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 .
Claims 16-35 are currently pending. Claims 27-28 and 35 are objected to. Claims 16-26 and 29-34 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6 of the response, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to the objection of Claims 21-22 and rejection of Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of Claims 21-22 and rejection of Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7-12 of the response, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 16 and 34, as best understood, Applicant interprets the “frame” for Nam et al. (US 2007/0251936 A1) to encompass both portions (542) and (544). The Office does not believe to be the only interpretation of Nam. The previous action interpreted (542) of Nam to be the frame (see Pg. 3-4 of the Non-Final filed January 27, 2026). (542) and (544) are illustrate as separate parts in cited Figures 9-10. Paragraph [0151] also describes the separability. Applicant has provided a different interpretation without acknowledging any errors in the interpretation taken by the Office. Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive because they are directed towards a different interpretation than the one taken by the Office.
Regarding Claim 34, Applicant further argues the broiling appliance of Nam does not span the interior width of the cooking compartment. This appears to be a new limitation, which would be addressed below. Applicant asserts, without citations, that there would be no motivation to modify Nam to meet the claimed limitation because it would be contrary to the design objective of Nam. However, Applicant has not provided any evidence to support such assertions. Therefore, the assertions are found to be unpersuasive.
No further arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 29-30, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 23, 29, 30, Line 3 of Claim 23, Line 4 of Claim 29, and Line 2 of Claim 30 recite “through opening”. Applicant is suggested to amend to recite “through-opening” with a hyphen “-“ to remain consistent with how this term was originally used in Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 35, Line 7 recites “the heating element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since it has not been previously introduced. The heating element is introduced in the following Line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17, 22, 24-26, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US 2007/0251936 A1), hereinafter Nam.
Regarding Claim 16, Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose a cooking compartment insert for detachable installation in a cooking compartment of a cooking appliance, wherein the cooking compartment insert is plate-shaped (note vertical height compared to other dimensions of 542) and comprises: a base unit (542) comprising a frame (formed by perimeter of 542), wherein the frame defines a through-opening extending from an upper side to a lower side of the frame (see space inside perimeter of 542 that extends from upper to lower sides); and a heating element (543) arranged within the through-opening of the frame (formed by 542) such that, at least in one region, the heating element (543) is exposed upwardly and downwardly in relation to the frame (formed by 542) [0146-0154].
Regarding Claim 17, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 10 of Nam discloses wherein the frame (formed by 542) is peripherally closed [0148].
Regarding Claim 21, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the frame (formed by 542) includes an integrated handle zone. A handle zone is interpretable as any portion that is capable of being held, such as the peripheral edges along the perimeter of (542).
Regarding Claim 22, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 21.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the handle zone is a recessed handle. A recessed handle is interpretable as the peripheral edges along the perimeter of (542) with the recessing of the free space in the perimeter of (542). The claim does not further specify structure of this handle zone.
Regarding Claim 24, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figures 9-10 of Nam discloses wherein the frame (formed by 542) includes a receptacle, wherein the receptacle accommodates an additional part separate and distinct from the frame and the heating element (543). The claim does not specify any further structure of this receptacle nor additional part. As such, the additional part is interpretable as grill (546) or the container (544) with the receptacle being the regions they are respectively attached to [0148-0149].
Regarding Claim 25, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the frame (formed by 542) includes a lateral frame bar (any side of the rectangular perimeter formed by 542) including a receptacle, wherein the receptacle accommodates an additional part being separate and distinct from the frame and the heating element (543). The claim does not specify any further structure of this receptacle nor additional part. As such, the additional part is interpretable as grill (546) or the container (544) with the receptacle being the regions they are respectively attached to [0148-0149].
Regarding Claim 26, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 24.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the additional part is removably coupled to the receptacle, allowing the cooking compartment insert to be configured in a modular manner. As noted above, the additional part is interpretable as grill (546) or the container (544) with the receptacle being the regions they are respectively attached to. They are disclosed in a detachable/modular manner [0148-0149].
Regarding Claim 29, Nam discloses cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose further comprising a plate-shaped additional module (544 or 546, note their vertical height dimension being much lower compared to the rest), wherein the additional module is a separate component from the frame (formed by 542) and the heating element (543), and wherein the additional module covers the through opening (see space within perimeter of 542) on the upper side of the frame when arranged on the frame. The claim does not specify any further structure of this additional module. As such, the additional module is interpretable as grill (546) or the container (544) [0148-0149]. The term “upper” is relative, thus any vertical extremity would meet such a limitation.
Regarding Claim 30, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 29.
Figures 9-10 of Nam wherein the plate-shaped additional module (544) is configured to cover the through opening (inside of the perimeter of 542) on the upper side of the frame (formed by 542) entirely. The term “upper” is relative, thus any vertical extremity would meet such a limitation.
Regarding Claim 31, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 29.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the additional module (544 or 546) is removably coupled to the frame (formed by 542). Paragraphs [0148-0149] describe the container (544) and grill (546) in a removable coupled manner.
Regarding Claim 32, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 29.
Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose wherein the additional module is an insulation plate. Since the container (544) is a physical object in the path of the energy irradiated from heater (543), it is treated as providing some degree of insulation from the energy. The claim does not specify any further structure of requirement to be considered an insulation plate.
Regarding Claim 33, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 29.
Nam discloses wherein the additional module includes a bottom plate (544) and a top plate (546), at least one of the bottom plate and top plate of the additional module including a collection channel and/or an elevated delimitation (treated as being met by the space formed by 544). The claim does not specify any further structure of said “plates”, thus structure with a lower height compared to their horizontal dimensions is interpretable as “plate”-like.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Walkoe (US 2,922,018 A), hereinafter Walkoe.
Regarding Claim 18, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 10 of Nam discloses wherein the frame (formed by 542) is monolithic.
Nam does not expressly teach of metal. However, metal would have been obvious in view of Walkoe.
Figure 2 of Walkoe teaches a frame (24) for a cooking compartment insert holding a heating element (15). Walkoe notes the frame (24) comprises metal (Col. 3, Lines 59-62). Thus, Walkoe exemplifies metal to be a material that is known to be suitable for use as frames for cooking implements. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooking compartment taught by Nam such that the frame comprises metal as exemplified by Walkoe, since metal is a known material that is known to be suitable for use in such a situation.
Claims 19-20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam.
Regarding Claim 19, Nam teaches the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Nam does not expressly teach wherein the frame comprises at least two separate profile parts connected to one another.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice includes the separation of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Additionally the mere use of one piece construction compared to the use of several parts is considered an obvious matter of engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04, B). In the instant application, Figures 9-10 of Nam teach a frame (formed by 542) as one piece. Forming the frame as two parts is interpreted as separating portions or comparing separated parts to an integrated frame. There is currently no record of an unexpected results from making it formed as two pieces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking compartment insert taught by Nam such that the frame comprises at least two separate profile parts connected to one another, since such a practice is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 20, Nam teaches the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Nam does not expressly teach wherein the heating element is removably coupled to the frame.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice includes the separation of parts (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). In the instant application, Figures 9-10 of Nam teach a frame (formed by 542) and the heating element (543) being separate components, but is silent regarding detachability. A removable coupling would allow for separation, such as for inspection or maintenance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking compartment insert taught by Nam such that the heating element is removably coupled to the frame, since such a practice is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 34, Figures 9-10 of Nam teach a cooking appliance, comprising: a cooking compartment (510); and a plate-shaped (note vertical height compared to other dimensions of 542) cooking compartment insert reversibly insertable into and removable from the cooking compartment (510), wherein the cooking compartment insert comprises: a base unit (542) configured as a frame (formed by perimeter of 542), wherein the frame is open upward and downward to delimit a free space (space inside perimeter of 542); and a heating element (543) within the free space of the frame such that, at least in one region, the heating element (543) is upwardly and downwardly exposed in relation to the frame (formed by 542) [0146-0154].
Nam does not expressly teach the cooking compartment insert spans an interior width of the cooking compartment as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients. One such practice is a change in relative dimensions. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A regarding changes in size/proportion). With respect to this instance, the claimed limitation is considered a relative dimension between the cooking compartment insert and the interior width of the cooking compartment. The record currently does not indicate a change in performance, as the performance relates to the heater (543) heating food, which would still be present (Nam, [0148]). As such, the recitation of relative dimensions is considered a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking appliance taught by Nam such that the cooking compartment insert spans an interior width of the cooking compartment, since such a change in relative dimensions is considered a matter of design choice.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Bartley (US 2004/0094143 A1), hereinafter Bartley.
Regarding Claim 23, Nam teaches the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 10 of Nam teaches wherein a front side (any side of 542 along perimeter) of the frame (542) includes a front frame bar (any side portion of 542 along the perimeter).
Nam does not expressly teach the front frame bar having an upwardly open notch disposed opposite the through opening of the frame. However, an upwardly open notch would have been obvious in view of Bartley.
Figure 1A of Bartley teaches an insert with a frame formed with an upwardly open notch (18) disposed opposite the through opening of the frame (12) in the center. The notch (18) assists removal of anything placed over the portion without having to remove the whole frame [0006]. Note that both Nam and Bartley relate to cooking apparatuses (Bartley [0006], Nam [0003]). Thus, they would benefit similarly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking compartment insert taught by Nam such that the front frame bar has an upwardly open notch disposed opposite the through opening of the frame as suggested by Bartley, to provide the benefit of allowing for easy removal of anything placed over the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28 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.
Claim 35 is objected to.
Claims 27-28 remain objected to for the reasons set forth on Pg. 11 of the Non-Final Rejection filed January 27, 2026.
Claim 35 is considered allowable for the same reasons. Claim 35 contains the subject matter of previously presented Claim 27 in independent form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nam et al. (US 2007/0257020 A1) provides another exemplary insert.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights