DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after October 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 6-14 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 3, and 5 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 14 have been fully considered. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Amended Claims Overcome the previously set forth 102 (a)(1) rejection: The examiner agrees. The amendment to the independent claim 1 integrates matter originally found in Claims 2-3 and 5 which requires new grounds of rejection. The previously set forth 102 (a)(1) rejection is withdrawn.
Wang does not teach that the upper heating tube support holder and the upper heating tube support buckle: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. As set forth in previous correspondence, figure 9 of Wang, as annotated, clearly shows the features as claimed. The intended use of the invention is not an appropriate basis for further limiting the claims. As the relevant structures are present in the prior art, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to perform the use as intended.
Murad does not teach that the lower heating tube support holder and the lower heating tube support buckle: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. As set forth in previous correspondence, figure 6B and 7A of Wang, as annotated, clearly shows the features as claimed. The intended use of the invention is not an appropriate basis for further limiting the claims. As the relevant structures are present in the prior art, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to perform the use as intended.
Wang and Murad are not appropriate art as neither address the issue of possible deformation of the heating tubes: This argument is not persuasive. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, as set forth in section 2141.01(a) I of the MPEP: “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)” Thus, Wang and Murad both qualify as analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor as the applicant’s invention. Also see MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US Pub 2022/0022689) in view of Murad (US Pub 2022/0065459 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
516
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
592
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
631
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
636
826
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
436
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
600
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
589
787
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
580
698
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
628
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
652
760
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Wang et al. teaches an air-fried type food processor (“a hot air cooking appliance” Abstract), comprising: a body (“Body” Figure 2 Element 20), wherein the body is provided with a frying barrel cavity (Figure 2 “frying Barrel Cavity”); a frying barrel (Figure 2 further shows a frying barrel Element 42) capable of being taken out of or placed in the frying barrel cavity (Figure 2 further shows that the frying barrel is capable of being taken out of the frying barrel cavity as it shows the frying barrel in a removed status while Figure 1 shows the barrel inserted which reads on the limitations of the claims); and an upper heating system arranged in the body and located above the frying barrel cavity (Figure 3 shows an upper heating system above the frying barrel cavity), wherein the upper heating system comprises an upper heating tube (Figure 3 Upper Heating Tube) and an upper heating tube support (Figure 3 Upper Heating Tube Support) for fixing the upper heating tube (Figure 3 further shows that the Upper heating tube support is used for fixing the upper heating tube), wherein the upper heating tube has a disc-shaped spiral structure (Figure 9 shows that the upper heating tube has a disc-shaped spiral structure), the upper heating tube support is fixed to a plurality of N pipelines on outermost rings of the upper heating tube, so as to reduce downward deformation of the outermost rings of the upper heating tube, and N is more than or equal to 2 (Figure 9 further shows that the upper heating tube has N=2 pipelines as described in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 I) the upper heating tube support (Figure 3 Upper Heating Tube Support) comprising an upper- heating-tube-support tube holder (Figure 9 “Upper heating Tube Support Holder”) and an upper-heating-tube-support tube buckle (Figure 9 further shows upper heating tube support buckles), the upper-heating-tube-support tube buckle being deformable relative to the upper-heating-tube-support tube holder (The buckle as shown in Figure 9 moves relative to the support holder and thus is capable of relative deformation) to form a positioning space for positioning the upper heating tube (Figure 9 shows the buckle in an unbent position while Figure 7 shows the buckle in a bent position relative to the holder which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have the capacity to form a positioning space for positioning the upper heating tube. This last limitation, might also be construed as intended use by some examiners which does not further limit the claim)
Wang does not teach that the lower heating tube support is provided with a lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle and a lower-heating-tube-support tube holder; and the lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle and the lower-heating-tube-support tube holder are correspondingly arranged, and a clamping space for clamping the lower heating tube is formed between the lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle and the lower-heating-tube-support tube holder.
However, Murad teaches that the lower heating tube support is provided with a lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle (Figure 7A “Lower heating tube support buckle”) and a lower-heating-tube-support tube holder (Figure 7A “lower heating tube support holder”); and the lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle and the lower-heating-tube-support tube holder are correspondingly arranged (Figure 7A further shows the tube support and buckle are correspondingly arranged), and a clamping space for clamping the lower heating tube is formed between the lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle and the lower-heating-tube-support tube holder (Figure 7A “Clamping Space).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Wang with the limitations of Murad in order to “provide a space saving arrangement” and “to speed up cooking and improve the quality of the cooked food in both mouth-appeal and eye-appeal” [0091].
Regarding Claim 4: Wang further teaches that the upper heating tube support is located on two pipelines on the outermost rings of the upper heating tube (Figure 9 shows that the upper tube support is positioned on two pipelines on the outermost ring); the upper-heating-tube-support tube holder has two mutually independent support positions (Figure 9 further shows two mutually independent support positions); and the upper heating tube support is provided with two independently arranged upper-heating-tube-support tube buckles (Figure 9 shows two independently arranged buckles), wherein one of the support positions is arranged corresponding to one of the upper-heating-tube-support tube buckles (Figure 9 further shows that the first support position is arranged corresponding to the first buckle) and the other support position is arranged corresponding to the other upper-heating-tube-support tube buckle (Figure 9 further shows that the second support position is arranged corresponding to the second buckle).
Regarding Claim 6: Wang as Modified by Murad further teaches that the lower heating tube support is provided with a limiting opening portion (Figure 6B Limiting Opening Portion Murad); an opening of the limiting opening portion faces a side edge of the lower heating tube support (Figure 6B further shows that the opening of the limiting opening portion faces a side edge of the lower heating tube support Murad); and an upper inner wall of the limiting opening portion forms a tube buckle contact surface of the lower-heating-tube-support tube buckle for being in contact with the lower heating tube (Figure 7A further shows that the limiting opening portion forms a contact surface and performs the function as described Murad), and a lower inner wall of the limiting opening portion forms a tube holder contact surface of the lower-heating-tube-support tube holder for being in contact with the lower heating tube (See Figure 7A Murad).
Regarding Claim 7: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches that the lower heating system further comprises a protective mesh arranged above the lower heating tube (Figure 6B shows the Protective mesh in position to be arranged above the lower heating tube Murad); and the protective mesh is provided with a protective-mesh protection region ( Figure 6B “protective mesh region” Murad) and a protective-mesh ventilation region (Figure 6B “protective-mesh ventilation region” Murad), wherein the protective-mesh protection region forms a solid shielding region corresponding to one or more pipelines of the lower heating tube (See Figure 6A Murad), and the protective-mesh ventilation region is provided with a vent (Figure 6B shows that the ventilation region consists of a series of openings that operate as vents Murad).
Regarding Claim 8: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches that the air fryer further comprises a lower reflecting cover (see Figure 3 Wang); the lower reflecting cover is provided with a concave structure (See Figure 3 Wang) , and a lower-reflecting-cover concave reflecting region for radiating heat of the heating tube (The structure shown in Figure 3 serves the function of radiating heat of the heating tube Wang) upward is formed between an inner wall of the concave structure (Figure 3 further shows the inner wall of the concave structure Wang)
Wang as modified by Murad does not teach that the air fried food processor further comprises a lower heating structure or a lower protective mesh. As a result, it does not teach that the inner wall of the concave structure is a wall surface of the concave structure facing the protective mesh facing the concave structure and the inner wall of the protective mesh is a wall surface of the protective mesh facing the concave structure.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Wang as modified of Murad (See section regarding Claim 7) to match the arrangement such that with the protective mesh the inner wall of the concave structure is a wall surface of the concave structure facing the protective mesh facing the concave structure and the inner wall of the protective mesh is a wall surface of the protective mesh facing the concave structure as it has been held that rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.VI C )
Regarding Claim 9: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches that the protective mesh is provided with a protective plate body located in the middle (Figure 45 “Protective Plate Body” which sits in the middle of the mesh upon insertion Murad) and an inclined connecting plate (Figure 45 Inclined Connecting Plate Murad) located at an edge of the protective plate body (Figure 45, the inclined connecting plate will be located at the edge of the protective body upon insertion Murad); and the inclined connecting plate is inclined toward a side on which the lower heating tube is located, and is inclined downward in a direction away from the protective plate body (Figure 45 further shows that the inclined connecting plate inclines downward toward the lower heating tube and away from the protective plate body (when the plate body is inserted Murad).
Regarding Claim 10: Wang as modified by Murad does not teach the air-fried type food processor, wherein the lower heating system further comprises a lower cover body structure fixedly connected to inside of the body; and the lower cover body structure comprises a lower reflecting cover and a lower heat shield arranged on a side of the lower reflecting cover away from the lower heating tube, and the lower heating tube support is fixedly connected to the lower cover body structure. that the air-fried type food processor further comprising a lower heating system.
However, with the modification of Wang with the second heating system of Murad (as discussed in sections regarding Claim 21, it would be obvious to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Murad and duplicate the structures of Wang shown in Figure 3 ( as discussed for the upper heating tube in the section regarding Claim 11) to accommodate the second heating structure as it has been held that the duplication of parts requires only routine skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (MPEP 2144.VI B)
Regarding Claim 12: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches the air-fried type food processor further comprising a power box for being conductively connected with the upper heating tube and/or the lower heating tube (See Figure 12A Murad), wherein the power box comprises a power box bottom housing (See Figure 12 A “Power box bottom Housing” Murad) and a power box cover (See Figure 12 A “Power box cover” Murad); the power box bottom housing is internally provided with a power-box-bottom-housing interval separation rib (See Figure 12 A “Internal Separation Rib” Murad), and the power-box-bottom-housing interval separation rib divides an inner cavity of the power box bottom housing into a power-box-bottom-housing heating tube terminal region for placing a heating tube terminal and a power-box-bottom-housing power wire region for placing a power wire (See Figure 12 A further shows that the separation rib dives the cavity between the two different regions Murad); and after the power box cover covers the power box bottom housing, the power-box-bottom-housing heating tube terminal region and the power-box-bottom-housing power wire region are mutually independent (See Figure 12 A further shows that the separation rib dives the cavity between the two different regions after the power box cover covers the power box bottom housing Murad).
Regarding Claim 13: Wang as modified by Murad does teach an air-fried type food processor further comprises an upper temperature sensor (“a first temperature sensor…within an upper portion [of the device]” [0084] Murad) and an upper temperature protector for protecting a zero line/live line of the upper heating system (Figure 12 A shows an upper temperature protection which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to protect the zero line/live line of the heating system Murad); the upper temperature sensor is in communication connection with the upper heating tube ( Figure 12A further shows that the temperature sensor is in communication with the Upper Heating Tube shown in Element 108T Murad), and a heating temperature of the upper heating tube is controlled according to a temperature detected by the upper temperature sensor (Murad further teaches that the temperature sensor “report[s] to the controller” [0084] and that the controller controls the heating temperature Murad)
Regarding Claim 14: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches an air-fried type food processor further comprises a lower temperature sensor (“a second temperature sensor” [0084] in the lower portion of the device shown in Figure 12A Element 122B Murad) and a lower temperature protector or protecting a zero line/live line of the lower heating system (Figure 12 A shows a lower temperature protection which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to protect the zero line/live line of the heating system Murad); the lower temperature sensor is in communication connection with the lower heating tube (Figure 12A further shows that the lower temperature sensor is in communication with the Lower heating tub (108B) Murad) , and a heating temperature of the lower heating tube is controlled according to a temperature detected by the lower temperature sensor (Murad further teaches that the temperature sensor “report[s] to the controller” [0084] and that the controller controls the heating temperature which reads on the limitations of the claims).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US Pub 2022/0022689) and Murad (US Pub 2022/0065459 A1) in further view of Han (US 2022/0039595 A1):
Regarding Claim 11: Wang as modified by Murad further teaches that the upper heating system further comprises an upper cover body structure fixedly connected to inside of the body; the upper cover body structure comprises an upper reflecting cover covering above the upper heating tube (Figure 3 shows an “upper reflective cover” that covers the upper heating tube) and an upper heat shield arranged on a side of the upper reflecting cover away from the upper heating tube (Figure 3 “upper heat shield”)
Wang as modified by Murad does not explicitly teach that the thermal conductivity of the upper heat shield is lower than a thermal conductivity of the upper reflecting cover
However, Han et al teaches an air cooking device with “transparent portion…[that] can be glass or the like” [0028] (which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a low thermal conductivity) and a “shielding cover [that]…can be metal” [0032] (which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a high thermal conductivity)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Wang as modified by Murad with the limitations of Han so that the material of the upper heat shield has a lower thermal conductivity than the upper reflecting cover (by choosing as glass and metal respectively) in order to “improve the accuracy” (Abstract) of the invention and make use the insulating and conductive properties known in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761