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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Australia Application No. 2020903081, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Figures 19-21B from the drawings and their corresponding description in paragraph 0075 from the specification are present in the Instant Application but are not included in AU2020903081. However, these figures and description were included in the international application- PCT/AU2021/050961. These figures and the paragraph describe the “integrated” gasket that is currently recited in claims 15 and 31. As a result, the effective filing date of claims 15, 17 and 31 is 25 August 2021 (based on the benefit of the filing date for PCT/AU2021/050961). The effective filing date for the remaining claims is 28 August 2020 (based on the benefit of the filing date for AU2020903081).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Heating area 120 and housing 110 are pointing to the same structure in fig. 1.
The aperture 144 is not pointing to an aperture in fig. 11 (e.g., compare with aperture 144 in fig. 7).
Figs. 21A and 21B are not numbered “consecutively” (PCT Rule 11.13.k, MPEP 1825).
Fig. 20b shows a number for a ratio or a scale (1:1), but when a scale is given in a drawing, it shall be represented graphically (PCT Rule 11.13.d, MPEP 1825).
In fig. 18, numerals 182, 183, 186, and 190 do not point to edges. Additionally, numerals 290 and 184 point to the same structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 14, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the first aperture and the second aperture.”
In claims 14 and 28, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the first rib and the second rib.”
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 1-2, 4-7, 11, 13-15, 17, 23-25, 27-28, and 31 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.
Claims 1 and 23 recite “a seat located opposite the inner wall.” It is unclear what the claimed seat is “opposite” to. Initially, the examiner understood this limitation such that bracket is on one side of the inner wall and the seat on the opposite side of the inner wall. However, the drawings show a seat 142 that is on the same side of the inner wall as the bracket 140 (fig. 5 in the Instant application). Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “opposite,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the wall thickness is less than 3 mm,” and the claim also recites “preferably less than 1.5 mm, more preferably about 1.06 mm,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is also not clear what effect a limitation that is preceded by “preferably” has on the claim scope. For the purpose of the examination, claim 4 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring a wall thickness that is less than 3 mm.
Claims 13 and 27 recite “the bracket includes two first apertures.” The scope of these two first apertures is unclear. Claim 13 is dependent on claims 1 and 11. Claim 27 is dependent on claims 24-25. Claims 1 and 24 recite “a first aperture through the bracket to the seat.” Claims 11 and 25 recite “an emitter located adjacent the first aperture” and “a first rib on at least one edge of the first aperture.” Do the two first apertures that are introduced in claims 13 and 27 inherit the attributes for the first aperture that is recited in the earlier claims? Or do only one of these first apertures need to satisfy these limitations from the earlier claims? Or are the first two apertures different two apertures in addition to the one that is introduced in claims 1 and 24? Recommend clarifying the relationship between the “two first apertures” recited in claims 13/27 and the “first aperture” recited in claims 1 and 11 / 24-25.
Claims 14 and 28 recite the limitation "the two first apertures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the claim was amended to introduce “a two first apertures” into the claim, then the claim would have the same uncertainty that is currently in claims 13 and 27. Recommend clarifying the relationship between the “two first apertures” recited in claims 14 and 28 and the “first aperture” recited in claims 1 and 24.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of the examination, the limitation “preferably the gasket is integrated with the seat” will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as merely being a preference and not a limitation for the recited “gasket.”
Claims 2, 5-7, 11, 17, 24-25, and 31 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 1 and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thie et al. (WO-2020000056-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thie teaches a heatable kitchen device (“Toaster,” title) including:
a housing (housing 12, fig. 4) having an outer wall (wall 46, fig. 7) and an inner wall (wall 48, fig. 7; walls 48a and 48b, fig. 55A);
a heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 4) within the housing for receiving foodstuff to be heated (para 0159, page 17);
a heating element (heating elements 28, figs. 1 and 6) located between the heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 6) and the inner wall (inner wall 48, fig. 6);
a bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) mounted to the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A) adjacent the heating area, the bracket including:
a seat (left side assembly 232, annotated fig. 55) located opposite the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A), the seat receiving a sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55);
a first aperture (annotated fig. 55A below) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the first aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A below); and
a second aperture (annotated fig. 55A below) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the second aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A below),
wherein the inner wall has an opening that is larger than the combined areas of the apertures (wall 48b has an opening to accommodate the apertures, annotated fig. 55A) to allow the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Thie, figs. 55 and 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
555
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Thie teaches wherein the first and second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above) have sloped sidewalls (reflector tabs 54, fig. 6; the reflector tabs 54 are construed as being sloped sidewalls for both apertures, i.e., the claim does not require that each aperture have sloped sidewalls), such that the area of the aperture changes from an interior side of the inner wall facing the foodstuff to an exterior side of the inner wall facing the bracket, wherein the sidewalls are sloped such that the area of the apertures at the interior side is larger than the area of the apertures at the exterior side (interior side is larger than exterior side, annotated fig. 6).
Thie, fig. 6 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
554
915
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Amano et al. (GB-2179843-B).
Regarding claim 4, Thie teaches wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are adjacent and separated by a wall with a wall thickness.
Thie, fig. 6 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
605
802
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the wall thickness is less than 3 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the wall thickness is less than 3 mm (“the wall thickness of the inner tube 27 is as "thin as possible, desirably, not more than 0.3mm,” page 17).
Amano, fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
304
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Amano, by using a wall thickness of 0.3 mm, as taught by Amano, for the walls between the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use a wall thickness that efficiently guides the infrared rays to the article being backed but that is not so thin that it is liable to be deformed (Amano, page 17).
Regarding claim 15, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket further includes: a gasket between the seat and the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the bracket further includes: a gasket (case 29, fig. 3; the definition of a gasket is a “shaped piece or ring of rubber or other material sealing the junction between two surfaces in an engine or other device,” page 14; the case is made of plastic and “shields the diodes 36 and 39 from the ambient atmosphere,” page 14; the case 29 seals the diodes 36 and 39 from the outside environment and is construed as being a gasket) between the seat (plate 1, fig. 1) and the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Amano, by using a case 29, as taught by Amano, between the sensor sub-assembly 234 and the sub-assembly bracket 232, as taught by Thie, in order to use an insulating case to surround the electronic components of the sensor to protect the sensor from dust in the ambient atmosphere, which improves the accuracy of detection for the sensor (Amano, page 14).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Thie in view of Amano as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Amano teaches wherein the gasket (case 29, fig. 3) includes an extended portion (cover 33, fig. 3) adapted to engage a hole (hole 38, fig. 3; the cover 33 is joined by a hinge and hinges around or entraps the backside of the construed sensor to secure the sensor, fig. 4; the definition of engage is: “to entangle or entrap in or as if in a snare or bog”) in the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3) to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket (fig. 4), and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly (the cover 33 surrounds the sensor 35-40, fig. 4; construed such that by virtue of surrounding the sensor, the cover prevents light from interfering with the sensor that is inside the case; “insulating case,” page 8).
Claims 5, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes: a spacer to mount the bracket to the inner wall (annotated in fig. 55A below).
Thie, fig. 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
442
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thie does not explicitly disclose to create an airgap between the bracket and the inner wall.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches to create an airgap (“channels” produced by projections 22, which are construed as spacers) between the bracket and the inner wall (wall 10, fig. 14).
Tofaili, fig. 14
PNG
media_image7.png
1173
956
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by creating channels, as taught by Tofaili, between the wall 48 and the bracket sub-assembly 232 using the spacers that are already on the sub-assembly 232, as taught by Thie, in order to provide spacing that for air passages that cool the sensor assembly, preventing the sensor assembly from overheating (Tofaili, para 0015).
Regarding claim 11, Thie teaches wherein the bracket includes a first rib (annotated in fig. 55A below) on at least one edge of the first aperture (bottom edge of the left “first aperture,” annotated in fig. 55A below) to reduce spillage of the test signal from the first aperture (the edge is construed as reducing spillage from the sensors 52 because the edge is part of an aperture that limits the amount of light that is directed from the aperture).
Thie, fig. 55A (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
778
691
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter (LED 43, fig. 13) located adjacent the first aperture (right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area (“light emitted by the LED 43 impinges on the food product being heated,” page 12); and a receiver (sensor 41, fig. 13; “reflected beam then returning to the sensors 40, 41 and 44,” para 0079, page 12; because the beam returns to the sensor, sensor 41 is construed as a receiver) located adjacent the second aperture (second from the right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area (para 0079, page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using LED sensors, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use light sensors that produce a signal that is indicative of a chromatic property of the toast, which can be used to determine the degree to which the bread is toasted (Tofaili, paras 0003 and 0065).
Regarding claim 13, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the second rib includes a single rib extending along an edge of each of the two first apertures and the second aperture (the construed second rib is construed as being a single rib that extends along the top edge of the first apertures and second aperture, fig. 55A annotated) and the bracket includes two first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the two first apertures each have a vertical edge on a side opposite the second aperture (please see annotated fig. 55A above; the construed “vertical edges” are on the outer sides of the two first apertures), the vertical edge being unobstructed by the first and second rib (the vertical edges are vertical and the first and second ribs are horizontal, annotated fig. 5A above; the vertical edges are construed as not obstructing the horizontal ribs).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A).
Regarding claim 6, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing further includes: a lower air volume between the inner wall and the outer wall below the sensor assembly; and an upper air volume above the sensor assembly, wherein the bracket has a channel connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume, the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the housing (outer housing of fig. 1) further includes: a lower air volume (annotated in fig. 1 below) between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) below the sensor assembly (sensing element 1, fig. 1); and an upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 below; similar to how the “upper air volume” is described in in paragraph 0069 of the specification in the Instant Application as extending into the heating area, the upper air volume is construed as extending into the space of the heating area, as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) above the sensor assembly (the left end of the construed “upper air volume” is above sensing element 1, fig. 1), wherein the bracket has a channel (upward flow channel 5a, fig. 1) connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume (as shown in fig. 1), the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly (“path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image9.png
521
451
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22, as taught by Thie, in order to using an air current that cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the heating area is at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 7, Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper air volume is located in the heating area and the inner wall has a second opening above the opening, the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located in the heating area (area where the item 9 is heated, fig. 1) and the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) has a second opening above the opening (annotated in fig. 1 above), the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L into the sensing element and out through the toasting chamber 25, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22 that exhausts into the two toasting areas 25A and 25B, as taught by Thie, in order to create an air current that exits through the toasting areas, where the air current cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the toasting areas are at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Claims 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A).
Regarding claim 18, Thie teaches a heatable kitchen device (“Toaster,” title) including:
a housing (housing 12, fig. 4) having an outer wall (wall 46, fig. 7) and an inner wall (wall 48, fig. 7; walls 48a and 48b, fig. 55A);
a heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 4) within the housing for receiving foodstuff to be heated (para 0159, page 17);
a heating element (heating elements 28, figs. 1 and 6) located between the heating area (cavities 25a and 25b, fig. 6) and the inner wall (inner wall 48, fig. 6);
a bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) mounted to the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A) adjacent the heating area, the bracket being configured to receive a sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55) positioned for detecting a property of the foodstuff within the heating area (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Thie does not explicitly disclose the housing further having a lower air volume between the inner wall and the outer wall below the sensor assembly and an upper air volume above the sensor assembly; wherein, the bracket has a channel connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume, the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches the housing (outer housing of fig. 1) further having a lower air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) below the sensor assembly (sensing element 1, fig. 1); and an upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above; similar to how the “upper air volume” is described in in paragraph 0069 of the specification in the Instant Application as extending into the heating area, the upper air volume is construed as extending into the space of the heating area, as shown in annotated fig. 1 above) above the sensor assembly (the left end of the construed “upper air volume” is above sensing element 1, fig. 1), wherein the bracket has a channel (upward flow channel 5a, fig. 1) connecting the lower air volume to the upper air volume (as shown in fig. 1), the channel being in thermal communication with the sensor assembly (“path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22, as taught by Thie, in order to using an air current that cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the heating area is at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 20, Thie teaches wherein the inner wall has an opening (wall 48b has an opening, annotated fig. 55A above) allowing the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper air volume is located in the heating area and the inner wall has a second opening above the opening, the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Mothrath teaches wherein the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located in the heating area (area where the item 9 is heated, fig. 1) and the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) has a second opening above the opening (annotated in fig. 1 above), the second opening connecting the heating area to the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) such that air from the channel is able to flow into the heating area and the upper air volume, thereby drawing air from the lower air volume into the channel (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Mothrath, by creating channels 5a and 5b for flowing an air current L into the sensing element and out through the toasting chamber 25, as taught by Mothrath, within the interior 22 that exhausts into the two toasting areas 25A and 25B, as taught by Thie, in order to create an air current that exits through the toasting areas, where the air current cools the sensing element to a temperature between 50-70°C, even though the toasting areas are at a temperature of about 900°C, for the advantage of inhibiting the conduction of heat, which can overheat the electronic sensing element (Mothrath, column 3, lines 50-63).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Thie in view of Mothrath as set forth above regarding claim 20 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Mothrath teaches the upper air volume (annotated in fig. 1 above) is located between the inner wall (wall 6, fig. 1) and the outer wall (outer casing wall 2, fig. 1) and the channel (channel 5a, fig. 1) includes: a channel extension at an end (bottom end of channel 5a, fig. 1) of the channel extending vertically into the upper air volume (the construed channel extension in annotated in fig. 1 below).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image10.png
521
490
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Thie in view of Mothrath as set forth above regarding claim 20 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Mothrath teaches wherein the channel extension (the construed channel extension in annotated in fig. 1 below) has two or more side walls, a first side wall being provided by the bracket (the first side wall is annotated below; provided on the right side of the bracket that holds the sensing element 1, annotated fig. 1) and a second side wall being provided by the inner wall (the second side wall is annotated below; provided on the left side of the wall 6, which is construed as the claimed “inner wall,” annotated fig. 1), so that heat is transferred from the heating area through the inner wall to the channel extension (“The air current L flowing in flow channel 5a, 5b enters the toasting chamber 25 through an outlet opening 15 provided at the base of the partition wall 6,” column 2, lines 51-54; “The path of the air current L affords the further advantage of also cooling the sensing element 1,” column 3, lines 60-61; construed such that heat ls transferred from the sensor across the wall 6 to the outlet 15 in the chamber 25 as a result of the air current).
Regarding claim 24, Thie teaches wherein the bracket (sensor sub-assembly 232, fig. 55A) includes: a seat (left side assembly 232, annotated fig. 55) located opposite the inner wall (inner wall 48a, fig. 55A), the seat being configured for receiving the sensor assembly (sensor sub-assembly component 234, fig. 55);
a first aperture (annotated fig. 55A above) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the first aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above); and
a second aperture (annotated fig. 55A above) through the bracket to the seat (the apertures extend through the sub-assembly 232 to the left side to receive the sensors 52, figs. 55-55A), the second aperture having an area (cross sectional area of annotated “first aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above),
wherein the opening in the inner wall is larger than the combined areas of the apertures (wall 48b has an opening to accommodate the apertures, annotated fig. 55A) to allow the sensor assembly to detect a property of the foodstuff (fig. 6; para 0164, page 20).
Mothrath, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image11.png
521
506
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A) as applied to claims 20 and 22-24 above and further in view of Tofaili et al. (WO-2018107206-A1).
Regarding claim 25, Thie teaches wherein the bracket includes a first rib (annotated in fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the first aperture (bottom edge of the left “first aperture,” annotated in fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of the test signal from the first aperture (the edge is construed as reducing spillage from the sensors 52 because the edge is part of an aperture that limits the amount of light that is directed from the aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter located adjacent the first aperture so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area; and a receiver located adjacent the second aperture so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes: an emitter (LED 43, fig. 13) located adjacent the first aperture (right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to emit a test signal to the foodstuff in the heating area (“light emitted by the LED 43 impinges on the food product being heated,” page 12); and a receiver (sensor 41, fig. 13; “reflected beam then returning to the sensors 40, 41 and 44,” para 0079, page 12; because the beam returns to the sensor, sensor 41 is construed as a receiver) located adjacent the second aperture (second from the right aperture 47, fig. 13) so as to receive the test signal when reflected by the foodstuff in the heating area (para 0079, page 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using LED sensors, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to use light sensors that produce a signal that is indicative of a chromatic property of the toast, which can be used to determine the degree to which the bread is toasted (Tofaili, paras 0003 and 0065).
Regarding claim 27, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the second rib includes a single rib extending along an edge of each of the two first apertures and the second aperture (the construed second rib is construed as being a single rib that extends along the top edge of the first apertures and second aperture, fig. 55A annotated) and the bracket includes two first apertures (annotated in fig. 55A above), the first apertures being located on opposite sides of the second aperture (annotated in fig. 55A above; the construed first apertures are on either side of the second aperture).
Thie does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Tofaili teaches wherein the sensor assembly includes two emitters (two light emitting diodes 210, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Thie, in view of the teachings of Tofaili, by using two outer LEDs and an inner detector, as taught by Tofaili, as the sensors 52, as taught by Thie, in order to detect the light from two different LEDs striking at two different locations on the bread, for the advantage of using chromatic measurements represent different locations, ensuring that the bread is evenly toasted at different locations (Tofaili, para 0062; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Thie teaches wherein the bracket further includes a second rib (please see annotated fig. 55A above) on at least one edge of the second aperture (top edge of the construed “second aperture,” annotated fig. 55A above) to reduce spillage of an unreflected test signal to the receiver (the top edge of the aperture is construed as limiting the amount of light that is directed through the aperture), and wherein the two first apertures each have a vertical edge on a side opposite the second aperture (please see annotated fig. 55A above; the construed “vertical edges” are on the outer sides of the two first apertures), the vertical edge being unobstructed by the first and second rib (the vertical edges are vertical and the first and second ribs are horizontal, annotated fig. 5A above; the vertical edges are construed as not obstructing the horizontal ribs).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thie et al (WO-2020000056-A1) in view of Mothrath et al. (US-4913046-A) as applied to claims 20 and 22-24 above and further in view of Amano et al. (GB-2179843-B).
Thie teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket further includes a gasket between the seat and the sensor assembly, and the gasket is integrated with the seat, wherein the gasket includes an extended portion adapted to engage a hole in the sensor assembly to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket, and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heatable kitchen devices, Amano teaches wherein the bracket further includes a gasket (case 29, fig. 3; the definition of a gasket is a “shaped piece or ring of rubber or other material sealing the junction between two surfaces in an engine or other device,” page 14; the case is made of plastic and “shields the diodes 36 and 39 from the ambient atmosphere,” page 14; the case 29 seals the diodes 36 and 39 from the outside environment and is construed as being a gasket) between the seat (plate 1, fig. 1) and the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3), and the gasket is integrated with the seat (“the outer tube 28 and the case 29 are fixed to the main plate 1 with the screws 30.,” page 9; using screws is construed as being “integrated;” “integrated” is defined as “incorporated into a larger unit”), wherein the gasket (case 29, fig. 3) includes an extended portion (cover 33, fig. 3) adapted to engage a hole (hole 38, fig. 3; the cover 33 is joined by a hinge and hinges around or entraps the backside of the construed sensor to secure the sensor, fig. 4; the definition of engage is: “to entangle or entrap in or as if in a snare or bog”) in the sensor assembly (35-40, fig. 3) to locate the sensor assembly relative to the gasket (fig. 4), and wherein the extended portion is located to reduce interference between an emitter and a receiver of the sensor assembly (the cover 33 surrounds the sensor 35-40, fig. 4; construed such that by virtue of surrounding the sensor, the cover prevents light from interfering with the sensor that is inside the case; “insulating case,” page 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (US-20130319254-A1) teach a gasket for a bread maker.
Carcano et al. (US-20180152997-A1) teach a gasket for an oven.
Siu et al. (US-20210259460-A1) teach an insulation seal for a sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/12/2026