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 Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 12/4/25 response to the Office Action dated 9/8/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 20-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections and 112(b) rejections so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 8 of the Remarks, Applicant states the proposed rationale for modifying Bae in view of Schmidt is a hindsight reconstruction of the Applicant’s invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s as-filed disclosure does not state that the location of the duct assembly at the rear of the oven reduces the risk of fire damage. MPEP 2143 (C), notes that a proper rationale for a conclusion of obviousness is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, which does not require a citation from the references. Additionally, Examiner notes there are a finite number of walls in Bae’s oven that lead from the top of the oven to the bottom of the oven: a front, a back, and two side walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention, a duct assembly and mixing zone located at a rear of the oven and incorporate it into Bae’s device since there are a finite number of identified, predicable potential solutions (i.e., front, back, either side wall) to the recognized need (i.e., route cooling air around an oven) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 of Bae in view of Schmidt is maintained.
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, Applicant notes Schmidt is directed to a heating flow, Schmidt does not disclose an airflow from oven electronics, and Schmidt discloses a closed recirculation loop that would not read on “a mixing zone at the rear of the oven into which the first and second air flows combine into a combined air flow to be exhausted out of the oven” as claimed in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 1 is rejected by Bae in view of Schmidt. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” To elaborate, the aforementioned heated flow and closed recirculation loop of Schmidt are not added to Bae. Instead, the duct assembly and mixing zone of Bae are modified in view of Schmidt’s disclosure that a duct assembly and mixing zone are located at a rear of an oven; therefore, Bae’s duct assembly and mixing zone are rearranged to be at the rear of the oven of modified Bae. In addition, the air flow from oven electronics is rejected by Bea, not Schmidt. For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 of Bae in view of Schmidt is maintained.
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts Bae in view of Schmidt does not result in the advantages disclosed by the Applicant’s invention. However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 II, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”. In addition, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ease of manufacture, lower system air resistance, streamlined vertical flow, reduced costs, greater efficiency, fewer part count) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MEPE 2145 VI. For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 of Bae in view of Schmidt is maintained.
The rejections of independent claims 8 and 15 are maintained for the same or substantially the same reasons as described above for claim 1.
NOTE: Unclaimed structures in the Applicant’s disclosure, such as the top cap 132 and humidity sensors 148 shown in Fig. 6, may differentiate the claims over the prior art of record, subject to further search and/or consideration.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (CN1712780A)in view of Schmidt (DE2618998A1).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Bae ‘780 provided by the Applicant.
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Schmidt ‘998.
Regarding claim 1, Bae discloses a ventilation system for an oven (“the technical solution adopted in the present invention is: a microwave oven, including a cavity, a ventilation fan assembly”), comprising:
a duct assembly (annotated Fig. A), including
vertical walls (annotated Fig. A) defining a vertical air flow path (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88. See “A part of the second air flow discharged through the vent 85 of the heater cover 81 is transmitted to the second side flow path 88” and “A first side flow path 87 is formed between one side of the side conduit 86 and a side surface of the cavity 50”) along a rear of a cavity wrapper of the oven (Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking cavity 51), and
a separator plate (annotated Fig. A) dividing the vertical air flow path into a first vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to left of separator plate) configured to receive a first air flow from oven electronics (Fig. 4b, second side flow path 88 and “airflow for cooling the high-voltage transformer 63 (hereinafter referred to as the second airflow)”) and a second vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to right of separator plate) configured to receive a second air flow from an oven cavity (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 (i.e., second airflow) and cooking chamber 51 (i.e., oven cavity). See “The function of the first side flow path 87 is to guide the first air flow discharged through the exhaust hole 52 after the circulation of the cooking chamber 51 to the lower flow path 89”),
wherein the separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from the top of the vertical air flow path for a portion of a height of the oven (annotated Fig. A, separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from a top of the first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88 (i.e., vertical air flow path) for a portion of the height of the microwave oven) until a mixing zone (annotated Fig. B) at the side of the oven into which the first and second air flows combine into a combined air flow (Fig. 2, lower flow path 89. See “the second air flow will remove the water vapor inside the cooking chamber 51. The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87”) to be exhausted out of the oven (See “The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87, and is finally exhausted to the outside through the exhaust port 57 at the front end of the lower flow path 89”).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Duct assembly)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical walls)][AltContent: textbox (Separator
plate)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 4b from Bae showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mixing zone)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 4b from Bae showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Bae does not disclose the duct assembly is a rear duct assembly and the mixing zone is at the rear of the oven.
Schmidt discloses an oven (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Schmidt further discloses it is known for an airflow path (Fig. 1, airflow through vertical shaft 19, storage chamber 12, horizontal channel 18, and cooking chamber 11) to be positioned around the rear of an oven (Fig. 1, air flows from the front of the oven (in front of wall 15) to the rear of the oven (behind rear wall 17) and back to the front), more specifically for a rear duct assembly (annotated Fig. C) and a mixing zone (Fig. 1, vertical mixing channel 21) to be at the rear of the oven (Fig. 1, behind rear wall 17).
PNG
media_image3.png
433
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear duct assembly)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Schmidt showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Schmidt to Bae by rearranging Bae’s duct assembly and mixing zone to be at the rear of the oven in order to minimize temperatures at the back wall of the kitchen or other cabinets and components, decreasing the risk of fire and electrical damage in harder to reach areas that tend to be cleaned less frequently and are therefore more likely to accumulate dust.
Regarding claim 2, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 1, further comprising a channel (From Bae: Fig. 4b, channel formed by the outer surface of the bottom wall of cooking chamber 51 and the inner surface of the bottom wall of cavity 50 through which lower flow path 89 flows) extending from the rear of the oven (Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 1. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path extending from the front to the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 1, the channel of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily extend from the rear of the oven to a bottom front of the oven) to a bottom front of the oven (From Bae: Fig. 2, front vent 57 is located at a bottom front of the oven), the channel configured to receive the combined air flow to be exhausted out the front of the oven (From Bae: Figs. 2 and 4b, lower flow path 89 (i.e., combined air flow) and front vent 57, which located at the front of the oven. See “lower flow path 89…is finally exhausted to the outside through the exhaust port 57 at the front end of the lower flow path 89”).
Regarding claim 3, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 1, wherein the cavity wrapper (From Bae: Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking cavity 51) defines an air outlet (From Bae: Fig. 4a, through hole 54 and “flow path formed between the upper panel 53 and the ventilation duct 79 has several through holes 54. The first airflow delivered to the flow path through the through hole is delivered to the cooking chamber 51… the first airflow flowing into the cooking chamber 51 is discharged to the outside of the cooking chamber 51 through the exhaust hole 52.”) through a top rear surface of the oven cavity (From Bae: Fig. 4a, at least the leftmost through hole 54 is defined through a top rear surface of the cooking chamber 51. In addition, this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 15. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path at the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 15, the air outlets of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily be at the rear of the oven), and further comprising a top cap of the cavity wrapper (From Bae: Fig. 4b, air duct 79) configured to direct the second air flow (From Bae: Fig. 4b, first side low path 87. See “The function of the first side flow path 87 is to guide the first air flow discharged through the exhaust hole 52 after the circulation of the cooking chamber 51 to the lower flow path 89”) from the air outlet of the oven cavity into the rear duct assembly (annotated Fig. A. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 1. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path at the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 1, the duct assembly of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily be at the rear of the oven).
Regarding claim 6, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 1, further comprising a fan (From Bae: Fig. 4a, exhaust fan 68 and “high-voltage transformer 63 is located close to the exhaust fan 68 on the rear side of the microwave oven among the exhaust fans 67 and 68”) configured to drive the first air flow (From Bae: Fig. 4b, second side flow path 88 and “airflow for cooling the high-voltage transformer 63 (hereinafter referred to as the second airflow)”) to draw heat away from the oven electronics (From Bae: “The second airflow flows leftward through the second row fan 68 to cool the high-voltage transformer 63 and then passes through the heater cover 81. At this time, the second airflow flows in from the vent portion 83 formed on one side of the heater cover 81 and is finally discharged through the vent port 85 formed on the opposite side of the vent portion 83.”).
Regarding claim 7, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 1, wherein the oven electronics includes a transformer (From Bae: “airflow for cooling the high-voltage transformer 63 (hereinafter referred to as the second airflow)”).
Regarding claim 8, Bae discloses a ventilating oven, comprising (“the technical solution adopted in the present invention is: a microwave oven, including a cavity, a ventilation fan assembly”):
oven electronics (Fig. 4a, high voltage transformer 63);
a cavity wrapper (Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking cavity 51) defining an oven cavity (Fig. 4b, cooking chamber 51), the oven cavity having an access opening (Fig. 2, opening in front panel 55 through which cooking chamber 51 is accessed) and walls at the top, left side, right side, back, and bottom (Figs. 2 and 4b, walls of cooking cavity 51); and
a duct assembly (annotated Fig. A),
including vertical walls (annotated Fig. A) defining a vertical air flow path (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88. See “A part of the second air flow discharged through the vent 85 of the heater cover 81 is transmitted to the second side flow path 88” and “A first side flow path 87 is formed between one side of the side conduit 86 and a side surface of the cavity 50”) along the back of the cavity wrapper (Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking cavity 51), and
a separator plate (annotated Fig. A) dividing the vertical air flow path into a first vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to left of separator plate) configured to receive a first air flow from oven electronics (Fig. 4b, second side flow path 88 and “airflow for cooling the high-voltage transformer 63 (hereinafter referred to as the second airflow)”) and a second vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to right of separator plate) configured to receive a second air flow from an oven cavity (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 (i.e., second airflow) and cooking chamber 51 (i.e., oven cavity). See “The function of the first side flow path 87 is to guide the first air flow discharged through the exhaust hole 52 after the circulation of the cooking chamber 51 to the lower flow path 89”)
wherein the separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from the top of the vertical air flow path for a portion of a height of the oven (annotated Fig. A, separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from a top of the first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88 (i.e., vertical air flow path) for a portion of the height of the microwave oven) until a mixing zone (annotated Fig. B) at the side of the oven behind the cavity wrapper (Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking cavity 51. The mixing zone shown in annotated Fig. B is at least at the side of the oven behind the walls of cooking cavity 51 shown in Fig. 2) into which the first and second air flows combine into a combined air flow (Fig. 2, lower flow path 89. See “the second air flow will remove the water vapor inside the cooking chamber 51. The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87”) to be exhausted out of the oven (See “The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87, and is finally exhausted to the outside through the exhaust port 57 at the front end of the lower flow path 89”).
However, Bae does not disclose the duct assembly is a rear duct assembly and the mixing zone is at the rear of the oven behind the back of the cavity wrapper.
Schmidt discloses an oven (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Schmidt further discloses it is known for an airflow path (Fig. 1, airflow through vertical shaft 19, storage chamber 12, horizontal channel 18, and cooking chamber 11) to be positioned around the rear of an oven (Fig. 1, air flows from the front of the oven (in front of wall 15) to the rear of the oven (behind rear wall 17) and back to the front), more specifically for a rear duct assembly (annotated Fig. C) and a mixing zone (Fig. 1, vertical mixing channel 21) to be at the rear of the oven (Fig. 1, behind rear wall 17) behind the back (Fig. 1, back wall 17) of a cavity wrapper (Fig. 1, walls 15, 17, bottom wall (unlabeled), and side walls (unlabeled) of cooking chamber 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Schmidt to Bae by rearranging Bae’s duct assembly and mixing zone to be at the rear of the oven, wherein the mixing zone is specifically behind the back of the cavity wrapper, in order to minimize temperatures at the back wall of the kitchen or other cabinets and components, decreasing the risk of fire and electrical damage in harder to reach areas that tend to be cleaned less frequently and are therefore more likely to accumulate dust.
Regarding claim 9, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Bae discloses a method for ventilating an oven ((“the technical solution adopted in the present invention is: a microwave oven, including a cavity, a ventilation fan assembly”), comprising:
receiving a first air flow from oven electronics (“airflow for cooling the high-voltage transformer 63 (hereinafter referred to as the second airflow)”) into a first vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to left of separator plate) of a vertical air flow path (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88. See “A part of the second air flow discharged through the vent 85 of the heater cover 81 is transmitted to the second side flow path 88” and “A first side flow path 87 is formed between one side of the side conduit 86 and a side surface of the cavity 50”) along a cavity wrapper of the oven (Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking chamber 51);
receiving a second air flow from an oven cavity (Fig. 4b, first side flow path 87 (i.e., second airflow) and cooking chamber 51 (i.e., oven cavity). See “The function of the first side flow path 87 is to guide the first air flow discharged through the exhaust hole 52 after the circulation of the cooking chamber 51 to the lower flow path 89”) into a second vertical chamber (annotated Fig. A, chamber to right of separator plate) of the vertical air flow path, the first and second vertical chambers being defined by a separator plate extending vertically downward between vertical walls from a top of the vertical air flow path for a portion of a height of the oven (annotated Fig. A, separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from a top of the first side flow path 87 and second side flow path 88 (i.e., vertical air flow path) for a portion of the height of the microwave oven) until a mixing zone (annotated Fig. B); and
combining, in the mixing zone, the first and second air flows into a combined air flow (Fig. 4b, lower flow path 89. See “the second air flow will remove the water vapor inside the cooking chamber 51. The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87”).
However, Bae does not disclose the first vertical air flow path is along the rear of a cavity wrapper and the mixing zone is at the rear of the oven.
Schmidt discloses an oven (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Schmidt further discloses it is known for an airflow path (Fig. 1, airflow through vertical shaft 19, storage chamber 12, horizontal channel 18, and cooking chamber 11) to be positioned around the rear of an oven (Fig. 1, air flows from the front of the oven (in front of wall 15) to the rear of the oven (behind rear wall 17) and back to the front), more specifically for a vertical air flow path (Fig. 1, vertical paths of the airflow through storage chamber 12 and horizontal channel 18) to be along the rear of a cavity wrapper (Fig. 1, wall 15, front wall 16, rear wall 17 form a ‘cavity wrapper’ because they enclose or wrap cooking chamber 11, which is analogous to a cavity) and a mixing zone (Fig. 1, vertical mixing channel 21) to be at the rear of the oven (Fig. 1, behind rear wall 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Schmidt to Bae by rearranging Bae’s vertical airflow path to be along the rear of the cavity wrapper and mixing zone to be at the rear of the oven in order to minimize temperatures at the back wall of the kitchen or other cabinets and components, decreasing the risk of fire and electrical damage in harder to reach areas that tend to be cleaned less frequently and are therefore more likely to accumulate dust.
Regarding claim 16, Bae, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving the combined air (From Bae: Fig. 4b, lower flow path 89 and “the second air flow will remove the water vapor inside the cooking chamber 51. The airflow then flows into the lower flow path 89 communicating with the first side flow path 87”) flow into a channel (From Bae: Fig. 4b, channel formed by the outer surface of the bottom wall of cooking chamber 51 and the inner surface of the bottom wall of cavity 50 through which lower flow path 89 flows) extending from the rear of the oven (Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 15. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path extending from the front to the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 15, the channel of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily extend from the rear of the oven to a bottom front of the oven) to a bottom front of the oven (From Bae: Fig. 2, front vent 57 is located at a bottom front of the oven); and exhausting the combined air flow out a front vent of the oven (From Bae: Figs. 2, front vent 57 and “lower flow path 89…is finally exhausted to the outside through the exhaust port 57 at the front end of the lower flow path 89”).
Regarding claim 17, Bae, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising utilizing a top cap (From Bae: Fig. 4b, air duct 79) for directing the second air flow (From Bae: Fig. 4b, first side low path 87. See “The function of the first side flow path 87 is to guide the first air flow discharged through the exhaust hole 52 after the circulation of the cooking chamber 51 to the lower flow path 89”) from an air outlet (From Bae: Fig. 4a, through hole 54 and “flow path formed between the upper panel 53 and the ventilation duct 79 has several through holes 54. The first airflow delivered to the flow path through the through hole is delivered to the cooking chamber 51… the first airflow flowing into the cooking chamber 51 is discharged to the outside of the cooking chamber 51 through the exhaust hole 52.”) defined through a top rear surface (From Bae: Fig. 4a, at least the leftmost through hole 54 is defined through a top rear surface of the cooking chamber 51. In addition, this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 15. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path at the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 15, the air outlets of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily be at the rear of the oven) of the cavity wrapper (From Bae: Figs. 2 and 4b, air duct 79 and walls of cooking chamber 51) into a rear duct assembly (From Bae: Fig. 4b, cavity 50, side conduit 86, and cooking chamber 51 comprise a duct assembly and “The first airflow delivered to the flow path through the through hole is delivered to the cooking chamber 51… the first airflow flowing into the cooking chamber 51 is discharged to the outside of the cooking chamber 51 through the exhaust hole 52.” Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Schmidt in claim 1. To elaborate, given Schmidt teaches an airflow path at the rear of the oven, as explained in claim 1, the duct assembly of Bae in view of Schmidt must necessarily be at the rear of the oven).
Regarding claim 19, Bae, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising utilizing a fan (From Bae: Fig. 4a, exhaust fan 68 and “high-voltage transformer 63 is located close to the exhaust fan 68 on the rear side of the microwave oven among the exhaust fans 67 and 68”) to drive the first air flow to draw heat away from the oven electronics (From Bae: “The second airflow flows leftward through the second row fan 68 to cool the high-voltage transformer 63 and then passes through the heater cover 81. At this time, the second airflow flows in from the vent portion 83 formed on one side of the heater cover 81 and is finally discharged through the vent port 85 formed on the opposite side of the vent portion 83.”).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (CN1712780A) in view of Schmidt (DE2618998A1) and further in view of Newell Jr et al (US 3081763 A, hereafter Newell) and Scherer (US 4163894 A).
Regarding claim 4, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 3.
However, Bae, as modified above, does not disclose insulation formed to surround top, bottom, side, and back walls of the cavity wrapper to reduce heat losses from the oven cavity, wherein the insulation defines a slot to hold the top cap of the cavity wrapper in place to permit passage of the second air flow from the air outlet.
Newell discloses an oven (Col. 1, lines 14-15) similar to the present invention and Newell further discloses it is known for insulation to surround top, bottom, side, and back walls of a cavity wrapper (Fig. 1 and “Insulation 26 must be placed around the oven liner to 35 retain as much of the heat as possible within the oven cavity… A typical insulation is a fiber glass insulation that is formed in batts and is placed against the outer surface of the walls of an oven liner”) to reduce heat losses from a oven cavity (“Insulation 26 must be placed around the oven liner to 35 retain as much of the heat as possible within the oven cavity so that less heat is wasted into the room”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oven of Bae to include the insulation of Newell in order to reduce heat losses (As suggested by Newell: “Insulation 26 must be placed around the oven liner to 35retain as much of the heat as possible within the oven cavity so that less heat is wasted into the room”) and thereby increase energy efficiency and decrease the time needed to bring the oven up to the proper temperature (As suggested by Newell: ” Insulation 26 must be placed around the oven liner to 35 retain as much of the heat as possible within the oven cavity so that less heat is wasted into the room and less time is needed for bringing the oven up to the proper cooking or heat cleaning temperature”)
However, Bae, as modified above, does not disclose the insulation defines a slot to hold a top cap of the cavity wrapper in place to permit passage of the second air flow from the air outlet.
Scherer discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Scherer further discloses it is known for insulation (Figs. 2 and 3, insulation 62) to define a slot (Fig. 3, slot or narrow passage above aperture 60 in which vent tube 58 is positioned) to hold a top cap (Fig. 3, vent tube 58. Vent tube 58 is located at the top of the oven and is a cover or overlaying structure, therefore vent tube 58 a ‘top cap’) of a cavity wrapper (Figs. 2 and 3, liner 56) in place to permit passage of an air flow (Fig. 3, arrows 32, which represent airflow) from an air outlet (Fig. 3, aperture 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Scherer to Bae by adding a slot to support Bae’s top cap in order to receive gases from the cooking chamber and convey them to a duct (As suggested by Scherer: “A vent tube 58 is positioned to receive gases from the eliminator panel 54 through an aperture 60 in the top of oven liner 56… Vent tube 58 enters discharge duct 48 through inlet 47 and discharges oven gases and smoke into duct 48”) and thereby use insulation to prevent heat loss while still enabling gases to exit the oven (As suggested by Scherer: “Vent tube 58 enters discharge duct 48 through inlet 47 and discharges oven gases and smoke into duct 48, where it is diluted and cooled by the air which is introduced by diluter tube 46. The diluted gases then pass through discharge duct 48 and are exhausted out the front of the oven through louvers 64”) to prevent trapped steam from bursting food.
Regarding claim 11, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (CN1712780A)in view of Schmidt (DE2618998A1) and further in view of Armstrong et al (US 20210172610 A1, hereafter Armstrong).
Regarding claim 5, Bae, as modified above, discloses the ventilation system of claim 1.
However, Bae, as modified above, does not disclose one or more humidity sensors located in the second air flow configured to measure humidity of the second air flow before the mixing zone.
Armstrong discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Armstrong further discloses it is known for one humidity sensor (Fig. 11, humidity sensor 110) located in a second air flow (Fig. 11, air flowing through enclosed volume 114, as compared to either of the air flows flowing in transverse direction T) to measure humidity of the second air flow before a mixing zone (Fig. 11, zone after active flow exit 118. See “the active flow may enter sensor enclosure 112 from oven vent 86 or duct 112 through active flow entrance 116 and pass to enclosed volume 114…From enclosed volume 114, the active flow may pass through active flow exit 118 (e.g., to a surrounding portion of cabinet 12). After exiting sensor enclosure 112, the active flow may mix or entrain with a separate airflow (e.g., having exiting duct 112 through the second outlet path 130 of air outlet 126)“).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oven of Bae to include the humidity sensor, controller 58, and display 64 as disclosed by Armstrong in order to measure humidity (As suggested by Armstrong: “humidity sensor 110 may advantageously measure humidity from exhaust flow 90”) and thereby make it easier for the user to cook to their desired preferences and/or cook with recipes that have specific humidity requirements (As suggested by Armstrong: “Controller 58 can also obtain humidity measurements and, for example, provide a humidity indication to the user with display 64.”).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nuss (US 3889099 A) discloses at least a ventilation system for an oven, comprising: a rear duct assembly, including vertical walls defining a vertical air flow path along a rear of a cavity wrapper of the oven wherein the air flow is exhausted out of the oven.
Lee (US 6586716 B1) discloses a ventilation system for an oven, comprising: a rear duct assembly, including a separator plate dividing a vertical air flow path into a first vertical chamber configured to receive a first air flow from oven electronics and a second vertical chamber configured to receive a second air flow from an oven cavity, wherein the separator plate extends vertically downward between the vertical walls from the top of the vertical air flow path for a portion of a height of the oven and the first and second air flows combine into a combined air flow to be exhausted out of the oven.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762