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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 10/7/2025, that was in response to the Office action dated 7/8/2025. Claims 1-24 are pending, claim(s) 1, 4, 11 and 20 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 2-3, 5-10, 12-19 and 21-24 are presented as previously claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al [8490801].
With respect to claim 1, Smith discloses: An oven rack assembly comprising: an oven rack (14) configured to support items to be cooked or otherwise heated within an oven cavity; a slide system (62) coupled to the oven rack and configured to move the oven rack between a retracted position and an extended position where the oven rack has moved forwardly relative to the retracted position [col 4, line 49-col 5, line 3]; a subframe (12) coupled to the slide system, the subframe comprising lateral support portions, each of the support portions including front (132) and rear base (26) portions for supporting the subframe on structure of the oven cavity and an integral, downwardly depending movement restrictor (75) disposed between the base portions for retaining the subframe in a stowed position within the oven cavity as the oven rack is moved to the extended position [see FIG 1, col 10, line 44-65].
With respect to claim 20, Smith discloses: A method for using an oven rack assembly comprising an oven rack (14), a slide system (62) coupled to the oven rack, and a subframe (12) coupled to the slide system, the method comprising: installing the oven rack assembly within an oven cavity [see FIG 1, col 4, line 49-col 5, line 3]; pulling the oven rack outwardly from the oven cavity, the oven rack moving relative to the subframe via the slide system [col 5, line 4-27]; retaining the subframe in a stowed position within the oven cavity when pulling the oven rack outwardly from the oven cavity by downwardly-depending movement resistors of the subframe engaging structure of the oven cavity [see FIGs 2A-2B, col 10, line 44-65].
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al [8490801], further in view of Hong [10548396].
With respect to claims 2-3, 10, 17 and 21, Smith discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show certain structurally limitations as further claimed.
Hong makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} The oven rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the movement restrictors (541) are further for restricting an installation depth for the subframe corresponding to the subframe being in the stowed position within an oven cavity [see FIG 3A, col 2, line 63-col 3, line 14].
{cl. 3} The oven rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the support portions each comprise a wire body, the movement restrictor being at least a portion of the wire body [see FIG 2].
{cl. 10} The oven rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the support portions comprise a front foot and a rear foot, the movement restrictor being at least a portion of the front foot [see FIG 6, col 6, line 55-col 7, line 9].
{cl. 17} The oven rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the subframe (520) is configured for use within an oven cavity having a liner with opposing liner ribs with a concave or gap portion [see FIG 1].
{cl. 21} The method of claim 20, wherein retaining the subframe in the stowed position within the oven cavity comprises the movement resistors engaging interior surfaces of concave or gap portions of liner ribs on which the oven rack is resting [col 6, line 18-33].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Smith with the teachings of Hong because Hong provides and arrangement for a slidable rack that allows for stable and quieter use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11-16, 18-19 and 22-24 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 applied prior art, if modified to incorporate the claim limitations, would require impermissible hindsight reasoning to include the structures set forth in claims 4-9, 11-16, 18-19 and 22-24, as the teaching reference would need adjustments made to meet to scope of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights