DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP12163668.2, filed on 04/11/2012.
Receipt is now acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are as previously presented. Claims 21-22 are newly added. Therefore, claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11466868 in view of Becker (DE 102007048567 B4) and Berger et al. (EP 2298140 A2). Claim 15 of Patent ‘868 claims all the limitations set forth in the instant claims except for the addition of the limitation that the “separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit”. For claims 19-20 of the instant application, there is also an addition of using a baking oven for the steam feeder.
Becker et al. teaches that a separation chamber for separating steam and water can be placed above a maximum fillable water level, Page 3, Para. 2, “In principle, the mist eliminator can be selected according to type, arrangement and material within wide suitable limits. Advantageously, the droplet separator has a parabolic curved deflection section for deflecting the vapor-droplet mixture. As a result, a robust droplet is realized in a structurally simple manner.”, and shown in modified Fig. 5.1. The use of the steam feeder for a cooking oven is also known, Page 4, Para. 4, “via a steam line 28 and one in 2 illustrated steam opening 30 if necessary in the cooking chamber 2 is fed.”. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Patent ‘868 to include the maximum fillable water level as taught by Becker et al., where the use of a cooking oven provides a use case for the steam unit commonly known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent the steam outlet 26.1.2 of the separation chamber from being clogged or blocked by water, as shown in modified Fig. 5.1., and implied by Becker et al., Page 3, Para. 2, “Advantageously, the droplet separator has a parabolic curved deflection section for deflecting the vapor-droplet mixture. As a result, a robust droplet is realized in a structurally simple manner.”, where the vapor could not travel through the outlet if the water level were above the separation chamber.
Berger discloses a similar separation chamber that is above the maximum fillable water level of the steam feeding unit (Page 3, Para. 2 from end, “The fill level monitoring device 12 is arranged in the region in which a maximum fill level is established above the evaporator surface 13 when the water surface is not agitated.”, and Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where from Fig. 4, the maximum fillable water level by the fill level monitoring device 12 is located below the separation chamber created by baffles 15.1, the water level is shown as H). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Patent ‘868 to include the maximum fillable water level as taught by Berger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for additional droplet deposition space, where the maximum water level allows for a separation chamber to not be heated, which would prevent dripping from boiling water, as stated by Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “As a result, a further element for droplet separation is formed for drops dripping off on the top surface of the upper shell 2.2. In the area below the droplet 15 (water inlet space), the evaporator surface 13 is constantly cooled by the incoming water. As a result, boiling of the water in this region of the evaporator surface 13 is avoided and thus prevents dripping by boiling water. Since the connection 11 for the steam discharge is arranged above this area, the volume available for the droplet deposition in the evaporator space is increased by this cooled section of the steam generator 2.”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Becker does not include a separation chamber that is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of the steam feeding unit. Applicant states that cleaning liquid is filled to a height 40 that is within the separation chamber as annotated by the Examiner in Becker modified Fig. 5.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as the box created in Becker’s modified Fig. 5 for the separation chamber is an arbitrary box created by the Examiner as Becker does not explicitly mention a separation chamber. The separation chamber as claimed by the applicant only requires that there is an inlet and outlet and where the separation chamber separates steam and water therefrom. Applicant’s argument has also been previously addressed and not responded to during the Final Rejection sent on 05/06/2025 with the additional modified Figure from Becker presented.
As a result, Examiner again shows a clearer modified Fig. 5.1 from Becker that shows the location above the height 40 would still be construed as a separation chamber as Becker discloses, Page 7, Para. 4 from end, “mist eliminator (26.1.4) has a parabolic curved deflection for deflecting the vapor-vapor mixture.”, and Page 7, Para. 5 from end, “separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator (26.1.4)”. The mist eliminator 26.1.4 is clearly located above the maximum height 40 and is the major component within the separation chamber that separates steam and water. The Examiner notes that both modified Fig. 5 and 5.1 have a separation chamber that achieves the purpose of separating steam and water.
PNG
media_image1.png
667
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 5.1, Becker
Applicant argues that for the secondary reference Berger that the maximum fillable level is not stated then argues that Becker is interpreted in error.
The Examiner believes that for applicant’s argument regarding the interpretation of Becker is made in error as the argument should be for Berger.
Applicant then states that the “maximum fill level” referred in Berger is unclear whether it is a maximum fillable water level or a maximum filled water level. It is the Examiner’s position that regardless of Applicant’s interpretation, the maximum water level would be set at level H.
Applicant argues further that the drawings of Berger do not show a maximum fill level region being established and that H is a minimum level of linearly rising water.
Berger discloses in claim 2, “relative to the horizontal H, that starting from the water inlet over the longitudinal extent of the evaporator surface 13 in the direction of the level monitoring device 12 for a minimum level a linearly rising water level at non-moving water surface over adjusts the evaporator surface 13 and that the level monitoring device 12 is disposed in the region in which a maximum level above the evaporator surface 13 is established.”, where H is a horizontal line that is used as a reference point. The water level then can rise relative to the horizontal level line H until it hits a level monitoring device 12 that establishes a maximum water level.
Since Berger states that the level monitoring device 12 is disposed in the region in which a maximum level is established, the Examiner construed the horizontal line H as being that maximum level as the line H is right on the level monitoring device 12 shown in Fig. 4.
Examiner notes that applicant’s argument that the maximum water level of Berger goes into the separation chamber would make Berger not function. Berger has the mist eliminator being formed of baffles that receive a vapor stream as shown in Fig. 4, and stated, Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”. If the baffles of the mist eliminator were flooded with water as applicant argues, then the baffles would not be receiving a vapor stream and would not be able to perform their water drop separation from vapor. It is for functional reason that the Examiner finds applicant’s arguments regarding the water level entering into the separation chamber of Berger to not be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (DE 102007048567 B4) in view of Berger et al. (EP 2298140 A2, hereinafter Berger).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a steam feeding unit for feeding steam (Page 1, last Para., “steam generator water heater for generating water vapor for a treatment room of a cooking appliance designed as a household appliance.”) into a baking chamber of an oven (Page 4, Para. 4, “via a steam line 28 and one in 2 illustrated steam opening 30 if necessary in the cooking chamber 2 is fed.”), comprising:
a water tank for storing water (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the water tank is show in the left most box of modified Fig. 5, where that area is construed as being able to contain water);
a steam generator having an inlet and an outlet (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the inlet of the steam generator is 34 and the outlet is 32), said inlet being in fluid communication with said water tank for receiving water therefrom (Modified Fig. 5, where the inlet 34 is connected to the left most box, which is the water tank), said steam generator comprising a heater to heat water therein to convert at least a portion of said water therein to steam (Page 5, last Para., “Now the heaters are 26.2.1 by means of the electrical control 38 automatically switched on and the cleaning liquid is heated to a target temperature of 70 ° C here.”); and
a separation chamber having an inlet in fluid communication with said outlet of said steam generator (Modified Fig. 5, where the top most box is construed as a separation chamber and is connected to the outlet 32 of the steam generator, where that location would be an inlet for the separation chamber) for receiving a mixture of steam and water therefrom (Claim 5, “in that the tank ( 26.1 ) for the separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 ), wherein the mist eliminator ( 26.1 .4) as an integral part of the tank ( 26.1 ) is trained.”), said
separation chamber being configured to separate steam and water from said mixture (Page 2, last Para., “Advantageously, the tank for the separation of droplets from the steam generated on a droplet, which is formed as an integral part of the tank.”, where the top most box of modified Fig. 5 allows for the separation of steam from water),
a first outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with said baking chamber for delivering separated steam thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet is shown and is connected to the steam line 28 for feeding into the cooking chamber of the oven), and
a second outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with a location upstream of said inlet of said steam generator for recirculating separated water thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the second outlet is shown to be attached to the water tank and upstream the steam generator for recirculation of water),
where the separation chamber is implied to be arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 7, Para. 4 from end, “mist eliminator ( 26.1.4 ) has a parabolic curved deflection for deflecting the vapor-vapor mixture.”, and Page 7, Para. 5 from end, “separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 )”, where while it is possible that the water level rises to be above the height 40, there must be space to allow for the water vapor to hit the parabolic curved 26.1.4 droplet separator. If the water level were filled all the way, then droplets could not be separated from vapor as there is no vapor present within the separation chamber anymore. As a result, Becker implies that the water level cannot be higher than the droplet separator 26.1.4 in order to allow for separation of droplets from steam.).
PNG
media_image2.png
705
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 5, Becker
PNG
media_image1.png
667
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 5.1, Becker
Becker does not disclose:
wherein explicitly stating that said separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit.
However, Berger discloses, in the similar field of steam and droplet separation chambers (Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “In order to separate droplets from the vapor stream, further droplet separators 15.2 projecting into the evaporator space are formed on the upper shell 2.1”), where it is explicitly stated that the separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 3, Para. 2 from end, “The fill level monitoring device 12 is arranged in the region in which a maximum fill level is established above the evaporator surface 13 when the water surface is not agitated.”, and Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where from Fig. 4, the maximum fillable water level by the fill level monitoring device 12 is located below the separation chamber created by baffles 15.1, the water level is shown as H). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation chamber in Becker to be explicitly disclosed to be above the maximum fillable water level as taught by Berger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for additional droplet deposition space, where the maximum water level allows for a separation chamber to not be heated, which would prevent dripping from boiling water, as stated by Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “As a result, a further element for droplet separation is formed for drops dripping off on the top surface of the upper shell 2.2. In the area below the droplet 15 (water inlet space), the evaporator surface 13 is constantly cooled by the incoming water. As a result, boiling of the water in this region of the evaporator surface 13 is avoided and thus prevents dripping by boiling water. Since the connection 11 for the steam discharge is arranged above this area, the volume available for the droplet deposition in the evaporator space is increased by this cooled section of the steam generator 2.”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said steam generator comprising a duct (Becker, Page 5, Para. 1, “shown flow channel 26.2.2 of the water heater 26.2” ) and a heater configured such that said heater converts liquid water that enters said duct via said inlet of said steam generator to steam as said water proceeds through said duct toward said outlet (Becker, Page 5, Para. 3, “While the temperature in a freshly decalcified system 26 here at 125 ° C to 135 ° C, the temperature rises by the increasing calcification to a value of 159 ° C. The electrical control 38 is here designed such that the user at one with the temperature sensor 36 measured temperature of 159 ° C only a predetermined number of applications of the household appliance, such as cooking…temperature sensor 36 in signal transmission connection and the heaters 26.2.1 of the water heater 26.2 are energized accordingly.”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, as set forth above, discloses said inlet of said steam generator being arranged at a first end of said duct and said outlet of said steam generator being arranged at a second end of said duct (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the inlet and outlet of the steam generator are shown to be at two opposite ends of the duct or channel 26.2.2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said water tank comprising an outlet in fluid communication with said inlet of said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water tank outlet and inlet of the steam generator are connected by the connection 34), said water tank and said steam generator being arranged such that water flows from said outlet of said water tank to said inlet of said steam generator via gravity (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water flow arrows within the connection 34 show that water flows into the steam generator via gravity).
Regarding claim 6, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said separation chamber configured such that water received at said inlet of said separation chamber flows to said second outlet of said separation chamber via gravity (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the arrows within the separation chamber show that the water droplets that return to the water tank through the second outlet are done through gravity).
Regarding claim 7, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said first outlet of said separation chamber being arranged above said inlet of said separation chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet of the separation chamber is shown to be above the inlet of the separation chamber).
Regarding claim 8, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said second outlet of said separation chamber configured such that water exits said separation chamber through said second outlet via gravity (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the arrows within the separation chamber show that the water droplets that return to the water tank through the second outlet are done through gravity).
Regarding claim 9, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said second outlet of said separation chamber being arranged above said location upstream of said inlet of said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the second outlet of the separation chamber is shown to be above the inlet of the steam generator located near 34) such that water that exits said second outlet of said separation chamber flows to said inlet of said steam generator via gravity (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the arrows of the water flow show that gravity allows the water to travel from the second outlet to the inlet of the steam generator).
Regarding claim 10, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses said inlet of said separation chamber being arranged above said outlet of said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the inlet of the separation chamber is shown to connect to the outlet of the steam generator, where the inlet of the separation chamber is located above the outlet of the steam generator).
Regarding claim 13, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses further comprising a feeding duct having a first end connected to said first outlet of said separation chamber and a second end connected to said baking chamber (Becker, Page 4, Para. 4, “produced in normal operation of the household appliance saturated steam, which then via a steam line 28 and one in 2 illustrated steam opening 30 if necessary in the cooking chamber 2 is fed.”, where Fig. 3 shows that the first outlet of the steam generator is connected to the steam feed line 28 or the ‘feeding duct’).
Regarding claim 14, modified Becker teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a method of operating the steam feeding unit of claim 1 (Becker, Abstract, “Method for cleaning, in particular for descaling, of a system (26) consisting of a tank (26.1) for storing water and a water heater (26.2) for generating water vapor for a treatment room (2) of a household appliance”), said method comprising the steps of:
delivering said water (Becker, Page 6, Para. 3, “the main share would be the system 26 added rinse liquid directly from the inlet 26.1.1”, where liquid starts by entering into the water tank through inlet 26.1.1) from said water tank to said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water in the water tank follows the arrow path into the steam generator),
heating said water in said steam generator to produce the mixture of water and steam (Becker, Page 5, Para. 3, “While the temperature in a freshly decalcified system 26 here at 125 ° C to 135 ° C, the temperature rises by the increasing calcification to a value of 159 ° C. The electrical control 38 is here designed such that the user at one with the temperature sensor 36 measured temperature of 159 ° C only a predetermined number of applications of the household appliance, such as cooking…temperature sensor 36 in signal transmission connection and the heaters 26.2.1 of the water heater 26.2 are energized accordingly.”; where steam is produced by the temperature of the heater within the steam generator), delivering said mixture of water and steam to said separation chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the mixture is delivered into the separation chamber through the marked ‘inlet’), within said separation chamber, separating said mixture into a water component and a steam component (Becker, Page 2, last Para., “Advantageously, the tank for the separation of droplets from the steam generated on a droplet, which is formed as an integral part of the tank.”, where the top most box of modified Fig. 5 allows for the separation of steam from water), recirculating said water component to the location upstream of said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water droplets are recirculated through the second outlet of the separation chamber, which is upstream of the steam generator), and
delivering said steam component to said baking chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet is connected to a steam line 28 for delivering steam into the cooking chamber).
Regarding claim 15, modified Becker teaches the method according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses wherein: the steam component is fed from the separation chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the steam component leaves the steam generator through the first outlet) to a feeding duct having a first end connected to said separation chamber and a second end connected to said baking chamber (Becker, Fig. 3, where the feeding duct is the steam line 28, which is connected to the first outlet of the steam generator and the cooking chamber), and then the steam component is delivered from said feeding duct to said baking chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet is connected to a steam line 28 for delivering steam into the cooking chamber).
Regarding claim 16, modified Becker teaches the method according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses wherein said step of delivering water from said water tank to said steam generator is carried out by gravity (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water flow arrows within the connection 34 show that water flows from the water tank into the steam generator via gravity).
Regarding claim 17, modified Becker teaches the method according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses wherein said step of delivering said mixture of water and steam to said separation chamber occurs via upward flow (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the mixture of water and steam from the steam generator section flows upwards into the separation chamber).
Regarding claim 18, modified Becker teaches the method according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses wherein said steam component separated from said mixture in said separation chamber flows upward therein to said first outlet of said separation chamber en route to said baking chamber (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the steam component exits the first outlet into the steam line 28 and flows upwards toward the cooking chamber), and said water component separated from said mixture in said separation chamber flows downward therein by gravity to said second outlet of said separation chamber en route to said inlet of said steam generator (Becker, modified Fig. 5, where the water droplets that exit the separation chamber exit through the second outlet and flow downwards into the water tank for reinsertion into the steam generator).
Regarding claim 19, Becker discloses an oven (Page 3, last Para., “1 shows an inventive household appliance, which is designed here as a baking oven.”) comprising:
a baking chamber (Page 4, Para. 4, “cooking chamber 2”, where the apparatus is a baking oven, meaning that the cooking chamber can bake food items); and
a steam feeding unit for feeding steam (Page 1, last Para., “steam generator water heater for generating water vapor for a treatment room of a cooking appliance designed as a household appliance.”) into the baking chamber (Page 4, Para. 4, “via a steam line 28 and one in 2 illustrated steam opening 30 if necessary in the cooking chamber 2 is fed.”), the steam feeding unit comprising:
a water tank for storing water (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the water tank is show in the left most box of modified Fig. 5, where that area is construed as being able to contain water);
a steam generator having an inlet and an outlet (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the inlet of the steam generator is 34 and the outlet is 32), said inlet being in fluid communication with said water tank for receiving water therefrom (Modified Fig. 5, where the inlet 34 is connected to the left most box, which is the water tank), said steam generator configured to heat water therein to convert at least a portion of said water therein to steam (Page 5, last Para., “Now the heaters are 26.2.1 by means of the electrical control 38 automatically switched on and the cleaning liquid is heated to a target temperature of 70 ° C here.”); and
a separation chamber having an inlet being in fluid communication with said outlet of said steam generator (Modified Fig. 5, where the top most box is construed as a separation chamber and is connected to the outlet 32 of the steam generator, where that location would be an inlet for the separation chamber) for receiving a mixture of steam and water therefrom (Claim 5, “in that the tank ( 26.1 ) for the separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 ), wherein the mist eliminator ( 26.1 .4) as an integral part of the tank ( 26.1 ) is trained.”), said
separation chamber being configured to separate steam and water from said mixture (Page 2, last Para., “Advantageously, the tank for the separation of droplets from the steam generated on a droplet, which is formed as an integral part of the tank.”, where the top most box of modified Fig. 5 allows for the separation of steam from water),
a first outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with said baking chamber for delivering separated steam thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet is shown and is connected to the steam line 28 for feeding into the cooking chamber of the oven), and
a second outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with a location upstream of said inlet of said steam generator for recirculating separated water thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the second outlet is shown to be attached to the water tank and upstream the steam generator for recirculation of water),
where the separation chamber is implied to be arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 7, Para. 4 from end, “mist eliminator ( 26.1.4 ) has a parabolic curved deflection for deflecting the vapor-vapor mixture.”, and Page 7, Para. 5 from end, “separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 )”, where while it is possible that the water level rises to be above the height 40, there must be space to allow for the water vapor to hit the parabolic curved 26.1.4 droplet separator. If the water level were filled all the way, then droplets could not be separated from vapor as there is no vapor present within the separation chamber anymore. As a result, Becker implies that the water level cannot be higher than the droplet separator 26.1.4 in order to allow for separation of droplets from steam.).
Becker does not disclose:
wherein explicitly stating that said separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit.
However, Berger discloses, in the similar field of steam and droplet separation chambers (Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “In order to separate droplets from the vapor stream, further droplet separators 15.2 projecting into the evaporator space are formed on the upper shell 2.1”), where it is explicitly stated that the separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 3, Para. 2 from end, “The fill level monitoring device 12 is arranged in the region in which a maximum fill level is established above the evaporator surface 13 when the water surface is not agitated.”, and Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where from Fig. 4, the maximum fillable water level by the fill level monitoring device 12 is located below the separation chamber created by baffles 15.1, the water level is shown as H). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation chamber in Becker to be explicitly disclosed to be above the maximum fillable water level as taught by Berger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for additional droplet deposition space, where the maximum water level allows for a separation chamber to not be heated, which would prevent dripping from boiling water, as stated by Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “As a result, a further element for droplet separation is formed for drops dripping off on the top surface of the upper shell 2.2. In the area below the droplet 15 (water inlet space), the evaporator surface 13 is constantly cooled by the incoming water. As a result, boiling of the water in this region of the evaporator surface 13 is avoided and thus prevents dripping by boiling water. Since the connection 11 for the steam discharge is arranged above this area, the volume available for the droplet deposition in the evaporator space is increased by this cooled section of the steam generator 2.”.
Regarding claim 20, Becker discloses a steam feeding unit for feeding steam (Page 1, last Para., “steam generator water heater for generating water vapor for a treatment room of a cooking appliance designed as a household appliance.”) into a baking chamber of an oven (Page 4, Para. 4, “via a steam line 28 and one in 2 illustrated steam opening 30 if necessary in the cooking chamber 2 is fed.”), comprising:
a water tank for storing water (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the water tank is show in the left most box of modified Fig. 5, where that area is construed as being able to contain water);
a steam generator having an inlet and an outlet (Page 6, Para. 5, “For fluid-conducting connection of tank 26.1 and water heater 26.2 are only short connections 32 . 34 required.”, where the inlet of the steam generator is 34 and the outlet is 32), said inlet being in fluid communication with said water tank for receiving water therefrom (Modified Fig. 5, where the inlet 34 is connected to the left most box, which is the water tank), said steam generator comprising a heater to heat water therein to convert at least a portion of said water therein to steam (Page 5, last Para., “Now the heaters are 26.2.1 by means of the electrical control 38 automatically switched on and the cleaning liquid is heated to a target temperature of 70 ° C here.”); and
a separation chamber having only one inlet for moisture (Modified Fig. 5, where the only inlet is labeled for the separation chamber), said inlet being in fluid communication with said outlet of said steam generator (Modified Fig. 5, where the top most box is construed as a separation chamber and is connected to the outlet 32 of the steam generator, where that location would be an inlet for the separation chamber) for receiving a mixture of steam and water therefrom (Claim 5, “in that the tank ( 26.1 ) for the separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 ), wherein the mist eliminator ( 26.1 .4) as an integral part of the tank ( 26.1 ) is trained.”),
said separation chamber being configured to separate steam and water from said mixture (Page 2, last Para., “Advantageously, the tank for the separation of droplets from the steam generated on a droplet, which is formed as an integral part of the tank.”, where the top most box of modified Fig. 5 allows for the separation of steam from water),
a first outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with said baking chamber for delivering separated steam thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the first outlet is shown and is connected to the steam line 28 for feeding into the cooking chamber of the oven), and
a second outlet of said separation chamber being in fluid communication with a location upstream of said inlet of said steam generator for recirculating separated water thereto (Modified Fig. 5, where the second outlet is shown to be attached to the water tank and upstream the steam generator for recirculation of water),
where the separation chamber is implied to be arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 7, Para. 4 from end, “mist eliminator ( 26.1.4 ) has a parabolic curved deflection for deflecting the vapor-vapor mixture.”, and Page 7, Para. 5 from end, “separation of droplets from the steam generated, a droplet separator ( 26.1.4 )”, where while it is possible that the water level rises to be above the height 40, there must be space to allow for the water vapor to hit the parabolic curved 26.1.4 droplet separator. If the water level were filled all the way, then droplets could not be separated from vapor as there is no vapor present within the separation chamber anymore. As a result, Becker implies that the water level cannot be higher than the droplet separator 26.1.4 in order to allow for separation of droplets from steam.).
Becker does not disclose:
wherein explicitly stating that said separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit.
However, Berger discloses, in the similar field of steam and droplet separation chambers (Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “In order to separate droplets from the vapor stream, further droplet separators 15.2 projecting into the evaporator space are formed on the upper shell 2.1”), where it is explicitly stated that the separation chamber is arranged above a maximum fillable water level of said steam feeding unit (Page 3, Para. 2 from end, “The fill level monitoring device 12 is arranged in the region in which a maximum fill level is established above the evaporator surface 13 when the water surface is not agitated.”, and Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where from Fig. 4, the maximum fillable water level by the fill level monitoring device 12 is located below the separation chamber created by baffles 15.1, the water level is shown as H). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the separation chamber in Becker to be explicitly disclosed to be above the maximum fillable water level as taught by Berger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for additional droplet deposition space, where the maximum water level allows for a separation chamber to not be heated, which would prevent dripping from boiling water, as stated by Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “As a result, a further element for droplet separation is formed for drops dripping off on the top surface of the upper shell 2.2. In the area below the droplet 15 (water inlet space), the evaporator surface 13 is constantly cooled by the incoming water. As a result, boiling of the water in this region of the evaporator surface 13 is avoided and thus prevents dripping by boiling water. Since the connection 11 for the steam discharge is arranged above this area, the volume available for the droplet deposition in the evaporator space is increased by this cooled section of the steam generator 2.”.
Regarding claim 21, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a deflector within the separation chamber that is configured to deviate the separated water downward into the water tank (Page 6, Para. 6, “The steam-side end of the water heater 26.2 facing section 26.1.4 of the tank 26.1 is formed as a parabolic curved deflection section. This provides the desired separation during the cleaning process and / or during normal operation of the system 26 produced vapor-droplet mixture in a structurally particularly simple manner possible.”, where water droplets would be falling downwards into the water tank as shown by arrows in Fig. 5).
Modified Becker does not disclose:
further comprising a substantially horizontal inner deflector within the separation chamber.
However, Berger discloses a substantially horizontal inner deflector within a separation chamber (Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where the baffles shown in Fig. 4 include horizontal and vertical extensions). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the deflector in modified Becker to include the features as taught by Berger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use baffles as another structure capable of separating steam and water, as stated by Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”.
Regarding claim 22, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above, discloses wherein the substantially horizontal inner deflector is integrally formed with a wall of the separation chamber (Teaching from Berger, Page 4, Para. 2, “The mist eliminator 15 is formed with baffles 15.1 projecting into the vapor space of the vapor discharge area, which constitute a baffle for the vapor stream at which any water drops entrained in the vapor stream are separated.”, where the baffles project into the vapor space and are integral with the walls of the separation chamber as they project outwards from the separation chamber).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (DE 102007048567 B4) in view of Berger et al. (EP 2298140 A2, hereinafter Berger) in further view of Sakane et al. (WO 2008053699 A1, hereinafter Sakane).
Regarding claim 2, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Becker does not disclose:
further comprising an overflow duct having an inlet section arranged within the water tank, the inlet section defining the maximum fillable water level of the steam feeding unit.
However, Sakane discloses, in the similar field of steam generators (Para. 0003, “oven-type cooking device that heats with a heat medium, the heat medium is circulated while being heated. When steam is used as the heat medium, steam generated by the steam generator is added to the circulating flow.”), where there is an overflow duct with an inlet that defines the maximum fillable level of a water holding area (Para. 0060, “A water supply pipe 67 and an overflow pipe 68 are connected to the upper space of the water level detection chamber 63. The water supply pipe 67 is for pouring the water in the water tank 81 stored in the water tank storage section 80 (see FIG. 3) into the container 61, and a water supply pump 69 is provided in the middle.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the water tank within modified Becker to include an overflow duct as taught by Sakane.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent overflow of water during cases where the pump malfunctions, as stated by Sakane, Para. 0082, “When a certain amount of water is supplied, operation of the water supply pump 69 is stopped. If the operation of the water supply pump 69 does not stop due to a malfunction of the control system, the water level in the container 61 continues to rise even if it exceeds a predetermined level. The water returns to the relay tank 72 through the overflow pipe 68. Therefore, the container 61 will not overflow.”.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (DE 102007048567 B4) in view of Berger et al. (EP 2298140 A2, hereinafter Berger) in further view of Yamamoto et al. (WO 2007013420 A1, hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 11, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Becker does not disclose:
further comprising a discharge duct fluidly connected to both the water reservoir and the steam generator, such that the discharge duct can drain both the water reservoir and the steam generator.
However, Yamamoto discloses, in the similar field of steam generators (Abstract, “steam generator”), where a discharge duct is fluidly connected to the water reservoir and steam generator through the cooking chamber, where it can drain liquids from both the reservoir and steam generator (Para. 0051, “Further, the water in the pot 41 discharged from the drain valve 70 is returned to the water tank 30 through the filter 93 by the bypass pipe 92.”, where the drain valve 40 within the bypass pipe 92, which is construed as the discharge duct, is connected to the cooking chamber which is connected to the water reservoir and steam generator; where technically liquids that traveled from the water reservoir to the steam generator to the cooking chamber are drained by the bypass pipe 92). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Becker to include the features as taught by Yamamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to conserve water within the steam generator, as the water can be recycled back to the water tank, as stated by Yamamoto, Para. 0051, “Further, the water in the pot 41 discharged from the drain valve 70 is returned to the water tank 30 through the filter 93 by the bypass pipe 92.”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Becker teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above, discloses said discharge duct being connected to a filtering device configured to filter water reserved therein from said water reservoir (Teaching from Yamamoto, Para. 0051, “Further, the water in the pot 41 discharged from the drain valve 70 is returned to the water tank 30 through the filter 93 by the bypass pipe 92.”, where the filter 93 filters water from the water reservoir that has traveled into the cooking chamber; more detail about the filter is disclosed in Para. 0063, “Therefore, impurities such as scale contained in the water in the pot 41 discharged from the drain valve 70 can be filtered by the filters 93a and 93b, and the pot 41 power drain without using a special purification system can be obtained. It can be reused as water for steam generation.”), the filtering device being connected in fluid communication between the water reservoir and the steam generator (Teaching from Yamamoto, where the water within the cooking chamber is in fluid connection with the water reservoir and steam generator, meaning that the filter 93 is also in fluid connection with the water reservoir and steam generator).
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/06/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761