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 16-34 are currently pending. Claims 27-28 are objected to. Claims 16-26 and 29-34 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 31, 2023, July 26, 2024, and May 20, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 21, Lines 1-2 recite “the frame includes at an integrated handle zone”. This does not appear to be grammatically correct.
Claim 22 is subsequently objected to for its dependency upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim depends upon itself. Therefore, Claim 30 is rejected for failing to contain reference to a claim previously set forth, since it references itself. For purposes of examination, it will be treated as having some dependency upon Claim 16 at least. Please note that the claim that Claim 30 should depend upon will need antecedent basis for the limitations of Claim 30.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 29-34 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, the cooking compartment insert formed to be plate-shaped (note vertical height compared to other dimensions of 542) and comprising: a base unit (542) designed as a frame (formed by perimeter of 542) that is open upward and downward and configured to delimit a free space (space inside perimeter of 542); and a heating element (543) arranged on the base unit (542) on a side that is remote from an underside (either vertical limit of 542 in Figure 9) of the base unit (542) such that, at least in one region, the heating element (543) is exposed downward, said heating element (543) being arranged in the free space surrounded by the frame (formed by 542), and arranged to be upwardly and downwardly exposed 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 at 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, and further comprising an additional part accommodated in the receptacle and being separate 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, and further comprising an additional part accommodated in the receptacle and being separate 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 mountable in a detachable manner on 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), which is a separate component from the frame (formed by 542) and the heating element (543), and which, when arranged on the frame, covers the free space from above. 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 “above” is relative, thus any vertical extremity would meet such a limitation.
Regarding Claim 30, assuming proper dependency, Nam discloses the cooking compartment insert as set forth in Claim 30.
Figures 9-10 of Nam wherein the plate-shaped additional module (544) is configured to cover the free space (inside of the perimeter of 542) entirely.
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 arranged in a detachable manner on the frame (formed by 542). Paragraphs [0148-0149] describe the container (544) and grill (546) in a detachable 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.
Regarding Claim 34, Figures 9-10 of Nam disclose a cooking appliance, comprising: a cooking compartment (510); and a cooking compartment insert reversibly insertable into and removable from the cooking compartment (510), said cooking compartment insert formed to be plate-shaped (note vertical height compared to other dimensions of 542) and comprising: a base unit (542) designed as a frame (formed by perimeter of 542) that is open upward and downward and configured to delimit a free space (space inside perimeter of 542), and a heating element (543) arranged on the base unit (542) on a side that is remote from an underside (either vertical limit of 542 in Figure 9) of the base unit (542) such that, at least in one region, the heating element (543) is exposed downward, said heating element (543) being arranged in the free space surrounded by the frame (formed by 542), and arranged to be upwardly and downwardly exposed in relation to the frame (formed by 542) [0146-0154].
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 made in one piece.
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) to be formed of 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 is formed from 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 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 is formed from at least two separate profile parts that are 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 is formed from at least two separate profile parts that are 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 connected to the frame by a detachable connection.
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 detachability 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 connected to the frame by a detachable connection, since such a practice is considered an obvious 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 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 formed with an upwardly open notch on a front side which is remote from the free space. 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) on a front side which is remote from 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 is formed with an upwardly open notch on a front side which is remote from the free space 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.
Regarding Claim 27, the closest art of record, Nam, does not expressly teach wherein the additional part is a guide rail for an additional module. Thus limitation further specifies what the additional part in Claim 24 is. Nam does not specify the use of such guide rails at all. Guide rails are exemplified by (17, 18) in Figure 9 of the instant application filed March 23, 2023. Paragraphs [0023-0025] of the Specification note the guide rail to be for receiving an additional module in a slidable manner. As such, it acts as a holding element for the additional module, which may be a cover or insulation plate that works in conjunction with the heating element.
Claim 28 subsequently depends upon Claim 27.
Conclusion
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