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 .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12/10/2025, the following has occurred:
Claims 5-9, 11-13, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
It’s respectfully noted that the current objections to claims 7 and 8 (previously noted) are maintained, since it doesn’t appear that claims 7 and 8 have been amended to overcome this specific objection.
The previous objections to the drawings for not showing elements 24, 38, and 40 are withdrawn since the 12/10/25 incorporates these elements into the figures.
With regards to the objection to the drawings (section 10) of the previous OA, Applicant asks for clarification regarding this objection since no element “184” is found in the specification. Examiner apologizes for the previous objection and notes that incorrect objection language was used. The correction objection is made in the instant OA for this issue, i.e. Figure 7 has an element 184 (see the left and right sides of the drawing, there are two instances of 184), but the specification doesn’t disclose any element 184. Therefore, it’s unclear what element 184 actually is in terms of using the specification as a guide.
35 USC 112(b) rejections
On pg. 11 of the Remarks, with regards to the previous 112(b) rejections to the claims for reciting the phrase “fixedly coupled” and “move” (e.g. at least claim 6), the Applicant argues that the Examiner has misconstrued how the claims should be interpreted, and thus the claims aren’t indefinite. The Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore any previous rejections based on this matter have been withdrawn and are no longer in the instant Office Action.
“Fixedly coupled” as it relates to the claimed electromagnet, will not be interpreted to mean that the electromagnet has to be stationary.
However, it’s noted that many of the claim(s) do claim or imply that the electromagnet is moving, which it is not based on the Applicant’s disclosure. There are objections and 112(a) rejections in the present OA that are related to this feature and per the Applicant amending some of the present claims so that the electromagnet and the permanently magnetic element are moving “toward and away from each other” (emphasis added).
On p. 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant points out paragraph 0025 and acknowledges that the permanent magnet moves towards the electromagnet, which is true. But both magnets moving toward and away from each other doesn’t appear to be true.
PNG
media_image1.png
827
1326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Many of the suggested amendments in the instant OA are based on the permanent magnet moving towards the (stationary) electromagnet, as well as their specific connections to other elements.
35 USC 102 rejections
Beginning at pg. 13 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Price doesn’t anticipate claim 1 under 35 USC 102. Applicant states that “Price’s casing 11 functions as the outer shell of a complete heater appliance, not as housing component of a divider… Price… shows that casing 11 forms the walls of the heater itself rather than functioning as a housing for a divider assembly.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, since claim 1 is directed to “a divider… comprising… a housing… defining a first panel… further defining a second third panel… and a second panel…” In other words, claim 1 requires that the claimed divider has a housing, or is a housing, in itself (i.e. comprises). The housing then further requires three panels. Price’s casing 11 is clearly a housing that structurally has or is connected to the 3 panels (plate 20, cast-iron plate 23, and damper plate 26) as shown in the figures. These 3 panels function to divide the interior space defined by the casing 11, therefore the totality of the casing and the three panels, may be considered a divider. Examiner agrees that Price’s casing 11 functions as the outer shell of a complete heater appliance and also forms the walls of the heater, but what Price structurally and functionally discloses would still not preclude Price from reading on claim 1. Price’s complete heater appliance (which may be considered an oven), is not limited to just the casing 11. Rather, the casing 11, the lid 12, legs 10, etc. form the complete appliance. The casing 11 and the three panels are components that are for or part of the complete appliance, and these components may be construed to be a housing defining/comprising the three panels.
At the bottom of p. 13 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that “Price does not disclose a housing that slidably retains he second panel as recited by claim 1. Claim 1 recites ‘a second panel slidably retained by the housing so as to be mounted to the first panel,’ establishing that the housing structurally supports and retains the sliding relationship between panels.” Applicant further argues that “Price damper plate ’rests loosely upon the lower plate 20 and is guided by the front and rear walls of the casing 11.’ This shows that the casing walls merely guide the plate rather than the housing structurally retaining it in a sliding relationship.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Price’s casing 11 is part of, or reads on the claimed housing of the claimed divider as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, as noted in the present and previous OA, the second panel (damper plate 26) slides via the damper handle 27, which is connected to Price’s housing (casing 11). Figure 3 of Price shows the damper handle 27 connected to the casing 11. Damper plate 26 slides relative to the casing 11, and the casing 11 retains the damper plate 26 by virtue of the damper handle 27’s connection to casing 11. Page 1, right column, lines 70-74 of Price explains this feature. Moreover, looking at Figure 3, the brackets 22, which are connected to the casing 11, provide support for the sliding damper plate 26 as it rests on the underlying metal bottom plate 20, which results on the brackets 22. See the first page of Price’s description, lines 54-61.
On p. 14 of the Remarks, the Applicant points out the noted feature of Price, stating “These are separate components rather than panels defined by a single housing structure.
Examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 doesn’t recite “single” in the context of the claimed housing being interpreted as a “single housing structure.” Therefore, such an interpretation, if intended to distinguish from Price, shouldn’t be afforded patentable weight. Moreover, it’s not entirely clear how to construe a single housing structure, per se. Claim 1 currently requires a housing that defines (comprises) three panels. It appears that a prior art embodiment with separate elements (although connected) like a housing, and 3 panels could still be considered a “single housing structure”.
On p. 14 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Price is “not a divider component designed to be inserted into and contact the walls of an existing oven cavity.” While claim 1 is directed to a divider, claim 1 doesn’t specifically recite that the divider is “inserted” into an oven cavity, therefore this function of the divider shouldn’t be given patentable weight.
The Applicant also argues that “Price’s structure is a self-contained heating appliance with its own ‘casing 11’ that forms the outer walls of the device itself.” Examiner agrees that Price discloses this feature, but this still wouldn’t preclude Price from reading on claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites “a housing defining… a first panel… configured… to fit within an oven cavity, in contact with spaced-apart side walls of the oven cavity…” (emphasis added) What is required for contact with an oven cavity is the first panel which the housing “defines.” Price’s casing 11 comprises walls having an exterior surface and an interior surface. The interior surfaces of Price’s casing 11 creates the oven cavity, i.e. the inner space bounded by the interior surfaces. Price’s first panel (plate 20) contacts these interior surfaces of the walls.
On p. 14 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of Price’s gas heater as an “oven” is “unreasonably broad… and improperly conflates any heating device with an oven.” Applicant also states that “An oven, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is an enclosed compartment specifically designed and configured for cooking or heating food items at controlled temperatures.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since it’s well-known in the art that “oven” has a broad interpretation.
Per the Wikipedia definition (attached), an “oven is a tool that is used to expose materials to a hot environment.” Per the Webster’s Dictionary definition (attached), an oven is “a chamber (as in a stove) that is used for baking, heating, or drying.” In other words, the use of the name “oven” does not have to be specifically confined to a device that is only for cooking/heating food at controlled temperatures, but rather an oven is a chamber/tool that can heat, bake, or dry. One application, or intended use, of an oven would be for cooking/heating food. However, an oven can be used for different applications, as well.
For example, see this cut-out section of the attached Wikipedia page, which specifies that ovens aren’t only confined to culinary uses (cooking), but for heating. Similarly, Price’s device is disclosed as a “gas heater,” which may be considered an oven in this sense.
PNG
media_image2.png
416
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On pg. 16 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that “The mere theoretical possibility that one could place food items within Price’s heating compartments does not transform a room heater into an oven. The broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘oven’ must still be consistent with the specification and the ordinary meaning of the term in the relevant art. ”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. The ordinary meaning of an oven as related to arts directed to heating chambers, as evidenced above, would not confine the interpretation of an oven to only a controlled heating chamber that is specifically designed and configured for cooking/heating food. Such an interpretation of would be too narrowing and contrary to the evidence provided above (i.e. oven as defined by Merriam Webster and Wikipedia). Taking the Applicant’s interpretation would basically mean that any controlled heating chamber can’t be called an “oven” unless its only disclosed use of operation is for cooking/heating foods, and nothing else. Rather, those skilled in the art would interpret an oven to encompass a heating chamber that can be used for heating, drying, and or heating/cooking foods. The Applicant’s specification is similarly directed to a heating chamber (oven) that is intended to be used for cooking/heating food. Consistent with the specification, Price’s device or “gas heater” is a heating chamber which may technically be considered an oven since it is capable of heating, drying, and/or heating/cooking foods.
On p. 16 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the specification describes “the oven 12 as including features typical of cooking ovens, such as ‘a door 42 to open and close access to the cavity 18’ for placing and removing food items, temperature control systems for maintaining cooking temperatures, and heat sources in ‘thermal communication with the oven cavity’ for cooking operations.”
Price discloses similar structure common to ovens, i.e. two doors 30 and 31 for chamber access, temperature control (via a damper), and a heat source burner pipe 18.
35 USC 103 rejections
It’s noted that any arguments presented by the Applicant with regards to the 102 rejections, that may apply to the 103 rejections or are repeated, are addressed by the Examiner in the same manner as they were per the 102 rejection arguments, above.
On p. 16 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that “Applicant contends that the proposed combination of references fails to disclose a driving mechanism coupled between the housing and the second panel as specified by claim 5.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Price’s handle 27 is coupled between Price’s housing 11 and the second panel 26. The driving mechanism (as taught by “The Engineering Mindset”) or linear actuator would replace or suitably modify the handle 27 of Price, resulting the claimed driving mechanism being situated between the housing 11 and the panel 26.
On p. 16 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues: “Additionally, Applicant contends that the mere existence of a linear actuation mechanism, such as that disclosed in the Engineering Mindset would not suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to an arrangement that incorporates the solenoid of the Engineering Mindset in a workable manner into the arrangement disclosed in Price.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As noted per the rejection to claim 5, the modification would provide a benefit, such as “for the predicable benefit of providing an automated means of moving Price’s plate 26, i.e. freeing up resources by eliminating the need for manual labor by a user operating the damper handle 27.”
On pg. 17 of the Remarks, Applicant argues – “Moreover, Applicant asserts that Murray teaches away from the claimed controlled heat transmission between sub-cavities… This system prevents heat loss to the outside environment rather than controlling heat transmission between internal sub-cavities as recited by the claims. Murray’s damper operates to prevent heat escape, not to enable controlled heat transfer as recited by claims 9, 11, 14, and 16-19.”
It's respectfully noted that Price is directed to controlled heat transmission between sub-cavities, and that Murray was not relied for this feature. Additionally, even if Murray was not directed to controlled heat transmission between sub-cavities, this would not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Murray with Price, since Murray was relied on for a controller that controls a solenoid actuator, and a heat source.
For all of the above reasons, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“The permanent magnet” (line 2, claim 7; and line 2. claim 8) should read “the permanently magnetic element” for antecedent basis.
Claim 1, the limitation “the first apertures or the second apertures” beginning at the fourth to last line of the claim should read “the first plurality of apertures or the second plurality of apertures.” Moreover, in the second to last line of the claim, “the first apertures” should read “the first plurality of apertures” for consistency.
Claim 2, the last line” the first apertures and the second apertures.” should read “the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures.”
Claim 17, “the permanent magnet” in line 2 should read “the permanently magnetic element.”
Claim 20, recited in the third to last line, “the upper or lower sub-cavity,” and also recited in the second to last line, should read “the upper or lower sub-cavities” for consistency to line 6 in the claim which reads “one of the upper and lower sub-cavities.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 has been amended to read (emphasis added) – “wherein a magnetic force of the electromagnet is adjustable to controllably move the electromagnet and the permanently magnetic element toward and away from each other against an opposing force of the spring.”
In other words, amended claim 6’s present scope is directed to an embodiment wherein both the electromagnet and the permanently magnetic element move, the movement resulting in movement toward and away from each other.
A review of the Applicant’s disclosure, specifically paragraphs 0025-0026 (please see highlighted portions below) of the as-filed Specification would appear to suggest that it’s only the permanently magnetic element (i.e. permanent magnet 60) that’s actually moving based on the magnetic force of the electromagnetic 58 and/or spring 68, with the electromagnet (58) being stationary.
It appears that making the following amendment could overcome the new matter rejection to claim 6.
“wherein a magnetic force of the electromagnet is adjustable to controllably move the permanently magnetic element toward the electromagnet against an opposing force of the spring.”
PNG
media_image3.png
498
917
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
828
987
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
825
541
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, claim 7 is rejected by the same rationale as applied to claim 6, above. It appears that amending claim 7 like so would overcome this rejection:
“to controllably move the permanently magnetic element toward the electromagnet moves the second panel relative to the first panel from the closed position to the heat transmission position.
Note: Fig. 7 shows the heat transmission position, and Fig. 5 shows the closed position. In figure 6, see the right direction pointing arrow on the stem 64, which implies movement of the permanently magnetic element towards the electromagnet.
Regarding Claim 8, claim 8 is rejected by the same rationale as applied to claim 6, above. It appears that amending claim 8 like so would overcome this rejection:
“wherein adjustment of the electromagnet to controllably move the permanently magnetic element includes increasing a current flow of electricity to the electromagnet.
Regarding Claim 16, the amendments made to claim 16 raise new matter issues for the same reasons as applied to claim 6, above, and furthermore since claim 16 now recites “an electromagnet (58) fixedly coupled with one of the first panel (14) and the second panel (32), a permanently magnetic element (60) fixedly coupled with the other of the first panel and second panel.
Looking to Figure 5, for example, there is a spring (68) that is situated between the electromagnet (58) and the permanently magnetic element (60).
The first panel (14) and the second panel (32) are connected to the permanently magnetic element (60), but not to both the permanently magnetic element (60) and the electromagnetic (58), which is what claim 16 currently requires. Furthermore, the limitation of amended claim 16 as pointed out, lacks explicit support in the as-filed specification.
PNG
media_image6.png
645
993
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To overcome the rejection to claim 16, the following amendment is suggested which is consistent with what the figures in the drawings show:
16. “The oven of claim 9, wherein the driving mechanism includes an electromagnet (58) fixedly coupled with a housing, (62) a permanently magnetic element (60) fixedly coupled with the second panel (32), and a spring coupled in an opposing relationship between the electromagnet and the permanently magnetic element, wherein a magnetic force of the electromagnet is adjustable to controllably move the permanently magnetic element toward the electromagnet against an opposing force of the spring.
Note: the claimed housing is understood to be in reference to housing element 62 in the drawings. There are two disclosed housings in the as-filed specification, element 62 and element 48.
The suggested amendment to claim 16 is consistent with the Applicant’s as-filed disclosure, particularly this section of para. 0025.
PNG
media_image7.png
382
932
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for new matter by the same rationale as applied to claim 6, above.
The following amendment claim 17 is suggested to overcome this rejection.
“17. The oven of claim 16, wherein adjustment of the electromagnet to controllably move ly magnetic element toward the electromagnet moves the second panel relative to the first panel from the closed position to the heat transmission position.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Element 184 in Figure 7
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner note: the drawings are technically objected to (for the reasons immediately below) because the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112(a) above, i.e. new matter, contain limitations that don’t appear to be shown in the drawings.
Amending the claims to overcome the 112(a) rejections, above, such as adopting the above suggested amendments, would likely overcome these drawing objections, in addition to any additional amendments suggested, below.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, these following features of the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 5 – “a driving mechanism (56) coupled between the housing (48) and the second panel (32)…”
The driving mechanism isn’t coupled between the housing 48 and the second panel 32, since the housing 48 and the second panel 32 are on the same side as shown in Figure 5. It’s noted that the Applicant’s disclosure is directed to two housings 48 and 62. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, introduces “a housing” in line 2, which in light of the Specification, is directed to housing 48.
This is also consistent with paragraph 0021 of the Applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image8.png
135
916
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, rather, the driving mechanism 56 is coupled between the second panel 32, and a separate housing 62.
The following amendment is suggested to claim 5, to overcome this objection to claim 5:
“further including a driving mechanism coupled between an additional housing (62) and the second panel (32) and configured for controllably moving the second panel relative to the first panel between a full heat transmission position and the closed position.”
PNG
media_image9.png
657
906
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: “wherein the driving mechanism includes an electromagnet fixedly coupled with one of the housing and the second panel, a permanently magnetic element fixedly coupled with the other of the housing and the second panel…”
This feature isn’t shown in the drawings because the electromagnet (58) isn’t coupled to the second panel (32) as shown in Figure 5. It’s connected to a housing (62). It’s noted that claim 6 depends from claim 1, which does recite a housing in line 2, but this housing is to a separate housing 48 which the electromagnet isn’t fixedly coupled to.
This amendment is suggested to claim 6 in order to overcome this objection:
“wherein the driving mechanism (56) includes an electromagnet (58) fixedly coupled with the additional housing (62) , a permanently magnetic element (160) fixedly coupled with the second panel (32)…”
Note: This suggested amendment is supported by this portion of paragraph 0026 of the as-filed Specification
PNG
media_image10.png
203
974
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 5 (and similarly claims 9 and 19) – “driving mechanism … configured for controllably moving the second panel relative to the first panel between the full heat transmission position and the closed position.”
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is (para. 0025): an electromagnet element 58, a permanently magnetic element 60, and a spring 68.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.\
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Price (US 1628427, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Price discloses a divider for an oven (“gas heater” – see title; the reference’s structure isn’t explicitly called an oven, per se; however, an oven is an enclosed compartment for cooking/heating food. Price’s gas heater has a lid 12, doors 31 and 32, and/or openings 32 as shown in Figure 2. It’s understood that the inner space of this gas heater would be capable of receiving food/an item to be cooked/heated by heat generated by burner pipe 18, by addition of said food/items per all of these access points), comprising:
a housing (casing 11, Fig. 1) defining (comprising) a first panel (plate 20, Fig. 1) extending through a first length and a first width (see Figs. 1 and 2) configured for the first panel to fit within an oven cavity (see Fig. 1), in contact with spaced-apart side walls of the oven cavity (see Fig. 1) and a back wall of the oven cavity (see Fig. 1), to spatially separate the oven cavity into respective upper (mixing chamber M, Fig. 1) and lower sub-cavities (lower compartment C, Fig. 1), the first panel defining a first plurality of apertures (long slots 21, Fig. 3) therethrough, the housing further defining a third panel (cast-iron plate 23, Fig. 2) fixed with respect to the first panel (see its position in Fig. 1) and defining a third plurality of apertures (apertures 24, Fig. 2) therethrough, the third plurality of apertures being aligned with respective ones of the first plurality of apertures (see Fig. 1); and
a second panel (damper plate 26, Figs. 1 and 3) slidably (via damper handle 27, Fig. 3) retained by the housing (page 1, right column; lines 70-74) so as to be mounted (see Fig. 1 – 26 mounts or sits on top of 20) to the first panel (i.e. plate 20, Fig 1), and the second panel defining a second plurality of apertures (long slots 28, Figs. 1 and 2) therethrough, the second plurality of apertures being collectively moveable relative to the first plurality of apertures by sliding of the second panel relative to the first panel (page 1, right column; lines 74-77) between a heat transmission position (“free flow”), wherein ones of the second plurality of apertures are aligned with respective ones of the first plurality of apertures to define transmission openings corresponding in size with at least one of the first apertures or the second apertures (page 1, right column; lines 82-85), and a closed position (“shut off”), wherein the ones of the second plurality of apertures are unaligned with the respective ones of the first apertures such that the transmission openings are closed (“page 1, right column; lines 77-82)
Regarding Claim 2, Price discloses the divider of claim 1, wherein:
movement of the second panel between the closed and open positions causes a size of the transmission openings to vary in area between zero and a maximum opening are defined by the size of the one of the first apertures and the second apertures (see the transition between the openings 21 + 28 as shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 16284270) in view of the “The Engineering Mindset’s” YouTube video (NPL) directed to “How Solenoid Valves Work – Basics actuator control valve working principle.” (hereinafter “The Engineering Mindset”). Please note that the NPL has a public availability date of 03/03/2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MLGr1_Fw0c&t=337s
PNG
media_image11.png
144
652
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Price discloses the divider of claim 31, as set forth above. Price doesn’t disclose the disclosed corresponding structure (nor an equivalent) per the 112(f) interpretation taken above, of a driving mechanism coupled between the housing and the second panel and configured for controllably moving the second panel relative to the first panel between a full heat transmission position and the closed position (claim 5).
Rather, Price discloses “A handle 27 is secured to the plate 26 and extends through one end of the stove to the exterior so that by its aid the plate may be moved back and forth as an operator may desire.” See Fig. 3. The handle is fixedly coupled with both the housing and second panel (i.e. plate 26).
However, The Engineering Mindset discloses a known type of linear actuator that moves a plunger up and down, or back and forth. There is an electromagnet (i.e. the “Armature,” the “Solenoid,” and the generated electromagnetic field), a permanently magnetic element (i.e. the plunger), a spring coupled in an opposing relationship between the electromagnet and the permanently magnetic element (one end of the spring is forced against the armature, and the opposite end of the spring is forced against the plunger so that when the spring extends, it forces the plunger to move down and close the valve), wherein a magnetic force of the electromagnet is adjustable (i.e. the electromagnetic field at least gets generated, or it doesn’t, i.e. adjustable) to controllably move the electromagnet toward and away from the permanently magnetic element against an opposing force of the spring. See the video in its entirety, specifically between 5:22 / 7:31 to 5:40 / 7:31 to see movement of the plunger up and down
PNG
media_image12.png
612
1240
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price by applying the teachings of The Engineering Mindset to Price, i.e. replacing or suitably modifying the handle 27 of Price, with the driving mechanism arrangement (solenoid actuator arrangement) taught by the Engineering Mindset, for the predicable benefit of providing an automated means of moving Price’s plate 26, i.e. freeing up resources by eliminating the need for manual labor by a user operating the damper handle 27.
It's noted that Price’s damper handle 27 is analogous to the plunger. Therefore, it’s understood that the modification of Price in view of The Engineering Mindset would result in a permanently magnetic shaft-like structure (similar to the plunger) with one of its ends connected to the second panel (26), its opposite end connected to an electromagnet fixed to the housing, and a spring between the permanently magnetic shaft-like structure and the electromagnet.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 16284270 in view of the “The Engineering Mindset’s” YouTube video (NPL) directed to “How Solenoid Valves Work – Basics actuator control valve working principle.” (hereinafter “The Engineering Mindset”), and further in view of Murray (US 2014/0137853, newly cited).
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in claim 9 that are common to claim 1 are mapped to/rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as per the rejection to claim 1, above.
Additional limitations to claim 9, that aren’t in present claim 1, are mapped to for clarity of the record.
Price, as modified in view of The Engineering Mindset, discloses:
an interior liner (the liner/panels, per se, of casing 11) defining an oven cavity (casing 11 defines a cavity) having spaced-apart side walls and a back wall;
a first heat source (burner pipe 18, Fig. 1) in thermal communication with the oven cavity;
a controller (shut-off and regulating valve 16, Fig. 1) operably associated with the first heat source (“the pipe 15 leads from any suitable source of combustible gas…” page 1, left column – lines 34-36. Opening/closing of valve 16 will in turn control the delivery of combustible gas for ignition at apertures 19, Fig. 1); and
Price as modified above does not disclose the controller being further in operable communication with the driving mechanism to cause the driving mechanism to controllably move the second panel relative to the first panel.
Murray discloses an oven (see title/abstract), wherein it’s known to utilize a controller (controller 60, e.g. a microprocessor per para. 0021) to adjustably control a solenoid actuator (84) for moving an exhaust damper (80) between first and second positions. See para. 0026. Moreover, the same controller is operably associated with a heat source (igniters 26 + burners 22) via control of the igniters (26) of burners (22). Murray’s control mechanism provides the advantage of energy efficiency by transitioning between different heating modes, in which the damper (80) is either opened or closed, and the heat sources (26 + 22) are either on or off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Price by applying the teachings of Murray to Price, i.e. incorporating a controller (microprocessor) in Price that is 1) operably associated with the first heat source (i.e. burner 18 of Price; modified to have a controllable igniter); and 2) in operable communication with the driving mechanism (i.e. modified Price’s solenoid driver as per the rejection to claims 5 + 6, above) to cause the driving mechanism to controllably move the second panel relative to the first panel. This modification would provide the predicable benefit of automatic control of Price’s burner pipe (18) and solenoid driver, which would beneficially reduce potential user error and labor, and improve user accuracy as suggested in lines 15-17 of page 1, left column in Price; and overall improved efficiency per para. 0001 of Murray.
Regarding Claim 11, Price as modified above discloses the oven of claim 9, wherein:
the first heat source is adjacent the first sub-cavity (i.e. lower compartment C, Fig. 1 of Price) with the divider (as mapped to per the rejection of claim 1, above) positioned between the heat source and the second sub-cavity (i.e. mixing chamber M, Fig. 1 of Price); and
the controller is configured to cause the driving mechanism to controllably move the second panel relative to the first panel to selectively allow heat from the first heat source within the first sub-cavity to enter the second sub-cavity (as implied per the rejection to claim 9, above; and see page 1 of Price, the left column at lines 13-18).
Regarding Claim 14, Price as modified above discloses the oven of claim 11, wherein:
the first sub-cavity is positioned below the second sub-cavity (see Fig. 1 of Price) and includes a lower wall (bottom plate 13, Fig. 1 of Price) of the oven cavity; and
the first heat source (the first heat source is defined by at least burner pipe 18, in combination with riser pipe 17) is positioned below the lower wall of the oven cavity (riser pipe 17 extends, or is positioned below bottom plate 13 as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in claim 19 that are common to independent claims 1 + 9 (or any dependent claims such as dependent claim 14) are mapped to/rejected in the same or substantially the same manner.
Additional limitations to claim 19 that aren’t present in any of the previous claims are mapped to here for clarity of the record.
Price, as modified in view of The Engineering Mindset, discloses an oven comprising:
a top wall (top 12, Fig. 1) and a bottom wall (bottom plate 13, Fig. 1).
a second heat source (openings 32, Fig. 1) in thermal communication with the oven cavity (see page 2, left column – lines 7-15; heat generated in the combustion chamber C moves to the mixing chamber M and out of the openings 32 to heat a room.) and positioned adjacent (see Fig. 1) the top wall of the oven cavity;
Claim(s) 12-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 16284270) in view of the “The Engineering Mindset’s” YouTube video (NPL) directed to “How Solenoid Valves Work – Basics actuator control valve working principle.” (hereinafter “The Engineering Mindset”), Murray (US 2014/0137853), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 7071448, hereinafter Kim – cited in the Applicant’s 08/08/2022 IDS).
Regarding Claim 12, Price as modified above discloses the oven of claim 11, wherein the driving mechanism controllably moves the second panel relative to the first panel to allow heat within the first sub-cavity to heat the second sub-cavity (evident per the mapping and rejections to claims 9 and 11, above).
Price, as modified above, doesn’t disclose: further including a first temperature sensor operably associated with the first sub-cavity and a second temperature sensor operably associated with the second sub-cavity, the controller being in electronic communication with the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensors, wherein:
the controller is configured to control the heat source to maintain the first temperature within the first sub-cavity, while causing the driving mechanism to controllably move the second panel relative to the first panel to allow the heat within the first sub-cavity to heat the second sub-cavity to a second predetermined temperature.
Kim discloses a convection oven (see title/abstract) including a first temperature sensor (first temperature sensor 81, Fig. 1) operably associated with a first sub-cavity (cooking region 20a, Fig. 1) and a second temperature sensor (second temperature sensor 82, Fig. 1) operably associated with a second sub-cavity (cooking region 20b, Fig. 1), a controller (“control unit”; col. 4, line 27) being in electronic communication with the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensors (see col. 4, lines 19-29), wherein:
the controller is configured to control a heat source (upper grill heater 51 / convection module 30, Fig. 2) to maintain a first temperature within the first sub-cavity and a second sub-cavity (cooking region 20b - see col. 5, lines 15-26; “desired cooking temperatures” are achieved in cooking regions 20a and 20b per feedback from the temperature sensors 81 and 82.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Price by applying the teachings of Kim to Price, i.e utilizing a first temperature sensor operably associated with the first sub-cavity (i.e. Price’s mixing Chamber M), and a second temperature sensor operably associated with the second sub-cavity (i.e. Price’s combustion chamber C), the controller being in electronic communication with the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor, wherein:
the controller is configured to control the first heat source (i.e. burner pipe 18 of Price) to maintain a first temperature within the first sub-cavity, and allow the heat within the first sub-cavity to heat the second sub-cavity to a second predetermined temperature.
The above modification would be beneficial since Price’s goal is to achieve heated air of substantially uniform temperature as they exit slots 31 and 32. See page 2, left column, lines 7-14. Therefore, having a means to not only control Price’s heat source, but also a means of monitoring the first and second sub-cavities per respective temperature sensors, would provide for automated and efficient heating of each sub-cavity to desired temperatures, as suggested per the above citations to Kim.
Regarding the limitation of (emphasis added) “while causing the driving mechanism to controllably move the second panel relative to the first panel to allow the heat within the first sub-cavity to heat the second sub-cavity to a second predetermined temperature,” it is the Examiner’s position that this limitation would be obvious and desired to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it’s clear that the driving mechanism is responsible for heat transmission from the first sub-cavity to the second sub-cavity. In other words, heating the first sub-cavity to a desired temperature, then actuating the driving mechanism to transmit heat from the first sub-cavity to the second cavity until the second sub-cavity reaches a second predetermined temperature would ultimately result in Price’s goal of better spreading out heat through a room to be heated. See page 2, left column, lines 10-15.
Regarding Claim 13, Price as modified above discloses the oven of claim 12, wherein the first predetermined temperature is higher than the second predetermined temperature. See page 2 of Price, left column, lines 4-14. It’s understood that as the heated air travels from combustion chamber C, through intermediate chamber I, into mixing chamber M, heat would dissipate during this path of travel. In this sense, the first predetermined temperature would be higher than the second predetermined temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claim 15:
Per the rejection to claims 9 and 11 above; Price, The Engineering Mindset, and Murray represent the closest prior art of record to the invention of claim 15. However, claim 15 requires that “the first heat source is positioned adjacent to the upper wall of the oven cavity.” Looking to Price, the heat source (i.e burner pipe 18) is at a bottom cavity (i.e. combustion chamber C). Price’s burner pipe 18 is intentionally placed there so that heat rises from the combustion chamber to the mixing chamber M, and with the action of the damper plate 26, the flow of air from the combustion chamber to the mixing chamber can be regulated. See the first page of Price, left column, lines 12-17. Modifying Price to re-arrange this burner pipe 18, or even include an additional heater in the mixing chamber M wouldn’t be obvious nor desired by Price, since this would diminish the whole point of the damper plate 26 acting as a regulator to control the mixing action as noted above.
It's noted that all of the limitations of claim 15 make claim 15 have allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claim 20:
Claim 20 requires that the second heat source (i.e openings 32, Fig. 1) is selectively controlled by the controller. Price’s second heat source 32 are openings, and while they are considered heat sources, there doesn’t appear to be any motivation for why one of ordinary skill would try to modify these slots 32 to be selectively controlled by a controller.
It's noted that all of the limitations of claim 20 make claim 20 have allowable subject matter.
Prior Art
It’s noted that in light of the amendments made to claims 6-8 and 16-17, the permanently magnetic element and electromagnet are required to move “toward each other,” which no prior art is available to read on this feature. However, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(a), and are therefore not allowable for this reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6460. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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.
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.
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights