DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang [PG Publication No. 20220221158 A1], in view of Pellegrin [US Patent No. 2,396,122], and further in view of Gagas et. al [US 20100163549 A1].
Regarding Claim 1, Jang teaches a cooking appliance [Figure 1, Element 1] comprising:
An outer frame [Figure 1, Element 10] surface defining a cooktop [Figure 1, Element 20], wherein the cooktop defines an outlet port [Figure 4, Element 23];
An inner frame surface defining a heating cavity [Figure 4, Element 31] disposed below the cooktop and within the outer frame surface, wherein the inner frame surface defines an inlet port [Figure 4 – Paragraph 127 states: “Accordingly, exhaust gas generated in the cooking space 31 may flow into the exhaust duct 41 connected to the upper portion of the cooking space 31 and move upward, and be discharged upward on the rear surface of the cooking appliance 1 through the first exhaust opening 23 connected to the upper end portion of the exhaust duct 41.”];
A chimney extending between a first end connected to the inlet port and a second end connected to the outlet port [Figure 12, Element 41] for directing steam from the heating cavity outside of the cooking appliance; and
A nozzle apparatus connected around the outlet port and including an inner wall defining at least one aperture, wherein the inner wall of the at least one aperture is oriented at an acute angle from the cooktop towards a front edge of the cooktop.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach
A nozzle apparatus connected around the outlet port and including an inner wall defining at least one aperture, wherein the inner wall of the at least one aperture is oriented at an acute angle from the cooktop towards a front edge of the cooktop.
Pellegrin teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an Oven Vent Construction, comprising:
A nozzle apparatus connected around the outlet port and including an inner wall defining at least one aperture [Figure 2, Element 10], wherein the inner wall of the at least one aperture is oriented at an acute angle from the cooktop towards a front edge of the cooktop.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings of a nozzle apparatus connected around the outlet port and including an inner wall defining at least one aperture, wherein the inner wall of the at least one aperture is oriented at an acute angle from the cooktop towards a front edge of the cooktop in the modified system of Jang in view of Pellegrin. This modification would provide an oven vent structure in which the grill fairly effectively obscures the discharge end of the flue, while nevertheless allowing substantially unobstructed discharge of products from the flue [Column 1, Lines 16-20].
The combination of Jang and Pellegrin do not disclose that the nozzle apparatus is at least partially formed of a material having elastic memory that is sealed around the outlet port via deformation.
Gagas discloses a cooktop having a vent [reference character 30] which includes a vent cover [reference character 31] having a gasket [paragraph 0042] which seals the vent cover to the vent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a gasket is both elastic and is sealed by deformation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify he system taught by the combination of Jang and Pellegrin by including a gasket between the vent cover and the vent, as taught by Gagas, in order to ensure that intake air does not flow in through the interface between the vent cover and the vent.
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Jang, Pellegrin, and Gagas teach the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the nozzle apparatus includes at least one post for connection to the cooktop.
Pellegrin teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an Oven Vent Construction, comprising:
Wherein the nozzle apparatus includes at least one post for connection [Figure 2, Element 32] to the cooktop.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein the nozzle apparatus includes at least one post for connection to the cooktop in the modified system of Jang in view of Pellegrin. This modification would allow the posts to be entered into a spring clip type connection [Column 1, Lines 56-59].
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Jang, Pellegrin, and Gagas teach the limitations of Claim 2.
Jang further teaches:
Wherein the at least one aperture includes a plurality of apertures that are sequentially spaced and linearly aligned [Figure 5, Element 61].
Jang, Pellegrin, and Gagas do not disclose that each hole defines a circular cross section. However, a change in shape of the cross section of the apertures is interpreted to be an aesthetic design choice, absent some recitation that the claimed shape is significant. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the apertures as circular since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 2.
Jang further teaches:
Wherein the nozzle apparatus includes a nozzle body defining a pair of sidewalls spaced apart by a front wall and a rear wall [Figure 13, Element 23, Paragraph 125].
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 12.
Jang further teaches:
Wherein the at least one aperture includes a single aperture [Figure 13, Element 23, Paragraph 125].
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 13.
Jang further teaches:
Wherein the inner wall defining the single aperture includes an entry section extending from a lower body surface of the nozzle body and an exit section angled from the entry section and that extends from the entry section to an upper surface of the nozzle body [Annotated Figure 13, Shown Below, Paragraph 125].
PNG
media_image1.png
549
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 13.
Jang further teaches:
Wherein the cooking appliance is configured to be heated with gas [Paragraph 94].
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang [PG Publication No. 20220221158 A1], in view of Pellegrin [US Patent No. 2,396,122], and further in view Gagas et. al [US 20100163549 A1] as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Long [US Patent No. 3,551,963]
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 2.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the at least one post includes a post body extending to a flanged end, the flanged end extending outwardly from the post body to define an interface surface.
Long teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a Self-Locking Snap Fastener, comprising:
Wherein the at least one post includes a post body extending to a flanged end, the flanged end extending outwardly from the post body to define an interface surface [Figure 6, Element 34].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein the at least one post includes a post body extending to a flanged end, the flanged end extending outwardly from the post body to define an interface surface in the modified system of Jang in view of Long. This modification would facilitate a self-locking snap fastener [Column 1, Lines 35-40].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin, further in view of Long teach the limitations of Claim 3.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein each post defines at least one recess extending from the flanged end that facilitates a snap-type connection.
Long teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a Self-Locking Snap Fastener, comprising:
Wherein each post defines at least one recess extending from the flanged end that facilitates a snap-type connection [Figure 6, Element 64].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein each post defines at least one recess that facilitates a snap-type connection in the modified system of Jang in view of Long. This modification would facilitate a self-locking snap fastener [Column 1, Lines 35-40].
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin, further in view of Long teach the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein each post extends into the outlet port.
Pellegrin teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an Oven Vent Construction, comprising:
Wherein each post extends into the outlet port [Figure 4, Element 33].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein each post extends into the outlet port in the modified system of Jang in view of Long. This modification would allow the posts to be entered into a spring clip type connection [Column 1, Lines 56-59].
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin, further in view of Long teach the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the at least one recess includes a pair of opposing recesses.
Long teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a Self-Locking Snap Fastener, comprising:
Wherein the at least one recess includes a pair of opposing recesses [Figure 6, Element 64].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein the at least one recess includes a pair of opposing recesses in the modified system of Jang in view of Long. This modification would facilitate a self-locking snap fastener [Column 1, Lines 35-40].
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang [PG Publication No. 2022/0221158 A1], in view of Pellegrin [US Patent No. 2,396,122], and further in view Gagas et. al [US 20100163549 A1], as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Trice [PG Publication No. 2018/0003389]
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teachings of Jang, in view of Pellegrin teach the limitations of Claim 13.
However, the modified system of Jang fails to explicitly teach:
Wherein the single aperture extends between the rear wall and the front wall to define a thickness and the thickness is reduced near an upper surface of the nozzle body.
Trice teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a Cooking Grate with Integrated Venting, comprising:
Wherein the single aperture extends between the rear wall and the front wall to define a thickness and the thickness is reduced near an upper surface of the nozzle body [Figure 3, Elements 20b, 22b, 26, 26a, 26c and 27].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been
motivated to make these modifications to:
Incorporate the teachings wherein the single aperture extends between the rear wall and the front wall to define a thickness and the thickness is reduced near an upper surface of the nozzle body in the modified system of Jang in view of Trice. This modification would channel air into and/or out of the venting surface [Paragraph 24, Lines 32-48].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 7-11 and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762