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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1–18, in the reply filed on 5 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COOKING APPLIANCE WITH AREA TEMPERATURE CONTROL.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 94 of the submitted specification, “first reflector 11” should be “first reflector 111.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 provides for “a plurality of holes through which the heat generated by the plurality of heaters passes and the heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors.” The grammar at the end of the passage is not right. The Office guesses that the passage should say instead, perhaps, “a plurality of holes through which the heat generated by the plurality of heaters passes and the heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors passes,” or, ” a plurality of holes through which the heat generated by the plurality of heaters, and the heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors, passes
In claim 11, “comprise” should be “comprises.”
Claim 13 recites, “wherein at least one of the plurality of reflectors is bent in a U-shape around the plurality of heaters.” This passage is clearly improperly drafted, and should be amended such that it’s clear that a single reflector is bent around only one of the plurality of reflectors.
Claim 18, line 1, should be amended to recite “reflectors.”
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the first direction,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it is introduced in claim 3, while this claim depends from claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cheng et al. (US Pub. 2019/0141798) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2001/0032838).
Claim 1: Cheng discloses a cooking appliance (500) comprising:
a cooking chamber (502);
a shelf (516) disposed in the cooking chamber and comprising a plurality of cooking areas (shown in fig. 5C); and
a plurality of heaters (506A–506C) mounted at one portion of the cooking chamber (see fig. 5A), spaced apart from one another (ibid.) to correspond to the plurality of cooking areas, respectively, and independently controlled to generate heat (¶ 90, “The computing device can configure the heating elements to apply, simultaneously or sequentially, different heating patterns to different zones on the cooking platform by supplying different amount of power and/or emission spectral power distributions to different heating elements”).
Cheng does not disclose a heat-reflecting plate comprising a plurality of reflectors respectively accommodating the corresponding plurality of heaters therein, and to reflect the heat generated by the plurality of heaters to the corresponding plurality of cooking areas to generate a temperature difference among the plurality of cooking areas. Instead, Cheng only discloses individual reflectors that are either merged with the individual heaters (see 511 in fig. 5A), or are separate therefrom but still not depicted as part of a plate (see the reflectors depicted in figs. 10A–D, 14, and 17A–B).
However, Kim discloses a similar apparatus with a heat-reflecting plate (20-1) comprising a plurality of reflectors (ascertainable from fig. 3) respectively accommodating a corresponding plurality of heaters (10-2) therein, and to reflect the heat generated by the plurality of heaters (see ¶ 27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either conjoin the separate heat-reflectors shown in Cheng to a plate like that shown in Kim, or to simply replace the individual reflectors of Cheng with the heat-reflecting plate of Kim, to provide a unitary structure that could be conveniently mounted to provide a reflection for all of the heating elements, and/or to add more reflection surfaces at the bottom of the plate for decreased absorption of thermal energy by the ceiling of the appliance.
Claim 2: Cheng modified by Kim discloses that the plurality of reflectors are formed by bending the heat-reflecting plate (the reflectors 20-1 of Kim qualify as bended) and have a curved surface with an open portion, to accommodate the corresponding plurality of reflectors therein, respectively (Cheng’s reflectors shown in figs. 10A–D are curved; Cheng generally teaches that the “directionality of the emitted waves can be enabled by the shape and/or location of the reflector 511” (¶ 98), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate the desired heat directionality given the different reflector shapes, and to choose a curved surface reflector where such a directionality was appropriate).
Comment: Park (KR 1999-0039008 A) conveniently shows different heat directionalities of differently-shaped reflectors (see fig. 3).
Claim 3: Cheng modified by Kim would disclose that the heat-reflecting plate further comprises a plurality of connectors extending in a first direction to connect the plurality of reflectors adjacent to each other (i.e. the horizontal extent between the cavities of 20-1 that accommodate each of 20-2 in Kim would be further duplicated for a further cavity to accommodate all three of the upper heaters shown in fig. 5A of Cheng)
Cheng modified by Kim does not explicitly disclose that a length of each of the plurality of connectors is greater than a length of the open portion of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the size of the cavity and the size and positioning of the heaters of an apparatus like Cheng may be such that there would be a great space between the heaters (as the heaters would be able to output enough heat constructed as such, similar to the relative sizes and spacings shown in fig. 5A of Cheng), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the heaters of Cheng to an appropriately sized and dimensioned heat-reflecting plate similar to what is discussed in Kim including by constructing it such that a length of each of the plurality of connectors would be greater than a length of the open portion of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction to accommodate for the possible fact that the heaters were far from each other.
Comment: Although Kalayci et al. (WO 2007/141304 A2) does not describe its drawings being to-scale, its figures provide a helpful depiction of the relative size and positioning of heating elements with reflectors that could be the case with Cheng modified by Kim.
Claim 4: Cheng modified by Kim discloses that a direction where the plurality of heaters are spaced apart is the first direction (i.e. the width direction of fig. 2 of Kim), the plurality of heaters extend in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (i.e. the depth direction of the heaters of fig. 5A of Cheng or fig. 3 of Kim), and the plurality of reflectors respectively reflect the heat generated by the plurality of heaters to the plurality of cooking areas through the open portion (clearly appreciable from fig. 3 of Kim).
Claim 5: Cheng modified by Kim does not disclose that the plurality of reflectors comprise: a first reflector and a second reflector symmetrically formed to be adjacent to a central region of the heat-reflecting plate: and a third reflector and a fourth reflector symmetrically formed at end regions of the heat-reflecting plate.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the high degree of predictability regarding the placement of the heaters and the heat-reflecting plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discern an appropriate number of heaters and corresponding positions given the size of the chamber and the required heat output from the heaters, including where such would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at four symmetrical reflectors as claimed.
Claim 7: Cheng does not disclose a heater housing disposed at one portion of the cooking chamber to accommodate to the plurality of heaters and the heat-reflecting plate, wherein the heat-reflecting plate is disposed between the plurality of heaters and the heater housing.
However, Kim discloses a heater housing disposed at one end of the cooking chamber to accommodate its plurality of heaters and the heat-reflecting plate (one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand fig. 2 to be a view of the apparatus with an exterior casing removed, said exterior casing defined by the topmost point of the apparatus to the front; this is also mostly suggested by fig. 1 showing the conventional art),
wherein the heat-reflecting plate is disposed between the plurality of heaters and the heater housing (evident from fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a heater housing like that suggested by Kim into Cheng at least to insulate the heat that would escape beyond the heat-reflecting plate and help keep it within the appliance.
Comment: Byun (US Pub. 2008/0296292) much more clearly shows an element that qualifies as a heater housing as claimed (either 47 or 48, see figs. 3 and 6).
Claim 8: Modified as per claim 7 above, Kim discloses the plurality of heaters penetrate the heater housing (i.e. they are above the bottom of the space that would define that heater housing).
Claim 10: Cheng does not disclose a heater cover disposed between the plurality of heaters and the cooking chamber and haying a plurality of holes through which the heat generated by the plurality of heaters passes and the heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors.
However, Kim discloses a heater cover (20-3) disposed between the plurality of heaters and the cooking chamber (evident from figs. 2 and 3) and having a plurality of holes through which the heat generated by the plurality of heaters passes and the heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors (¶ 19, “penetration holes”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install the heater cover of Kim along with its heat-reflecting plate into Cheng to protect the heaters.
Comment: Kim only explicitly mentions its filter 20-4 being for protecting its heaters (see ¶ 30), but it seems that the mesh also has this purpose, since the filter 20-4 is fragile and made of “ceramic or glass ceramic material” (¶ 30). Heater covers having a plurality of holes as claimed are common in the art.
Claim 11: Modified as per claim 10 above, Kim does not disclose that its heater cover comprises an aluminum material.
However, Cheng’s discloses its own similar element with its perforated metal sheets 512 (described in ¶ 97 as either removeable or affixed panels, and being for shielding certain food items from intense radiant heat, though Cheng does not clearly show these being disposed between the plurality of heaters and the cooking chamber since their place in the cooking chamber is unclear), which are made of aluminum (¶ 97, “aluminum foil”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the aluminum taught by Cheng as a known and appropriate material for the heater cover of Kim (which would be implemented into Cheng as per above).
Claim 12: Cheng discloses that each of the plurality of heaters have different internal resistances along the extending direction (see fig. 5D showing one example heater with a filament that has an increasingly extending length in an extending direction, thereby resulting in increased internal resistance the further leftward it goes).
Claim 14: Cheng discloses that the plurality of cooking areas are partitioned along the first direction (evident from 506 in fig. 5A), and the plurality of reflectors are spaced apart along the first direction to correspond to the plurality of cooking areas, respectively (following naturally from ¶ 90, “The computing device can configure the heating elements to apply, simultaneously or sequentially, different heating patterns to different zones on the cooking platform by supplying different amount of power and/or emission spectral power distributions to different heating elements”).
Claim 15: Cheng does not disclose that a distance between the plurality of reflectors in the first direction is greater than a length of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the size of the cavity and the size and positioning of the heaters of an apparatus like Cheng may be such that there would be a great space between the heaters (as the heaters would be able to output enough heat constructed as such, similar to the relative sizes and spacings shown in fig. 5A of Cheng), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the heaters of Cheng to an appropriately sized and dimensioned heat-reflecting plate similar to what is discussed in Kim including by constructing it such that a distance between the plurality of the reflectors would be greater than a length of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction to accommodate for the possible fact that the heaters were far from each other.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Byun (US Pub. 2008/0296292).
Although the term “coupler” has some breadth, Cheng modified by Kim arguably does not disclose that the heat-reflecting plate further comprises a plurality of couplers respectively extending outward from the third reflector and the fourth reflector and formed at opposite ends of the heat-reflecting plate.
However, Byun disclose structure highly similar to what is disclosed in Kim, including a reflection plate 44 with a plurality of couplers respectively extending outward from the ends of the reflectors (fixing flanges 45, including e.g. through-holes 45H).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the plurality of couplers taught by Byun to the third and fourth reflectors arrived at via Cheng and Kim as a known type of structure for securing the heat-reflecting plate to the overall appliance.
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Mizuta et al. (US Pub. 2019/0021142) and Kim.
Claim 16: Cheng discloses a cooking appliance (500) comprising:
a cooking chamber (502);
a shelf (516) disposed in the cooking chamber, the shelf having a plurality of cooking areas (shown in fig. 5C);
a plurality of heaters (506A–C) spaced apart along a first direction (appreciable from fig. 5A); and
a plurality of reflectors (e.g. reflectors 1006A–D shown in figs. 10A–D, as an alternative design to reflector coating 511 for fig. 5A) having an open curved surface (ibid.),
wherein the plurality of heaters are independently controlled and heat reflected by the plurality of reflectors is supplied to the corresponding plurality of cooking areas (¶ 90, “The computing device can configure the heating elements to apply, simultaneously or sequentially, different heating patterns to different zones on the cooking platform by supplying different amount of power and/or emission spectral power distributions to different heating elements”).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose that its shelf is withdrawable from the cooking chamber.
However, Mizuta discloses a similar apparatus with a shelf (8) that is withdrawable from its cooking chamber (7; see figs. 2–4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the shelf of Cheng withdrawable, as taught by Mizuta, so that a user could conveniently clean it.
Cheng does not disclose a heat-reflecting plate comprising its a plurality of reflectors.
However, Kim discloses a similar apparatus with a heat-reflecting plate (20-1) comprising a plurality of reflectors (ascertainable from fig. 3) respectively accommodating a corresponding plurality of heaters (10-2) therein.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either conjoin the separate heat-reflectors shown in Cheng to a plate like that shown in Kim, or to simply replace the individual reflectors of Cheng with the heat-reflecting plate of Kim, to provide a unitary structure that could be conveniently mounted to provide a reflection for all of the heating elements, and/or to add more reflection surfaces at the bottom of the plate for decreased absorption of thermal energy by the ceiling of the appliance.
Claim 17: Cheng modified by Kim would disclose that the heat-reflecting plate further comprises a plurality of connectors extending in a first direction to connect the plurality of reflectors adjacent to each other (i.e. the horizontal extent between the cavities of 20-1 that accommodate each of 20-2 in Kim would be further duplicated for a further cavity to accommodate all three of the upper heaters shown in fig. 5A of Cheng)
Cheng modified by Kim does not explicitly disclose that a length of each of the plurality of connectors is greater than a length of the open curved surface of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the size of the cavity and the size and positioning of the heaters of an apparatus like Cheng may be such that there would be a great space between the heaters (as the heaters would be able to output enough heat constructed as such, similar to the relative sizes and spacings shown in fig. 5A of Cheng), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the heaters of Cheng to an appropriately sized and dimensioned heat-reflecting plate similar to what is discussed in Kim including by constructing it such that a length of each of the plurality of connectors would be greater than a length of the open curved surface of each of the plurality of reflectors in the first direction to accommodate for the possible fact that the heaters were far from each other.
Comment: Although Kalayci et al. (WO 2007/141304 A2) does not describe its drawings being to-scale, its figures provide a helpful depiction of the relative size and positioning of heating elements with reflectors that could be the case with Cheng modified by Kim.
Claim 18: Cheng modified by Kim does not disclose that the plurality of reflectors comprises a first reflector and a second reflector symmetrically formed to be adjacent to a central region of the heat-reflecting plate: and a third reflector and a fourth reflector symmetrically formed at end regions of the heat-reflecting plate.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the high degree of predictability regarding the placement of the heaters and the heat-reflecting plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discern an appropriate number of heaters and corresponding positions given the size of the chamber and the required heat output from the heaters, including where such would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at four symmetrical reflectors as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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:
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of the claim are too specific and are not disclosed in the prior art. Byun seems to disclose a central planar coupler, but claim 7 from which 9 depends requires that the heater housing be above the heat-reflecting plate, which means the way in which Byun’s central coupler could couple to a lower surface couldn’t qualify.
Jolly (FR 2689214 A1), see fig. 1) discloses more what is claimed in claim 9 since its heat-reflector plate 3 seems to have a coupling point at its middle (where 26 interacts between 25 and the heater housing 2). However, firstly, there is no evidence that this coupler would be planar, but more importantly, secondly, Jolly’s heater arrangement is highly particular and is meant to be placed over a pot, which is far different from the ovens of Cheng, Kim, and Byun. Jolly’s own more oven-like embodiment (figs. 3 and 4) does not have the coupler feature, likely because the heater housing and associated components can be more robust. Jolly’s coupling is likely meant to compensate for the structural weakness of its reflector, which is likely lighter given its atypical application. It seems less than likely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have rendered Jolly’s coupling point planar and modified the heater housing of Kim or Byun to have a protrusion extending downward to the reflector without the benefit of impermissible hindsight. Furthermore, Jolly has other structural differences which make it inapplicable to combine solely the downwardly extending protrusion from its heater housing with the heater housing of Kim or Byun, namely the way its reflector plate floats.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does disclose or suggest the claimed feature, which is perhaps best illustrated with the open ends of 100 in fig. 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761