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 .
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims recite “a multifunctional oven” however, neither the word “multifunctional” nor the phrase “multifunctional oven” appears anywhere in the specification. Applicant’s specification, at para. [0002], makes reference to prior art (US 9,980,606 B2) which discloses a multipurpose cooking appliance (or stated otherwise, a multipurpose food cooker) such as a cooking appliance that offers multiple cooking surfaces, e.g., a user can chose to bake, grill, or smoke food – all with the same appliance. For purposes of this office action the various recitations of “a multifunctional oven” are interpreted to mean a multipurpose cooking appliance, consistent with Applicant’s specification. The Examiner respectfully suggest amending the claims to recite terminology found in the specification rather than an alternative term or phrase which is not found in the specification in order to avoid indefiniteness concerns and questions concerning possession of the invention (i.e., potential 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections).
Claim 17 recites “a [[drip-cup]] tray being removably coupled to the collapsible unit such that debris from the top may be collected in one place for simple disposal.” However, the term “tray” is not found in the specification. It appears, based on the specification and some of the other claims, that Applicant is interchangeably reciting the terms “drip-cup” and “tray” for the same element. For purposes of this office action the recitation of “a tray”, in independent Claim 17, is interpreted to be equivalent to a drip-cup, consistent with Applicant’s specification and independent claims 1 and 10. The Examiner respectfully suggest amending the claims to recite terminology found in the specification rather than an alternative term or phrase which is not found in the specification in order to avoid indefiniteness concerns and questions concerning possession of the invention (i.e., potential 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections).
Claim Objections
Canceled Claims 4 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the text of the canceled claims should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite “the cooker” in the last clause of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on Applicant’s amendments, it appears the limitation “the cooker” should have been amended to “the multifunctional oven” therefore for purposes of this office action the Examiner interprets “the cooker” as if reciting “the multifunctional oven”. However, note the comments made in the claim interpretation section above for an future amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,714,013 (hereinafter “TELFER”) in view of US 2,646,031 (hereinafter “WAGNER”) and KR 20090028748 A (hereinafter “CHO”) and US 6,205,995 B1 (hereinafter “ODENWALD”).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
1533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, TELFER discloses a multifunctional oven apparatus comprising: a collapsible unit (10) having at least four walls (15, 16, 17, 18), a top (70), and a bottom (30) that are all mechanically coupled together (see hinges 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 71); said top (70) being constructed of a flat surface that is mechanically coupled (see 71) to at least one of the at least four walls (18) such that it may be folded adjacent to the at least four walls when the walls are collapsed (see Fig. 2, see also Col. 5, Lns. 19-24: “When the cooking unit 10 is folded to a retracted state, the bottom panel 30 pivots inwardly about the hinge 31 away from the flanges 35. The bottom panel 30 is adjacent the inside wall of the side panel 16. The top panel 70 is pivoted outwardly about the hinge 71 and is adjacent to the outer wall of the side panel 18.”); said bottom (30) being constructed as a flat surface that counter recesses inside the at least four walls to add support to the multifunctional oven apparatus when operating (see Col. 3, Lns. 57-62: “When the cooking unit 10 is in the extended state, the bottom panel 30 seats on the flange 35 in abutting relation with the panels 15, 17 and 18. The bottom panel 30 serves as a brace for the side panels 16-18 to improve the sturdiness of the cooking unit 10.”); and a handle (60; see the embodiment of Fig. 5) mechanically coupled to the collapsible unit such that a user can lift the cooker apparatus while the multifunctional oven apparatus is in operation (see Col. 2, Lns. 31-33: “The bail wire handle may be oriented vertically so that the cooking unit may be suspended by the handle.”).
TELFER does not explicitly disclose that said top being constructed of a flat cooking surface; said bottom having at least one support structure mechanically coupled, the at least one support structure being mechanically coupled to the bottom such that the multifunctional oven apparatus is stable when freely standing; a drip-cup is removably coupled to the collapsible unit such that debris from the top may be collected in one place for simple disposal.
WAGNER teaches a similar collapsible cooking device wherein a top (50) is constructed of a flat cooking surface (see Col. 2, Lns. 47-51: “A top panel 50 of sheet metal …provides a hot plate upon which food may be broiled, or a cooking utensil supported.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
742
1396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify TELFER wherein said top is constructed of a flat cooking surface as taught and/or suggested by WAGNER, since such a modification would use said top for an alternative useful purpose (i.e., both as a cover or lid and also as a cooking surface) thereby enhancing the operational function of said top.
CHO teaches a similar collapsible cooking device wherein a bottom (see 1, 11) having at least one support structure (12) mechanically coupled, the at least one support structure being mechanically coupled to the bottom such that the multifunctional oven apparatus is stable when freely standing (see at least Figs. 1-3 and 5-6).
PNG
media_image3.png
1104
2167
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify TELFER in view of WAGNER wherein said bottom has at least one support structure mechanically coupled, the at least one support structure being mechanically coupled to the bottom such that the multifunctional oven apparatus is stable when freely standing as taught and/or suggested by CHO, since such a modification would at a minimum elevate said multifunctional oven to a more user friendly height such that a user can more easily utilize said multifunctional oven. In addition, the provision of outwardly pivoting support legs (i.e., the claimed at least one support structure) which extend laterally outward from the vertical plane of at least two of the four walls would provide a wider and more stable supporting structure in comparison to an absence to said legs thereby enhancing the overall stability of said multifunctional oven when in use.
ODENWALD teaches a portable cooking apparatus a drip-cup (25) is removably coupled to the cooking apparatus (10) such that debris from the top (21) may be collected in one place for simple disposal (see Col. 4, Lns. 25-28: “A receptacle 25 is removably mounted to the first one 13 of the side walls of the carrying case 11 for receiving juices and fats from the foods being cooked upon the griddle member 21.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
900
1120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify TELFER in view of WAGNER and CHO to further comprise a drip-cup is removably coupled to the collapsible unit such that debris from the top may be collected in one place for simple disposal as taught and/or suggested by ODENWALD, since such a modification would provide a means for collecting juices, fats and/or other debris produced while cooking food on said top for convenient disposal rather than simply allowing said juices, fats and/or other debris to spill over the sides of said top thereby preserving the overall cleanliness and aesthetic appearance of said multifunctional oven.
Regarding Claim 2, the additional claimed limitation(s) is/are disclosed by TELFER in view of WAGNER. See TELFER’s flat top (70) having a hinge (71). WAGNER teaches a flat top (50) of a collapsible cooking device used as a cooking surface.
Regarding Claim 3, the additional claimed limitation(s) is/are disclosed by TELFER in view of CHO. See TEFLER’s bottom (30) comprising a hinge (31) and counter-recessed to add support to the collapsible unit (see Col. 3, Lns. 57-62: “When the cooking unit 10 is in the extended state, the bottom panel 30 seats on the flange 35 in abutting relation with the panels 15, 17 and 18. The bottom panel 30 serves as a brace for the side panels 16-18 to improve the sturdiness of the cooking unit 10.”). The retractable legs limitation is taught by CHO (see CHO’s retractable legs 12).
Regarding Claim 6, the additional claimed limitation(s) is/are disclosed by TELFER, see hinges (25, 26).
Regarding Claim 9, the additional claimed limitation(s) is/are disclosed by TELFER, specifically the handle (60) having a grip portion not touching the at least four walls of the collapsible unit; see Fig. 5.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,698,376 (hereinafter “WEBB”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD does not disclose wherein one of the at least four walls of the collapsible unit comprises a removable sheet wherein internal arrangement of the multifunctional oven apparatus can be exposed; including at least one adjustable rack disposed internally to the multifunctional oven apparatus.
WEBB teaches a similar multifunctional oven wherein one of the at least four walls (see 17, 18) of the collapsible unit (10) comprises a removable sheet (54) wherein internal arrangement of the multifunctional oven apparatus can be exposed; including at least one adjustable rack (see 33, 34, 35, 50, 51, 47 and 48) disposed internally to the multifunctional oven apparatus (10).
PNG
media_image5.png
607
842
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD wherein one of the at least four walls of the collapsible unit comprises a removable sheet wherein internal arrangement of the multifunctional oven apparatus can be exposed; including at least one adjustable rack disposed internally to the multifunctional oven apparatus as taught and/or suggested by WEBB, since incorporating said removable sheet would provide an additional means by which the interior of the multifunctional oven can be accessed or observed thus providing greater flexibility with regard to moving items into or out of said multifunctional oven and with regard to observing a cooking or heating process taking place with said multifunctional oven; and since incorporating said at least one adjustable rack would provide a means of supporting oven racks at different heights within said multifunctional oven in order to facilitate regulation of the distance between items being cooked or heated and a heat source, as well as providing a better means to vertically and horizontally organize items being cooked or heated within said multifunctional oven.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,752,470 (hereinafter “KONEKE”).
Regarding Claim 8, TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD does not disclose wherein the top includes at least one tab for lifting the top from the at least four walls of the collapsible unit.
KONEKE, with reference to Figs. 5 & 6, teaches a similar collapsible structure wherein a top (76) includes at least one tab (see 76d or 76e) for lifting the top from at least four walls (see F3, F4, 72, 74 ) of the collapsible unit (70) .
PNG
media_image6.png
742
1274
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO and ODENWALD wherein the top includes at least one tab for lifting the top from the at least four walls of the collapsible unit as taught and/or suggested by KONEKE, since KONEKE states at Col. 3, Lns. 58-62: “Two optional horizontally extending wings 76d, 76e at the front sides 76f, 76g of the lid 76 stop the lid 76 from going too far down into the pet playhouse structure 70, and wings 76d, 76e facilitate as lift tabs to collapse pet playhouse structure 70 for storage.” Therefore, modifying TELFER to further comprise said at least one tab would ensure that said top is supported in its intended position when said collapsible unit is in an erected state and said at least one tab would also facilitate the lifting of said top when it is desired to collapse said collapsible unit. In addition, said at least one tab would facilitate the lifting of said top in order to provide physical and/or visual access to the interior of said multifunctional oven when in an operational/erected state.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO, ODENWALD and KONEKE.
Regarding Claims 10-12, 15, 17 and 19, TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO, ODENWALD and KONEKE discloses the claimed limitations as is evident from the discussion of the references above. In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO, ODENWALD and KONEKE as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of WEBB.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, TELFER in view of WAGNER, CHO, ODENWALD, KONEKE and WEBB discloses the claimed limitations as is evident from the discussion of the references above (in particular, see the discussion of Claims 5 & 7 above). In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Barrett can be reached on (571) 272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799