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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 10/17/25 response to the Office Action dated 5/19/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
a. Claim 1 is amended.
d. Claims 1-2 and 5-16 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The term “blanking cap” used in claims 1, 7-8, and 16 is interpreted as a structure that covers an aperture or hole, without any restrictions on how (i.e., does not have to be inserted into the hole). This is supported by Pars. 0012-0013 of the as-filed specification which recite the blanking cap “covers” the aperture.
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 1-2, 5, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundhauser (FR2717566A1) in view of Cohan (US 2007297 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sundhauser discloses an oven (Fig. 1, oven 1) comprising:
an oven housing (Fig. 1, modules A and B and lower box 29) defining an oven chamber (Fig. 1, cooking chamber 12) for containing foodstuffs (Fig. 1, bakery product 22) during cooking or curing; and
an oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17) forming a base of the oven chamber (Fig. 1, cooking chamber 12) for supporting foodstuffs to be cooked or cured in the oven chamber, wherein the oven floor comprises:
a first aperture (Fig. 1, opening 19) for communication with a first energy source (Fig. 1, wood 20) for cooking foodstuffs in the oven chamber;
a second aperture (Fig. 1, opening 18) for communication with a second energy source (Fig. 1, additional heating means 13) for cooking foodstuffs (Fig. 1, bakery product 22) in the oven chamber (Fig. 1, cooking chamber 12).
However, Sundhauser does not disclose a first aperture for communication with only a first energy source for cooking foodstuffs in the oven chamber;
a second aperture for communication with only a second energy source for cooking foodstuffs in the oven chamber, and
at least one blanking cap for selectively covering the first aperture and/or the second aperture.
Cohan discloses a stove (Col. 1, lines 1-2) similar to the present invention and Cohan further discloses it is known to have a first aperture (Fig. 1, lower horizontal opening 33) for communication with only a first energy source (Fig. 1, liquid fuel-burning apparatus 11) for cooking foodstuffs in an oven chamber (Fig. 1, oven box 17); and
a second aperture (annotated Fig. A) for communication with only a second energy source (Fig. 1, firebox 13) for cooking foodstuffs in the oven chamber, and
at least one blanking cap for selectively covering the first aperture and/or the second aperture (Fig. 1, oppositely extending portion 37, which selectively covers the lower horizontal opening 33 and damper 50, which selectively covers the second aperture).
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 oven of Sundhauser with the relationship between the apertures and energy sources disclosed by Cohan in order to heat the oven using the first or second energy source (As suggested by Col. 3, lines, 35-40 of Cohan: “heating the oven selectively by an oil burning apparatus or by solid fuel in a firebox positioned in the stove”) and thereby allow the user to cook a wider variety of recipes and/or better meet their cooking preferences.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second aperture)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Cohan showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position that apertures in communication with only one energy source are well-known in the art as indicated by Fig. 4, openings 9 and 10 of Baxter (US 1195329 A) referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 2, Sundhauser discloses the first energy source (Fig. 1, wood 20) is a non-gas fuel energy source, and the second energy source (Fig. 1, additional heating means 13) is a gas-fuel energy source (Par. 008, lines 59-63, “additional heating means often come in the form of a gas burner”).
Regarding claim 5, Sundhauser discloses the first (Fig. 1, opening 19) and second apertures (Fig. 1, opening 18) are identical in size.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the limitation “size and/or shape” (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 9, Sundhauser discloses the first (Fig. 1, opening 19) and second apertures (Fig. 1, opening 18) are spaced apart across a width of the oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17), optionally wherein the first and second apertures are arranged on opposing lateral areas of the oven floor and/or on opposing lateral sides of an oven mouth (Par. 0008, lines 57-58, “A front opening allows you to place baked goods, pizzas and other pies to be cooked in the center of the oven.”) of the oven (Fig. 1, oven 1) that provides access to the oven chamber (Fig. 1, cooking chamber 12).
Regarding claim 10, Sundhauser discloses the first (Fig. 1, opening 19) and second apertures (Fig. 1, opening 18) are each arranged proximate a peripheral edge of the oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17).
Regarding claim 12, Sundhauser discloses the non-gas-fuel energy source (Fig. 1, additional heating means 13 and Par. 008, lines 59-63, “additional heating means often come in the form of a gas burner”) is arranged below the oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17), optionally, arranged within a chamber (Fig. 1, cooking chamber 11) formed below the first aperture (Fig. 1, opening 19).
Regarding claim 13, Sundhauser discloses the second aperture (Fig. 1, opening 18) contains a permanent gas-fuel energy source (Fig. 1, additional heating means 13 and Par. 008, lines 59-63, “additional heating means often come in the form of a gas burner”).
Regarding claim 14, Sundhauser discloses the first (Fig. 1, opening 19) and/or second aperture (Fig. 1, opening 18) is surrounded by a peripheral wall (annotated Fig. B), which projects upwardly from the oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17).
NOTE: Examiner notes “optionally a removable peripheral wall” is an optional feature that is not required of the claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
667
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Peripheral Walls)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Sundhauser showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 15, Sundhauser discloses the oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17) is a substantially continuous surface.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundhauser (FR2717566A1) in view of Cohan (US 2007297 A) and further in view of Horner (US 0894145 A). Evidence is provided per “Are Round Grease Ducts Better Than Rectangular Grease Ducts? “ by “HoodFilters.com“ (see NPL in file wrapper, hereafter HoodFilters), note a publication date of 04/05/2019, as indicated on page 2 near the bottom of the page.
Regarding claim 6, Sundhauser, as modified above, discloses the first (Fig. 1, opening 19) and/or second (Fig. 1, opening 18) aperture.
However, Sundhauser, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the first and/or second aperture is circular in shape. (Examiner notes that the cross-section of openings 19 and 18 shown in Fig. 1 could be circular or rectangular).
Horner discloses an oven (Col. 1, lines 1-7) similar to the present invention and Horner further discloses it is known for a first (Fig. 3, right most port C) and or second aperture (Fig. 3, left most port C) to be circular in shape.
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 first and second apertures and mating blanking caps of Sundhauser, as modified above, to be circular as disclosed by Horner because a round (i.e., circular in shape) cross-section has a greater flow capacity than a rectangular one (From HoodFilters: Efficiency section, “Round ducts have as much as 45% less friction than a rectangular duct and have a much greater flow capacity. This is due to the circular pattern that air naturally flows in through a duct”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a circular aperture to increase the flow of heat and/or smoke into the cooking chamber and thereby decrease the cooking time of food in the cooking chamber as a means to improve the efficiency of the oven.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position that apertures that are circular in shape is well-known in the art as indicated by Fig. 3, holes 50 of Miller et al. (US 5423309 A) referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 7, Sundhauser, as modified above, discloses the oven as claimed in claim 1.
However, Sundhauser, as modified above, does not disclose the at least one blanking cap is circular in shape.
Horner discloses an oven (Col. 1, lines 1-7) similar to the present invention and Horner further discloses it is known for a blanking cap (From Horner: Fig. 3, plugs K) to be circular in shape.
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 first and second apertures and mating blanking caps of Sundhauser, as modified above, to be circular as disclosed by Horner because a round (i.e., circular in shape) cross-section has a greater flow capacity than a rectangular one (From HoodFilters: Efficiency section, “Round ducts have as much as 45% less friction than a rectangular duct and have a much greater flow capacity. This is due to the circular pattern that air naturally flows in through a duct”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a circular aperture to increase the flow of heat and/or smoke into the cooking chamber and thereby decrease the cooking time of food in the cooking chamber as a means to improve the efficiency of the oven.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position blanking caps that are circular in shape is well-known in the art as indicated by Fig. 5, movable lids E of Purdy (US 0726189 A) referenced in the conclusion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundhauser (FR2717566A1) in view of Cohan (US 2007297 A) and further in view of the article titled “Quality pots pans to abuse/ use with high heat?” by “ChefTalk.com” (see NPL in file wrapper, hereinafter ChefTalk.com), note a publication date of 05/2018.
Regarding claim 8, Sundhauser, as modified above, discloses the one or more blanking caps (From Horner: Fig. 3, plugs K) and oven floor (Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17).
However, Sundhauser, as modified above, does not disclose the blanking caps are formed from cast iron.
ChefTalk.com discloses that cast iron can be exposed to high heats in an oven without taking damage (Post by sgsvirgil on 05/10/2018, “Cast iron…can take any temperature your home stove or oven can throw at it”).
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 one or more blanking caps of Sundhauser, as modified above, to be cast iron as disclosed by ChefTalk.com because cast iron is heavy and dense so once it’s hot, it retains heat very well and can take high heat in an oven without damage (Post by sgsvirgil on 05/10/2018, “Cast iron is heavy and dense…the benefit to the weight and density of cast iron is that once its hot, it retains heat very, very well and it can take any temperature your home stove or oven can throw at it without causing any damage whatsoever”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the one or more blanking caps out of cast iron to increase their heat resilience and thereby decrease the maintenance costs of the oven.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position that using cast-iron in an oven is well-known in the art as indicated by Col. 1, lines 36-46 of Knauss (US 0955411 A) referenced in the conclusion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundhauser (FR2717566A1) in view of Cohan (US 2007297 A) and further in view of Brendel et al. (US 20100028555 A1), hereafter Brendel.
Regarding claim 11, Sundhauser, as modified above, discloses the oven chamber (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, cooking chamber 12) and the first (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, opening 19) and second apertures (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, opening 18).
However, Sundhauser, as modified above, does not disclose a temperature sensor for measuring a temperature within the oven chamber, and the first and second apertures are arranged substantially equidistant from the temperature sensor
Brendel discloses a solution for measuring temperature (Abstract), similar to the problem of measuring temperature within the oven chamber in the present invention. Brendel further discloses a temperature sensor (Fig. 5, temperature sensor 51) for measuring a temperature, and the temperature sensors are arranged equidistantly from their assigned energy radiators (Par. 0015, lines 8-9, “the temperature sensors can be arranged equidistantly from their assigned energy radiators”).
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 oven chamber of Sundhauser, as modified above, to include temperature sensors equidistant from their assigned energy radiators as disclosed by Brendel in order to equally monitor the temperature of the oven chamber in relation to the apertures and their different fuel sources. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to monitor the temperature of the oven chamber in relation to each of the apertures so the user could use cooking methods reliant on specific temperatures regardless of which fuel source is being used (From Brendel: Par. 0015, lines 8-11, “the temperature sensors can be arranged equidistantly from their assigned energy radiators, such that the time shift for temperature measurement is the same for all temperature sensors”) and thereby increase the variety of cooking methods available to the user for each fuel source.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundhauser (FR2717566A1) in view of Cohan (US 2007297 A) and further in view of Berger (US1616647A).
Regarding claim 16, Sundhauser, as modified above, discloses the oven floor (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, intermediate floor 17) comprises the first (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, opening 19) and second aperture (From Sundhauser: Fig. 1, opening 18) and at least one blanking cap (From Cohan: Fig. 1, oppositely extending portion 37 and damper 50).
However, Sundhauser, as modified above, does not disclose a relief at the periphery of the first and second aperture for aiding removal of a blanking cap from the first and second aperture.
Berger discloses a solution for removing an inner receptacle from an opening (Pg. 1, lines 27-31, “construct the wall of said opening and the ends of the inner receptacle that the inner receptacle may be readily grasped by the fingers for removal and insertion”), similar to the problem of removing the blanking cap from the aperture in the present invention. Burger further discloses it is known to have a relief (Fig. 1, recesses 19) at the periphery of an aperture (Pg. 1, lines 54-57, tubular wall 13, “The outer casing comprises a tubular wall 13, at the upper end of which there is a flange-ring 14” and Fig. 1, which shows recess 19 on flange ring 14) for aiding removal of a component (Fig. 3, inner receptable 12 and Pg. 2, lines 77-80) from the aperture (Fig. 3, tubular wall 13).
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 first and second aperture of Sundhauser, as modified above, to include the recess as disclosed by Berger, in order to make the controllable vent easier to access and thereby allow users with a wider range of abilities to control the flow of heat and/or smoke through the aperture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baxter (US 1195329 A) discloses apertures in communication with only one energy source.
Rankin (US 0718793 A) discloses a blanking cap for selectively covering an aperture.
Miller et al. (US 5423309 A) discloses a first and second aperture are circular in shape.
Purdy (US 0726189 A) discloses at last one blanking cap is circular in shape.
Knauss (US 0955411 A) discloses an oven floor made from cast iron.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN 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