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 .
Election/Restriction Response
The claim amendments and applicant’s response filed on 10/20/2025 to the restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
The status of the 10/20/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, and 15-16 have been amended; and Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 Application No. EP 20172641.1 filed on 05/04/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16:
The phrase “an optical sensor” in line 9 should be read “the optical sensor” because it is presumed to have an antecedent basis in line 10 of claim 1 that recites “an optical sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
In claim 15:
The limitation “an image evaluation unit” in lines 3-4
“unit” is the generic placeholder.
“evaluation” is the functional language.
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.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Even though there is no explicit description of the corresponding structure of “an image evaluation unit" in lines 3-4 of claim 15, however according to para. 0044 of the published specification, as best understood it is the computer that contains the algorithm that analyzes the image data and detect the disturbances in the image data caused by microwave shielding mesh and apply mathematical operations on the image data to eliminate these disturbances.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luckhardt (US 20170208652)
Regarding Claim 1, Luckhardt discloses a door assembly (oven door 14; fig. 3) for selectively providing access to, or closing, an oven cavity of an oven appliance (oven 10), the door assembly (oven door 14) comprising:
a first pane (outer panel 26) comprising an at least partially transparent region (“oven door 14 includes a window, so that at least a part of said oven door 14 is transparent”, para. 0043);
a second pane (inner panel 28) spaced apart from the first pane and comprising an at least partially transparent region (“oven door 14 includes a window, so that at least a part of said oven door 14 is transparent”, para. 0043) (fig. 3), wherein the first pane (outer panel 26) is located outward from the second pane (inner panel 28) such that the second pane (inner panel 28) is between the oven cavity (cooking chamber 12) and the first pane (outer panel 26) when the door assembly is mounted to the oven appliance and closes the oven cavity (fig. 3);
a camera assembly (camera 18, pin-hole lens 34) comprising an optical sensor (camera 18) for obtaining image data from within the oven cavity (para. 0054-0055) (it is noted that the pin-hole lens 34 is part of the camera 18 that allows the camera 18 to see through the shielding metal mesh 32); and
an aperture provided in the first pane (outer panel 26) (para. 0054. It is noted that the pin-hole lens 34 penetrates through at least the panel 26 as evident in fig. 3), wherein the aperture accommodates the camera assembly (para. 0054-0055. It is noted that the aperture in the panel 26 accommodates the lens 34, which is part of the camera 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Luckhardt discloses a cooking oven (cooking oven 10) comprising the door assembly of claim 1 (door 14) (title; fig. 3).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhardt (US 20170208652) in view of Park’213 (US 20170261213)
Regarding Claim 2, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the door assembly comprising at least one said center pane located between the first pane and second pane, the at least one center pane comprising an at least partially transparent region.
However, Park’213 discloses a door assembly (door unit 40) comprising at least one said center pane (second glass member 43b) located between the first pane (first glass member 43a) and second pane (third glass member 43c), the at least one center pane (second glass member 43b) comprising an at least partially transparent region (transparent portion 42) (para. 0086).
PNG
media_image2.png
662
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 the door assembly of Luckhardt to include the center pane located between the first pane and the second pane and the center pane comprises the at least partially transparent region as taught by Park’213, in order to provide thermal insulation to effectively shield the camera assembly from heat from the cooking cavity.
Claims 3-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhardt (US 20170208652) in view of Park’326 (US 20180372326)
Regarding Claim 3, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the camera assembly comprises a housing configured for being mounted in the aperture.
However, Park’326 discloses a camera assembly (monitoring unit 100; fig. 4) comprises a housing (housing 140 and 150; figs. 6-7) configured for being mounted to the door 40 (para. 0099 and 0111).
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 the camera assembly (i.e. pin-hole lens 34 of Luckhardt) to comprise the housing (i.e. housing 140 and 150 of Park’326) configured for being mounted to the door as taught by Park’326, in order to mount the camera assembly (i.e. pin-hole lens 34) in a fixed relationship with the first pane (i.e. outer panel 26 of Luckhardt) (para. 0111 of Park’326) and to protect the camera assembly from dirt and moisture. The modification would result in structure in which as shown below, in which the housing 140 and 150 configured for being mounted in the aperture because the pin-hole lens 34 is positioned in the aperture of the outer panel 26 of Luckhardt, therefore the housing 140 and 150 of Park’326 would also be positioned in the aperture of the first panel 26 of Luckhardt to enclose the lens 34.
PNG
media_image3.png
1082
1420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses the housing (housing 140, 150 of Park’326) comprises one or more pawls (screw) for fixing the camera assembly (pin-hole lens 34 of Luckhardt) within the aperture (aperture of the outer panel 26 of Luckhardt) (para. 0111 of Park’326).
Regarding Claim 7, Park’326 discloses the housing (housing 140, 150) comprises at least one housing aperture for flowing air through the housing (annotated fig. 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
464
557
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses said at least one housing aperture of the housing (aperture of Park’326) comprises a first housing aperture (annotated fig. 8) in a region of the housing located on a first side of the first pane (outer panel 26 of Luckhardt) and a second housing aperture (annotated fig. 8) in a region of the housing located on a second side of the first pane (outer panel 26 of Luckhardt) opposite the first side (it is noted the modification of claim 3 would result in the housing 140, 150 of Park’326 to be disposed within the aperture of the outer panel 26 of Luckhardt. Therefore, the first housing aperture of Park’326 would be positioned on the first side of the outer panel 26 and the second housing aperture of Park’326 would be positioned on the second side of the outer panel 26 opposite the first side).
PNG
media_image5.png
464
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1082
1420
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhardt (US 20170208652) in view of Ivanovic (US 20180216830)
Regarding Claim 9, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the first pane is an outer pane defining an exterior side surface of the door assembly that faces away from the oven cavity when the door assembly is mounted to the oven appliance and closes the oven cavity.
However, Ivanovic discloses the first pane (outer glass panel 30) is an outer pane defining an exterior side surface of the door assembly (door 16) that faces away from the oven cavity (oven cavity 14) when the door assembly is mounted to the oven appliance and closes the oven cavity (figs. 2 and 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
536
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 the first pane of Luckhardt (i.e. outer panel 26) such that it defines the exterior side surface of the door assembly as taught by Ivanovic, because it is known construction design to simplify the door assembly to shield thermal heat from the cooking cavity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhardt (US 20170208652) in view of Johnson (US 10440245)
Regarding Claim 10, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the door assembly further comprising one or more support elements configured to mount the first pane and second pane in a spaced relationship.
However, Johnson discloses a door assembly (door assembly 124; fig. 2) further comprising one or more support elements (spacer bracket 180) configured to mount the first pane (glass pane 178) and second pane (glass pane 176) in a spaced relationship (col. 5, lines 9-20).
PNG
media_image8.png
474
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 the door assembly of Luckhardt to comprise the one or more support elements configured to mount the pane 26 and the pane 28 is the spaced relationship as taught by Johnson, in order to maintain the gap between the two panes 26, 28 to provide thermal break between the cooking cavity and the camera.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckhardt (US 20170208652) in view of Gopalakrishnan (US 20210071874)
Regarding Claim 11, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein at least the first and/or second pane comprises regions in which transparency of the pane is reduced or eliminated.
However, Gopalakrishnan discloses at least the first pane (glass pane 180) comprises a region in which transparency of the first pane is reduced (“outer face of the outer glass pane 180 can be tinted to facilitate the direction of thermal energy back into the oven cavity”, para. 0023).
PNG
media_image9.png
664
826
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 the first pane of Luckhardt (i.e. pane 26) to comprise the region in which transparency of the pane is reduced as taught by Gopalakrishnan, in order to minimize heat loss inside the cooking cavity and reduce the temperature of the first pane (para. 0023 of Gopalakrishnan).
Regarding Claim 12, Luckhardt discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the door assembly further comprising an anti-reflection element that prevents or reduces light transmissivity of selected areas of the first pane.
However, Gopalakrishnan discloses the door assembly (door assembly 100) comprising an anti-reflection element (non-reflective coating) that prevents or reduces light transmissivity of selected areas of the first pane (glass pane 180; fig. 2) (para. 0023).
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 the first pane of Luckhardt (i.e. modify the outer surface of pane 26 that faces the user) to be coated with non-reflective coating that reduces light transmissivity of the selected areas of the first pane as taught by Gopalakrishnan, in order to minimize heat loss inside the cooking cavity and reduce the temperature of the first pane (para. 0023 of Gopalakrishnan).
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses the first pane (pane 26 of Luckhardt) comprises a coating (non-reflective coating of Gopalakrishnan) at least in the vicinity of the camera assembly (camera 18, pin-hole lens 34 of Luckhardt) (it is noted the modification of claim 12 would result in the non-reflective coating of Gopalakrishnan to be applied to the outer surface of the pane 26 of Luckhardt, that would result in the coating positioned in the vicinity of the camera 18, pin-hole lens 34 of Luckhardt).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 15-19 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:
Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the housing comprises a first housing element configured to be mounted at the aperture at a first side of the first pane, the housing further comprising a second housing element configured to be mounted at the aperture at a second side of the first pane, opposite the first side.”
The prior art Park’326 fails to teach “the housing comprises a first housing element configured to be mounted at the aperture at a first side of the first pane, the housing further comprising a second housing element configured to be mounted at the aperture at a second side of the first pane, opposite the first side”.
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to modify the housing 140, 150 of Park’326 to be positioned in a specific manner relative to the first pane, as claimed, without hindsight.
Claim 6 would be allowable for its dependency from claim 5.
Claim 16 would be allowable for disclosing “the camera assembly comprises a housing mounted within the aperture and configured to secure the camera assembly to the first pane, an optical sensor within said housing, that is inclined with respect to said first pane and configured to obtain image data from within a cavity of said oven appliance when the door assembly is mounted to the oven appliance, and a lens disposed in a lens opening of the housing and optically aligned with the optical sensor; and the housing of said camera assembly protrudes into said air gap such that an air flow through said air gap will provide cooling to said camera assembly during use via convective heat transfer therewith.”
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to make extensive modification to the camera assembly of Luckhardt to arrive at the claimed invention, as recited in claim 16.
Claims 17-19 would be allowable for their dependency from claim 16.
Claim 15 would be allowable for disclosing “comprising a source for microwave radiation, wherein the door assembly comprises a microwave shielding mesh mounted alongside one of the first and second panes, the cooking oven further comprising an image evaluation unit configured to analyze the camera images, to detect disturbances caused by the microwave shielding mesh, and to compensate these disturbances by processing data of the image.”
The prior art Luckhardt teaches a shielding metal mesh 32 is mounted alongside of the pane 26. Luckhardt teaches a control unit configured to analyze the camera images (para. 0025). Luckhardt teaches pinhole lens 34 is smaller than or equal as the holes of the shielding mesh 32 to allow the camera 18 to see through the shielding mesh 32 (para. 0054-0055). However, Luckhardt fails to teach disturbances caused by the shielding mesh or any distortion to be solved, let alone compensate these disturbances by processing data of the image.
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to configure the control unit of Luckhardt to detect disturbances caused by the shielding mesh and to compensate these disturbances by processing data of the image, as required by claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761