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 / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 6/29/26 response to the Office Action dated 3/6/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 16-17 are amended.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claim 6 remains cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-18 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth 112a rejections so those rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg.12 of the Remarks, Applicant states that MKN Maschinenfabrik Kurt Neubauer GmbH & Co. KG (hereafter MKN) does not disclose a condensation device, coolable body, or the claimed internal sequence in which the exhaust air first passes through a specifically structure pipe package, then through a blower device, and only thereafter through the treatment device beginning with the grease separator filter. However, this is not persuasive because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner, Hsu, and Jenson. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.”
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, Applicant remarks that Hsu does not teach the specific pipe-package geometry recited in amended claims 1 and 2, in particular, pipes extending transversely to the exhaust air flow, exhaust air flowing around the pipes while passing through the pipe package, and rows of pipes
offset relative to one another. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 2, the tubes 18 extend transversely to the arrows representing the exhaust air flow. Note the arrows representing the exhaust air flow flow around the tubes 18 as the air passes through the collection of tubes. It’s the Examiner’s position that Fig. 2 shows the rows of tubes 18 are offset relative to one another. Furthermore, no criticality has been provided for this limitation, so it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to offset adjacent rows in the pipe package.
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, Applicant states Langner does not disclose a pipe-package structure with transversely extending, offset rows of pipes or integrating such a pipe package into the device of MKN. However, this is not persuasive because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner, Hsu, and Jenson. Reference MPEP 2145 IV.
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, Applicant states that Hsu and Langner do not disclose a blower device downstream of a pipe package and upstream of a grease separator filter. However, this is not persuasive because these limitations are rejected by MKN in view of Langner, Hsu, and Jenson. Reference MPEP 2145 IV.
On pgs. 13 and 14 of the Remarks, Applicant states that the rejection of claim 1 would require substantially redesigning the systems of the secondary references and is based upon improper hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction of the references 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 2145 X A.
On pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant states that none of the cited references provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation for this specific sequence of structural modifications. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 I. In this case, 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 MKN in view of Langner in order to increase the longevity and effectiveness of the treatment device and decrease the intensity and/or quantity of odors that the user smells, as noted on Pg. 14 of the previous Office Action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified MKN in view of Hsu in order to decrease maintenance time and costs and/or increase the reliability of the condensation device, as noted on Pg. 16 of the previous Office Action.
On pg. 14 of the Remarks, Applicant states Hsu’s general disclosure of condenser tubes is insufficient to read on the pipe package recited in claims 1 and 2 because Applicant’s claimed structure provides a compact condensation stage with an enlarged effective cooling surface before the exhaust air reaches the blower and subsequent treatment 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 MPEP 2145 II.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Similarly, Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a flow of the exhaust air” on lines 18 and 27. Claim 1 previously introduced “exhaust air that flows” on line 11. It is unclear whether the instances of this limitation later in the claim are meant to introduce a new structure (in which case the naming convention should be altered to distinguish the structures) or refer back to the same structure earlier introduced (in which case the article should be changed to “the”). For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that they are the same exhaust flow.
Claims 4-5 and 7-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
The same or substantially the same rejection is made for claim 2, lines 15 and 24 for reciting “a flow of the exhaust air” when “exhaust air that flows” was already previously introduced in on line 8. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that they are the same exhaust flow.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
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), Hsu (US 5671726 A), and Jenson (US 3176605 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, wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to 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.
wherein a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
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);
a blower device (Fig. 2, fans 10) is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18).
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, wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to one another; and
wherein a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
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), wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package (Fig. 2, and Col. 4, lines 30-31, “the cooking fumes are condensed once in the first chamber 17 and again in the second chamber 19”. Note the tubes 18 extend transversely to the arrows representing the exhaust air flow) and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to one another (Fig. 2, which shows tubes 18 in the top row are offset from tubes 18 in the row below the top row).
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.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to offset adjacent rows in the pipe package, 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 offset pipes 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., offset relative to one another, the positions shown in Fig. 2). One could have expected the pipes to perform substantially equally well, whether at the positions shown in Fig. 2 of Hsu or in their original position.
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).
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
Jenson discloses a ventilating hood (Col. 1, lines 7-9) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known for a blower device (Fig. 2, blower 29) to be arranged in a flow path of an exhaust air (Col. 1, lines 9-12, “ventilating hoods for installation in kitchens or the like, particularly over cook stoves, for exhausting such gases as smoke, cooking gases, fumes, vapors and the like from the kitchen”) upstream of a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 42; Col. 2, lines 60-62, “Filter 42, of a material normally used in ventilating hoods for filtering grease-laden gases”; Col. 3, lines 53-54, “mixture of gases is thence drawn through opening 28a sand exhausted through outlet 33”; and Col. 2, lines 47-48, “opening 28a permitting passage of gases into the blower housing”).
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 device of MKN to have a blower device upstream of a grease separator filter as taught by Jenson and thereby decrease the exposure the blower device has to extreme conditions (As suggested by Col. 1, lines 15-21, “permitting less severe exposure conditions for component parts of the hood, and particularly a motor of the blower unit contained within the hood, by decreasing the severity of exposure of such component parts to hot gases and especially grease-laden hot gases”), which increases reliability and decreases maintenances costs.
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, wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to 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.
wherein a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
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);
a blower device (Fig. 2, fans 10) is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18).
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, 2) include a plasma downstream of a coolable body and a sponge filter and upstream of a carbon filter, and 3) have a blower device after a condensation device 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 and 3) have a blower device after a condensation device 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”), 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, and 3) 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 charcoal filter. 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 charcoal filter (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 charcoal filter.
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, wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to one another; and
wherein a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
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), wherein the pipes of the pipe package extend transversely to a flow of the exhaust air such that the exhaust air flows around the pipes while passing through the pipe package (Fig. 2, and Col. 4, lines 30-31, “the cooking fumes are condensed once in the first chamber 17 and again in the second chamber 19”. Note the tubes 18 extend transversely to the arrows representing the exhaust air flow) and wherein the pipes are arranged in a plurality of rows, adjacent rows being offset relative to one another (Fig. 2, which shows tubes 18 in the top row are offset from tubes 18 in the row below the top row).
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).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to offset adjacent rows in the pipe package, 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 offset pipes 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. One could have expected the pipes to perform substantially equally well, whether at the positions shown in Fig. 2 of Hsu or in their original position.
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).
However, MKN, as modified above, does not disclose a blower device is arranged in a flow path of the exhaust air downstream of the coolable body and upstream of the grease separator filter.
Jenson discloses a ventilating hood (Col. 1, lines 7-9) similar to the present invention and Jensen further discloses it is known for a blower device (Fig. 2, blower 29) to be arranged in a flow path of an exhaust air (Col. 1, lines 9-12, “ventilating hoods for installation in kitchens or the like, particularly over cook stoves, for exhausting such gases as smoke, cooking gases, fumes, vapors and the like from the kitchen”) upstream of a grease separator filter (Fig. 2, filter 42; Col. 2, lines 60-62, “Filter 42, of a material normally used in ventilating hoods for filtering grease-laden gases”; Col. 3, lines 53-54, “mixture of gases is thence drawn through opening 28a sand exhausted through outlet 33”; and Col. 2, lines 47-48, “opening 28a permitting passage of gases into the blower housing”).
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 device of MKN to have a blower device upstream of a grease separator filter as taught by Jenson and thereby decrease the exposure the blower device has to extreme conditions (As suggested by Col. 1, lines 15-21 of Jenson: “permitting less severe exposure conditions for component parts of the hood, and particularly a motor of the blower unit contained within the hood, by decreasing the severity of exposure of such component parts to hot gases and especially grease-laden hot gases”), which increases reliability and decreases maintenances costs.
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 1, 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 1.
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), Hsu (US 5671726 A) and Jenson (US 3176605 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), Hsu (US 5671726 A) and Jenson (US 3176605 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, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 9 above.
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), Hsu (US 5671726 A), and Jenson (US 3176605 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 second 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, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 10 above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 10 above.
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), Hsu (US 5671726 A) and Jenson (US 3176605 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
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 Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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
Prosecution Insights