as explained in claim 1, the location of the coolable body would still be arranged directly behind the intake opening 2 as disclosed by Langner, as the structure of the coolable body, not the location, is substituted) is arranged directly behind the second opening (From MKN: Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening (From MKN: Fig. 2 and “When the cooking chamber door 9 and/or 11 is opened quickly, the possibly humid cooking chamber atmosphere or the hot cooking chamber atmosphere charged with particles and fat droplets suddenly escapes vertically upwards, whereby this escaping and vertically upward flowing massive exhaust air flow can be sucked into the inlet filter and flame protection grease filter 49 for cleaning”).
Regarding claim 14, MKN, as modified above, discloses a unit (From MKN: Fig. 2, combi steamer 1 and extractor hood 31) comprising
a cooking appliance (From MKN: Fig. 2, combi steamer 1) having a cooking space (Fig. 2, cooking chamber 6),
the vapor collecting device (10) (From MKN: Fig. 2, extractor hood 31) according to claim 1 (See rejection to claim 1 above)
wherein the first opening (12) (From MKN: Fig. 2, opening through which arrows 50 pass, “The exhaust air supplied from the cooking chambers 6 and 8 via the exhaust air ducts 44 into the inlet chamber 43 flows forward in the inlet chamber 43 and hits the first filter arrangement 47” and “the exhaust air entering the first filter arrangement 47 according to the arrows 50”, which necessarily means there is an opening, otherwise exhaust air would not be able to enter filter arrangement 47) of the vapor collecting device (10) is connected with a ventilation system of the cooking appliance (From MKN: Fig. 2, exhaust air ducts 44) that stands in an active connection with the cooking space (From MKN: Fig. 2, cooking chamber 6. Examiner notes arrows 30, 42 and 50 that represent airflow show extractor hood 31 is connected with exhaust air ducts 44 that stand in active connection with cooking chamber 6).
Regarding claim 15, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1, wherein the coolable body (From Hsu: Fig. 2, tubes 18, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes that although the tubes 18 of Hsu (coolable body of Hsu) is substituted for the heat exchanger 18 of Langner (coolable body of Langner), as explained in claim 1, the location of the coolable body would still be arranged directly behind the intake opening 2 as disclosed by Langner, as the structure of the coolable body, not the location, is substituted) is arranged directly behind the second opening (From MKN: Fig. 2 and “there is an inlet opening in the bottom wall 35, indicated by an arrow 52”) in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the first opening (From MKN: Fig. 2, opening through which arrows 50 pass, as explained in claim 1 and “In the rear section of the inlet space 43, opposite the inlet openings of the exhaust air ducts 44, there is a partition wall 70 which is arranged inclined obliquely forward. As a result, the flow channel narrows towards the front up to a first filter arrangement 47, whereby the flowing exhaust air from the exhaust air ducts is accelerated and cooled in the process. This flow is indicated by the small arrows 71, which also symbolize the lower fluid flow component in relation to the fluid flow component according to arrow 52.”).
Regarding claim 18, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the second opening is provided with an electrostatic filter arranged after the treatment device in the flow path of the exhaust air.
Langner further discloses it is known for a second opening (Fig. 2 and “air stream then exits again through suitable openings on an upper side 17”) to be provided with an electrostatic filter (Fig. 2, electric filter 12, ionization device 13, and collector surface 14) arranged after a treatment device (Fig. 2, open-poured hydrophilic foam material 8, plasma production device 9) in a flow path of exhaust air (Fig. 2, air flows from intake opening 2, through the structures within cleaning device 1, and out the opening in upper side 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include the electrostatic filter as disclosed by Langner in order to separate particles and condensation drops (As suggested by Langner: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the inventive thought, the filter device additionally comprises an electric filter. The electric filters known from practice customarily comprise an ionization device and a collector; the particles and condensation drops in the air stream are electrically charged by means of the ionization device and separated at the collector surfaces that have the opposite electric charge”) and thereby increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the vapor collecting device (As suggested by Langner: “a multi-stage filter device in which different cleaning methods such as mechanical cleaning, absorption or electrostatic filtering methods are used. Studies have shown that a combination of the method steps according to an aspect of the invention allows for surprisingly efficient cleaning of and effective removal of odor from a hot air stream to be cleaned within a short period of time and with minimal space requirements”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (DE202019100108U1, hereafter MKN) in view of Langner (US2010282594A1) and Hsu (US 5671726 A) and further in view of Kim et al., (US 20170326264 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 8, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein at least one of the grease separator filter, the sponge filter and the activated charcoal filter of the treatment device is configured in plate form, in the form of a removable insert or slide-in module.
Kim discloses an air cleaner (Abstract) similar to present invention and Kim further discloses two filters are configured in plate form (Fig. 3, dust collection filter 90 and photocatalytic filter 80), in the form of a removable insert (Par. 0134, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified two of the filters of Maier, as modified above, to be removable plates as disclosed by Kim in order to make the filters easier to remove (From Kim: Par. 0127, last three lines, “both sides of the photocatalytic filter may be gripped by the user’s hands, thereby enabling the photocatalytic filter to be easily withdrawn”) and thereby make maintenance of the filters available to users with a wider range of abilities.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the limitation “a removable insert or slide-in module” (emphasis added) is an alternative limitation, so only one limitation needs to be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (DE202019100108U1, hereafter MKN) in view of Langner (US2010282594A1) and Hsu (US 5671726 A) and further in view of Jensen (US3260189A).
Regarding claim 9, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein a further grease separator filter is arranged ahead of or in the second opening, wherein the further grease separator filter is arranged ahead of the coolable body in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 125 and “filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) arranged in an entrance opening (Fig. 2, exhaust opening 124 and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”), wherein the grease separator filter is arranged ahead of a coolable body (annotated Fig. A and “A means to control the temperature of air flowing between the exhaust and the inlet portions of the system is provided by a -combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means. The evaporative cooling portion includes a water supply pipe 160 leading to a plurality of admission pipes 161…An expansion coil 168 is disposed Within the chamber 167“. Examiner notes Fig. 2 shows the combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means (i.e., condensation device) has a admission pipes 161 and expansion coil 168 (i.e., a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one other and arranged above and one another). Examiner further notes filter 125 is arranged ahead of components of the combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means, such as admission pipes 161) in the flow path of exhaust air (“fumes, schematically illustrated at 16, and which may be in the form of grease vapors, water vapors, odors, smoke, and the like”) that flows in through the entrance opening (“The fumes 16 entrained in the air stream 15 are carried to the filter 125”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include a filter arranged ahead of a coolable body in the flow path of an exhaust air that flows in through an opening as disclosed by Jensen in order to reduce grease buildup (As suggested by Jensen: “remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) and thereby increase the reliability of the vapor collecting device and decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the limitation “a grease separator filter arranged ahead of or in the second opening” (emphasis added) is an alternative limitation, so only one limitation needs to be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 12, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the condensation apparatus has a bottom that is provided with a pipe-like drain, so as to conduct condensate away out of the vapor collecting device.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a condensation apparatus (“A means to control the temperature of air flowing between the exhaust and the inlet portions of the system is provided by a -combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means. The evaporative cooling portion includes a water supply pipe 160 leading to a plurality of admission pipes 161…An expansion coil 168 is disposed Within the chamber 167“) with a bottom (Fig. 2, bottom of water collecting hopper 175) that is provided with a pipe-like drain (Fig. 2, elongated drain tube 172), so as to conduct condensate away out of a vapor collecting device (Fig. 2 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “A water collecting hopper 175 is disposed beneath the pad 163 and includes an elongated drain tube 176 leading to a suitable drain for the water passing through the evaporative cooling pad.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Condensation
device )]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Jensen showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the condensation device of MKN, as modified above, to include the pipe-like drain, resistance element 177, and conductors 178 as disclosed by Jensen in order to remove fats and water (As suggested by Jensen: “A water collecting hopper 175 is disposed beneath the pad 163 and includes an elongated drain tube 176 leading to a suitable drain for the water passing through the evaporative cooling pad. A resistance coil 177 is wrapped about a portion of the tube 176 and by means of conductors 178 is connected to a suitable source of electrical energy, not shown. The resistance element 177 is provided to maintain the temperature of the water passing through the tube 176 above the freezing or solidication temperature of any fats removed from the air stream by the water passing through the evaporative pad 163.”) and thereby increase the effectiveness and reliability of the vapor collecting device by reducing the risk that fats and/or water will accumulate in the vapor collecting device. To elaborate, accumulated fats and water could result in odors (which relates to the effectiveness of the deodorization) and could damage nearby components and render them inoperable (which relates to reliability of the vapor collecting device).
Regarding claim 13, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1, wherein the blower device (From MKN: Fig. 2, fan 63) is arranged in a pass-through (From MKN: Fig. 2 which implicitly discloses fan 63 is arranged in a pass-through because the fan 63 is vertically suspended between two colinear lines) in a basin (annotated Fig. B, a basin is an open vessel with sloping sides, therefore the structure identified in annotated Fig. B is a ‘basin’ because it is an open vessel with sloping sides) arranged under the treatment device (Fig. 2, first filter assembly 47, pocket filter 53, and activated carbon filter 59).
PNG
media_image3.png
475
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Basin )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Jensen showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the basin has a pipe-like drain in a bottom of the basin, so as to conduct condensate into the pipe- like drain of the bottom of the condensation apparatus and carry the condensate away out of the vapor collecting device.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a basin (annotated Fig. C, a basin is an open vessel with sloping sides, therefore the structure identified in annotated Fig. C is a ‘basin’ because it is an open vessel with sloping sides) arranged under a treatment device (Fig. 2, filter 125), wherein the basin has a pipe-like drain (Fig. 2, elongated drain tube 172) in a bottom of the basin (annotated Fig. C, bottom of the basin), so as to conduct condensate into the pipe-like drain of the bottom of the condensation apparatus and carry the condensate away out of the vapor collecting device (Fig. 2 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “A water collecting hopper 175 is disposed beneath the pad 163 and includes an elongated drain tube 176 leading to a suitable drain for the water passing through the evaporative cooling pad.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Basin )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Jensen showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include the pipe-like drain, resistance element 177, and conductors 178 as disclosed by Jensen in order to remove fats and water (As suggested by Jensen: “A water collecting hopper 175 is disposed beneath the pad 163 and includes an elongated drain tube 176 leading to a suitable drain for the water passing through the evaporative cooling pad. A resistance coil 177 is wrapped about a portion of the tube 176 and by means of conductors 178 is connected to a suitable source of electrical energy, not shown. The resistance element 177 is provided to maintain the temperature of the water passing through the tube 176 above the freezing or solidication temperature of any fats removed from the air stream by the water passing through the evaporative pad 163.”) and thereby increase the effectiveness and reliability of the vapor collecting device by reducing the risk that fats and/or water will accumulate in the vapor collecting device. To elaborate, accumulated fats and water could result in odors (which relates to the effectiveness of the deodorization) and could damage nearby components and render them inoperable (which relates to reliability of the vapor collecting device).
Regarding claim 16, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein a further grease separator filter is arranged ahead of or in the first opening, wherein the further grease separator filter is arranged ahead of the coolable body in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 125 and “filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) arranged in a first opening (annotated Fig. D and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”), wherein the grease separator filter is arranged ahead of a coolable body (annotated Fig. A and “A means to control the temperature of air flowing between the exhaust and the inlet portions of the system is provided by a -combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means. The evaporative cooling portion includes a water supply pipe 160 leading to a plurality of admission pipes 161…An expansion coil 168 is disposed Within the chamber 167“. Examiner notes Fig. 2 shows the combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means (i.e., condensation device) has a admission pipes 161 and expansion coil 168 (i.e., a pipe package that comprises multiple pipes that are spaced apart from one other and arranged above and one another). Examiner further notes filter 125 is arranged ahead of components of the combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means, such as admission pipes 161) in the flow path of exhaust air (“fumes, schematically illustrated at 16, and which may be in the form of grease vapors, water vapors, odors, smoke, and the like”) that flows in through the second opening (annotated Fig. D and “The fumes 16 entrained in the air stream 15 are carried to the filter 125”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include a filter arranged in the first opening and ahead of a coolable body in the flow path of an exhaust air that flows in through an opening as disclosed by Jensen in order to reduce grease buildup (As suggested by Jensen: “remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) and thereby increase reliability of the vapor collecting device and decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the limitation “a grease separator filter arranged ahead of or in the second opening” (emphasis added) is an alternative limitation, so only one limitation needs to be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
PNG
media_image5.png
635
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First opening)][AltContent: textbox (Second opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Jensen showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (DE202019100108U1, hereafter MKN) in view of Langner (US2010282594A1) and Hsu (US 5671726 A) and further in view of Jensen (US3260189A) and Xu et al (CN 110043933 A, hereafter Xu).
Regarding claim 10, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein a baffle plate is arranged ahead of the second opening, wherein the baffle plate is arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening, ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Langner further discloses a baffle plate (Fig. 1, baffle 3) is arranged in an entrance opening (Fig. 1, intake opening 2), wherein the baffle plate is arranged in a flow path of exhaust air that flows in through the entrance opening (“The drawn in air stream to be cleaned that enters through the intake opening 2” and “A hot air stream escapes, for example, when opening the doors of a hot air steamer that is used for private or industrial food preparation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include the baffle plate as disclosed by Langner in order to narrow the cross section of the opening and thereby more effectively draw in exhaust air and increase the capture range (As suggested by Langner: “accelerated by the narrowing cross section of the intake opening 2 so that the air to be cleaned is drawn in more effectively and the capture range of the cleaning device 1 is enlarged”), which increases the effectiveness of the vapor collecting device by decreasing the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the baffle plate is arranged ahead of the second opening, wherein the baffle plate is arranged ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a first opening (Fig. 2, left side of exhaust opening 124 that is behind filter 125 and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through a second opening, ahead of a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 125 and “filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) that is arranged in the second opening (Fig. 2, exhaust opening 124 and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”), wherein the grease separator filter is arranged ahead of a coolable body (“A means to control the temperature of air flowing between the exhaust and the inlet portions of the system is provided by a -combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means. The evaporative cooling portion includes a water supply pipe 160 leading to a plurality of admission pipes 161…An expansion coil 168 is disposed Within the chamber 167“. Examiner notes Fig. 2 shows filter 125 is arranged ahead of components of the combination heat-exchange or evaporative and refrigerative cooling means, such as admission pipes 161) in the flow path of exhaust air (“fumes, schematically illustrated at 16, and which may be in the form of grease vapors, water vapors, odors, smoke, and the like”) that flows in through the entrance opening (“The fumes 16 entrained in the air stream 15 are carried to the filter 125”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include a filter arranged ahead of a coolable body in the flow path of an exhaust air that flows in through an opening as disclosed by Jensen in order to reduce grease buildup (As suggested by Jensen: “remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) and thereby increase reliability of the vapor collecting device and decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the baffle plate is arranged ahead of the second opening, wherein the first opening is arranged ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Xu discloses a range hood (“The first technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a range hood” and “oil stain and water stain on the surface of the range hood panel 2 are introduced into the oil cup 4 to prevent the user from dropping oil into the pot or the cooker during cooking, thereby reducing the user's scrubbing time and improving the user experience”) similar to the present invention and Xu further discloses it is known for a baffle plate (Fig. 1, smoke damper 3) to be arranged ahead of an opening (Fig. 3, through hole 221).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the baffle plate to be arranged ahead of the second opening, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. ahead of the opening, in the opening). One could have expected the baffle plate to perform substantially equally well, whether in the opening or in its original position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that MKN, as modified above, would necessarily result in the baffle plate being arranged ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Regarding claim 17, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein a baffle plate is arranged ahead of the first opening, wherein the first opening is arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air that flows in through the second opening, ahead of a further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Langner further discloses a baffle plate (Fig. 1, baffle 3) is arranged in a first opening (Fig. 1, intake opening 2), wherein the first opening is arranged in a flow path of an exhaust air (“The drawn in air stream to be cleaned that enters through the intake opening 2” and “A hot air stream escapes, for example, when opening the doors of a hot air steamer that is used for private or industrial food preparation”) that flows in through a second opening (Fig. 2, portion of cleaning device 1 that surrounds hydrophilic foam material 8, which must necessarily have an opening in order to accommodate the hydrophilic foam material 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include the baffle plate as disclosed by Langner in order to narrow the cross section of the opening and thereby more effectively draw in exhaust air and increase the capture range (As suggested by Langner: “accelerated by the narrowing cross section of the intake opening 2 so that the air to be cleaned is drawn in more effectively and the capture range of the cleaning device 1 is enlarged”), which increases the effectiveness of the vapor collecting device by decreasing the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the baffle plate is arranged ahead of the first opening, ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the second opening.
Jensen discloses a hood (Fig. 2, hood 120 and “it is an object of the present invention to provide 4a ventilation system which removes grease, smoke, and other fumes emitted from a localized heating zone” and “the present invention has particular utility in conjunction with such heating units used in the preparation of food”) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known to have a first opening (annotated Fig. D and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) arranged in the flow path of the exhaust air (“fumes, schematically illustrated at 16, and which may be in the form of grease vapors, water vapors, odors, smoke, and the like”) that flows in through the second opening (annotated Fig. D and “The hood 120 defines an exhaust opening 124 in which is fitted a suitable filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”), ahead of a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 125 and “filter 125 adapted to remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) that is arranged in the second opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the vapor collecting device of MKN, as modified above, to include a filter arranged in the second opening as disclosed by Jensen in order to reduce grease buildup (As suggested by Jensen: “remove vaporized grease passing therethrough”) and thereby increase reliability of the vapor collecting device and decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose the baffle plate is arranged ahead of the first opening.
Xu discloses a range hood (“The first technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a range hood” and “oil stain and water stain on the surface of the range hood panel 2 are introduced into the oil cup 4 to prevent the user from dropping oil into the pot or the cooker during cooking, thereby reducing the user's scrubbing time and improving the user experience”) similar to the present invention and Xu further discloses it is known for a baffle plate (Fig. 1, smoke damper 3) to be arranged ahead of a first opening (Fig. 3, through hole 221).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the baffle plate to be arranged ahead of the first opening, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. ahead of the first opening, in the first opening). One could have expected the baffle plate to perform substantially equally well, whether in the first opening or in its original position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that MKN, as modified above, would necessarily result in the baffle plate being arranged ahead of the further grease separator filter that is arranged in the first opening.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (DE202019100108U1, hereafter MKN) in view of Langner (US2010282594A1) and Hsu (US 5671726 A) and further in view of Rational (DE 202011050141 U1).
Regarding claim 11, MKN, as modified above, discloses the vapor collecting device according to claim 1.
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the third opening is provided with a mechanical particulate air filter arranged after the treatment device in the flow path of the exhaust air.
Rational discloses an extractor hood (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Rational further discloses it is known for an third opening (Fig. 1, there must necessarily be an opening in extractor hood 1 for the arrow 4 representing airflow to exit extractor hood 1 as shown. Given there are two openings into the extractor hood, this can be considered a ‘third opening’. See “exhaust air flowing into the extractor hood via the first opening and the ambient air flowing into the extractor hood via the second opening and/or the exhaust air from the cooking chamber passing through the at least partially opened door…in order to then leave the extractor hood as purified air”) to be provided with a mechanical particulate air filter (Fig. 1, HEPA filter 18 and Par. 0013, lines 4-5) arranged after the treatment device (Fig. 1, carbon filter 16) in a flow path of an exhaust air (Fig. 1, arrows representing airflow and “exhaust air flowing into the extractor hood via the first opening and the ambient air flowing into the extractor hood via the second opening and/or the exhaust air from the cooking chamber passing through the at least partially opened door… in order to then leave the extractor hood as purified air”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vapor collecting device of Maier, as modified above, to include the HEPA filter as disclosed by Rational in order to increase the effectiveness with which the vapor collecting device filters bacteria (From Rational: Par. 0031, lines 280-283, “a HEPA filter (High Efficiency Particle Air filter), which is used to filter out viruses, respirable dust, mite eggs and/or excretions, pollen, smoke particles, asbestos, bacteria, various toxic dusts and aerosols.”) and thereby decrease the likelihood that the user will be exposed to pathogens.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762