DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending the current office action.
Response to Arguments
112b rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Applicant argues that prior art cited in previous rejection does not teach currently amended claims. Please see new grounds of rejection provided below. Examiner recommends an interview to assist in advancing prosecution.
No arguments were made with respect to double patenting rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (PGPub# US 2014/0061190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches an oven for cooking of foodstuffs (abstract, figure 1), the oven 1 comprising: a cooking chamber 20, a cooking plate 100 within the cooking chamber; at least one heat source 31; at least one heat sensor 150 configured to determine the localized temperature of a first region of the cooking plate when the first region region is not positioned adjacent the at least one heat source (figures 1 and 5, par. 53: Sensor determines localized temperature of different regions of tray 100. Tray is rotated during cooking and would read on certain regions not being adjacent to the sensor 150.) ; and circuitry 602 configured to engage the at least one heat source to provide heat via the at least one heat source to the first region for a calculated time as a function of the localized temperature of the cooking plate as the first region is positioned adjacent the at least one heat source (figure 6, par. 53-58: Control unit uses localized temperature data to control heat source and cook time as tray rotates to positions that include adjacent to the heat source.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) in view of Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423).
Regarding claim 1, Fenoglio teaches an oven (figure 1, abstract)9 for cooking of foodstuffs, the oven comprising: a cooking chamber 5; a cooking plate 14 within the cooking chamber, at least one heat source 23; at least one heat sensor (21 or 28) configured to determine the localized temperature of a first region (col. 5, lines 22-25 and col. 6, lines 20-23); and circuitry (at least control panel 50) configured to engage the at least one heat source to provide heat via the at least one heat source to the first region for a calculated time as the first region is positioned adjacent the at least one heat source (col. 3, lines 36-61, figures 1-3: Turntable is set by circuitry to rotate 1 full revolution every 10min, the oven is set to cook at a higher temperature for 1/5 of a revolution for two min to fully cook a pizza pie.).
Fenoglio does not explicitly teach the location of the heat sensor being used to calculated time as a function of the localized temperature of the cooking plate.
However, Westerberg teaches a similar cooking device with rotating rack. (abstract and figures 1a-c, col. 3, lines 47-55) Westerberg teaches it is beneficial to provide a sensor 42 in localized hot spot region of an oven not adjacent to the heat source 18. Westerberg teaches that it known to use the temperature in the hot spot region to modify cooking time when food is being cooked under/adjacent heater 18 in order to prevent over cooking. (Figures 1, 4—5, col. 2, lines 20-45, col. 3, lines 55-63, and col. 4, lines 12-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the localized temperature sensors of Westerberg, in “hot spot” of Fenoglio, in order to prevent overcooking or burning food as taught by Westerberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have utilized localized temperature sensors to detect temperature fluctuations only occurring in specific regions/spots and modify the time for total cooking in order to achieve the appropriate level of doneness.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fenoglio teaches gas burners underneath the turntable. (col. 3, lines 15-17)
Regarding claim 13, Fenoglio teaches a perimeter multi-flame manifold at a circumferentially offset broiling region in the cooking chamber. (col. 3, lines 15-17: Plurality of burners inherently would be circumferentially offset in a “broiling region”.)
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423) in view of Marbach et al. (PGPub US 2002/0130190 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fenoglio in view of Westerberg teaches the at least one heat sensor of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one heat sensor comprises more than two independent heat sensors at separate positions below the cooking plate.
Marbach teaches a cooking apparatus. (figure 1, abstract) Marbach teaches the use of one or more heating sensors 8 positioned below/around the cooking plate 16. Marbach teaches that the benefit of using such a configuration is the ability to determine optimum positioning of food on a cook plate. (par. 42-43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed application to have applied the multiple heat sensors below a cook plate of Marbach, below the cook plate of Fenoglio in view of Westerberg, in order to determine optimum positioning of food on a cook plate as taught by Marbach.
Regarding claim 3, Fenoglio teaches a thermostat/heat sensor 21 for energizing heating element 23. (Col. 6, lines 20-25.) The combination of the plurality of sensors of Marbach with the thermostat and heater arrangement of Fenoglio would read the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fenoglio, Westerberg and Marbach teaches at least one sensor detecting the localized temperature of the air adjacent the cooking plate; and a control apparatus varying the thermal output of the at least one heat source below the cooking plate as a function of the sensed localized temperature. Fenoglio teaches heat sensor detecting temperature adjacent to heating plate and varying the thermal output. Marbach teaches that the sensor can be positioned below the cook plate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423), Marbach et al. (PGPub US 2002/0130190 A1) and further in view of Lee ( US 8,948,579).
Regarding claim 4 Fenoglio does not disclose wherein the oven comprises a debris ring removably attached to an inner surface of the oven and extending downward into a perimeter debris collecting channel of the cooking plate.
However, Lee discloses a cooking system with a rotatable pan. (abstract, figures 1-2) Lee discloses an arcuate rotatable pan with a collection outlet (22) in the middle leading to a removable channel and drawer (claim 2). The ring can be removed with the plate in order to catch oil or debris. (col. 3, lines 53-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the outlet ring and channel and drawer of Lee with the plate of Fenolgio in order to easily remove grease from the plate and food thereon as taught by Lee.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423) in view of Von Arx et al. (PGPub# 2002/0088111 A1)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fenoglio and Westerberg does not explicitly teach wherein the radiant heat source is a fiber mesh heat source.
However, Von Arx discloses a mesh fiber heating element (25) (par. 81-82) and notes the use of the heating element for cooking [0015]. Von Arx teaches that the heat sources have the benefit of allowing accurately positioning of electrical resistance heating elements. (par. 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the cooking element of Von Arx in the oven of Fenoglio in order to allow for accurate positioning of electrical resistance heating elements as taught by Von Arx.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423) in view of Wiker (PgPub# 2011/0048244).
Regarding claim 11, Fenoglio in view of Westerberg does not disclose at least one sensor detecting entry of an uncooked foodstuff; circuitry programed to account for the additional thermal load added to the 25 system by the uncooked foodstuff; and a control apparatus varying the thermal output of the at least one heat source as a function of the uncooked foodstuff.
However, Wiker discloses photosensors (79, 81) at an entrance of an oven tunnel that detect the presence of a food item. The sensors are connected to a controller that in turn can use more gas of speed blower fans [0020]. Wiker teaches that the benefit of such a system is that it increases efficiency of the heating system by taking into account external influences. (par. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the sensor and sensor related control of Wiker in the oven of Fenoglio in order to increase efficiency of the heating system by taking into account external influences as taught by Wiker.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423) in view of Gonnella (USPat# 8,291,896).
Regarding claim 12 Fenoglio in view of Westerberg does not disclose a central heat deflector positioned radially between the central radiant heating flame and a baking region of the cooking plate.
However, Gonnella discloses a baffle (72) between a flame and a cooking surface (76) (Fig. 6) (col. 9, In. 51-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the deflector and flame of Gonnella in the oven of Fenolgio in order to avoid flame contact with a food item.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fenoglio (USPat# 4,411,920) and Westerberg et al. (US PAT# 5,726,423) in view of Smith et al. (US Pat#5,205,274).
Regarding claim 14, Fenoglio does not disclose a baking region comprising a heat shield above the cooking plate and below the uppermost internal surface of the cooking chamber.
However, Smith teaches an oven apparatus. (figure 1) Smith further discloses a heat shield (99) above the cooking plate but below the top of the chamber (col. 7, lines 22-30 and Fig. 4). Smith teaches that the shields 99 help circulate heated air in the baking chamber. (col. 3, lines 38-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed application to have applied the shield of Smith, to the apparatus of Fenoglio, in order to help circulate heated air in the baking chamber as taught by Smith.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,464,234, 10,420,347, and 9,795,147 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US Pat# 11,464,234, 10,420,347, and 9,795,147 all encompass substantially the same claimed subject matter as the present application. Claims 1-14 of the presently filed application generally claims the same oven with localized heating as claimed in the claims of US Pat# 11,464,234, 10,420,347, and 9,795,147.
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 IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights