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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 3/9/26 response to the Office Action dated 11/7/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claim 7 is amended.
Claims 57-62 are new.
Claim 17 is cancelled.
Claims 7, 12-16, 22-25, and 55-62 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections so those objections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 7, Applicant states none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the claimed circulation pump of amended claim 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Song discloses a water supply pump 31 which adds water when a low water level is detected; therefore, water supply pump 31 must necessarily actively mix the cooling fluid within the container. See the prior art rejection to claim 7 below for more details.
Claim Objections
Claims 60-62 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 60, lines 4-5, “a” should be added before “vapor inlet” and “vapor outlet”.
Claims 61-62 are objected to by virtue of their dependencies from base claim 60.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 12-16, 55, and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A) and Song (US 20200191404 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Helm discloses a device for treating vapors (vapor condensation device 40, Fig. 1, Abstract, “A vapor condensation device (40) brings the vapors into contact with cooling liquid.” and Col. 4, lines 38-43, “In contrast to conventional exhaust air, this exhaust air now contains appreciably less moisture and also contains markedly less fat and oil aerosols or other contaminants, because these are retained to the greatest degree possible in the liquid bath due to the condensation”), comprising:
a container (container 41, Fig. 1), which can be filled with a cooling fluid (water, Col. 8, lines 14-13, “controls the feed 34 of cool fresh water to the container 41 and hence also to the liquid bath 42” and Col. 8, lines 17-19, “the cooling water of the cooling water feed 34 is retained temporarily above at the wall 44 and thus ensures a cooling of this wall 44”) at least in some regions (region around liquid bath 42, Fig. 1), the fluid container comprising:
a vapor inlet (vapor outlet channel 31, Fig. 1 and Col. 7, lines 39-40, “The vapor outlet channel 31 leads into a vapor condensation device 40.” Vapors flow into the vapor condensation device 40 via vapor outlet channel 31, therefore, from the reference point of the vapor condensation device 40, vapor outlet channel 31 is a “vapor inlet”);
a vapor outlet (exhaust air channel 38, Fig. 1 and Col. 7, line 67 thru Col. 8, line 4, “fat and oil aerosols and other components, as well as other gases entering the container 41 from the cooking chamber 10 via the vapor outlet channel 31, can be discharged into the surroundings of the cooking apparatus via an exhaust air channel 38 out of the container 41”);
a through-flow connection (annotated Fig. A, the labeled ‘through-flow connection’ within container 31 allows vapor to flow from the vapor outlet channel 31 (i.e., vapor inlet) to the exhaust air channel 38 (i.e., vapor outlet)) which connects the vapor inlet to the vapor outlet; and
at least one sensor (temperature sensor 51, Fig. 1) for detecting at least one parameter of the cooling fluid (temperature, Col. 8, lines 8-9, “The temperature of the liquid bath 42 in the container 41 can be determined by means of a temperature sensor 51”) in the container.
However, Helm doesn’t explicitly disclose that the container is “fluid-tight” and
wherein the at least one sensor is a filling level sensor, and
a circulation pump for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container,
wherein the filling level sensor is connected in a signal-transmitting manner to a controller arranged to control a supply and discharge of cooling fluid to the fluid-tight container.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position that making the container 41 fluid-tight would be highly desirable or strongly suggested by the disclosure of Helm. For example, container 41 which is connected to chamber 10 per vapor outlet channel 31, Fig. 1. A fluid-tight container is designed to prevent fluids from leaking, therefore per the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in reading the disclosure of Helm, container 41 is suggestive of a “fluid-tight container” because it receives incoming vapor from the vapor outlet channel 31. The vapor then condenses with liquid bath 42, and flows out of drain 36 at a certain level of accumulation. Page 49, top paragraph, of the Applicant’s as-filed Specification says “the connection from the receiving space 3 to the container of the device 30 is always fluid-tight to the outside…” Examiner takes the position that the connection 10 and 41 per 31 in Helm, is strongly suggested to be fluid-tight in the same manner.
Niemela discloses a solution for holding fluid in a tank (Col. 9, lines 61-64, “The top edge 164 of tube 160 and the bottom interior portion of top wall 158 define a circumferential, laterally extending opening to the interior water-holding portion of the humidifying tank” and humidifier, Fig. 8), similar to the problem of holding fluid in a container in the present invention. Niemela further discloses it is known for a tank to be fluid-tight (Col. 9, lines 51-52, “The humidifer is a fluid-tight tank” and Claim 15, “a fluid-tight water tank extending around said outlet and having an opening directed laterally inwardly of said outlet and into a vertically upwardly extending opening communicating with said lateral opening, and means for inserting water in said tank”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Helm to be fluid-tight as disclosed by Niemela for the predicable benefit of effectively exhausting fluids from the air exhaust channel 38, vapor outlet channel 31, and cooking apparatus drain 36 while minimizing the risk of leaks that could cause damage to nearby components.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Through-flow connection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Helm showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Helm, as modified above, doesn’t disclose the at least one sensor is a filling level sensor, and
a circulation pump for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container,
wherein the filling level sensor is connected in a signal-transmitting manner to a controller arranged to control a supply and discharge of cooling fluid to the fluid-tight container.
Song discloses a solution for controlling the supply and discharge of water from a tank (Par. 0069) similar to the problem of controlling the supply and discharge of cooling fluid to the fluid-tight container in the present invention. Song further discloses a filling level sensor (Fig. 6, water-level sensing module 28 and Par. 0069, “water-level sensing module 28 equipped with the low water-level sensor 282 and the high water-level sensor 283”), and
a circulation pump (Fig. 7 and Par. 0079, water supply pump 31) for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the addition of more water via water supply pump 31 would necessarily mix the cooling fluid),
wherein the filling level sensor is connected in a signal-transmitting manner to a controller (Par. 0069, “controller 3 may detect the water level of the steam generator 223 using the water-level sensing module 28 equipped with the low water-level sensor 282 and the high water-level sensor 283”) arranged to control a supply and discharge of cooling fluid (Par. 0069, “the controller 3 may control an on/off operation of the water supply pump 31 or the water discharge pump 32 based on a water-level change in the steam generator 223 as detected by the water-level sensing module 28.” and Par. 0079, “the controller 3 may activate the water supply pump 31 or the water discharge pump 32 based on a result of detecting the water level of the steam supply 21 using the low water-level sensor 282 and the high water-level sensor 283 to adjust the water level of the steam supply 21 to a predefined water level”) to a casing (Fig. 6, casing 22 and Par. 0046, “The casing 22 of the steam supply 21”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for treating vapors of Helm, as modified above, with the filling level sensor, pump and controller of Song in order to measure and replenish the water level in the fluid-tight container and thereby operate the device for treating vapors more efficiently and/or ensure there is enough cooling fluid for the device for treating vapors to operate while preventing the cooling fluid from overflowing and causing damage to nearby components.
Regarding claim 12, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device for treating vapors according to claim 7, wherein at least one cooling member (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51, “The water vapor-containing vapors entering the container 41 through the vapor outlet channel 31 flow through this vapor guide element and are brought into contact in this vapor guide element 43 with the surface of the liquid bath 42. They condense on this surface” ; and Col. 8, lines 15-29, “On its top side, the vapor guide element 43 is formed by a platelike, essentially horizontal wall 44. Vertical, flat regions project from this horizontal wall 44 downwards to and just under the surface of the liquid bath 42. The cooling water feed 34 carries the cooling water to the wall 44 of the vapor guide element 43. In this case, in the illustrated embodiment, it is indicated that a raised edge 45 is provided above on the wall 44. This raised edge 45 surrounds a flat region in which the cooling water of the cooling water feed 34 is retained temporarily above at the wall 44 and thus ensures a cooling of this wall 44 and thereby, at the same time, of the entire vapor guide element 43, before this cooling water of the cooling water feed 34 then falls through an opening provided in the wall 44 into the interior of the vapor guide element 43 into the liquid bath 42”) in the form of a solid body (From Helm: Col. 8, lines 15-29, “On its top side, the vapor guide element 43 is formed by a platelike, essentially horizontal wall 44”. A solid body is a three dimensional or solid distinct mass of matter or body, therefore “vapor guide element 43 is a “solid body” because it is a wall) is arranged in the fluid-tight container (From Helm: container 41, Fig. 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Niemela explained in claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device according to claim 12, wherein a cooling plate serves (From Helm: Col. 8, lines 15-29, “On its top side, the vapor guide element 43 is formed by a platelike, essentially horizontal wall 44”. A solid body is a three dimensional or solid distinct mass of matter or body, therefore “vapor guide element 43 is a “solid body” because it is a wall) as the at least one cooling member (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51; and Col. 8, lines 15-29).
Regarding claim 14, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one cooling member (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51; and Col. 8, lines 15-29) is liquid-cooled (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51; and Col. 8, lines 15-29, “The cooling water feed 34 carries the cooling water to the wall 44 of the vapor guide element 43…This raised edge 45 surrounds a flat region in which the cooling water of the cooling water feed 34 is retained temporarily above at the wall 44 and thus ensures a cooling of this wall 44 and thereby, at the same time, of the entire vapor guide element 43”).
Regarding claim 15, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device according to claim 12, comprising an inlet (From Helm: arrow leading from valve 53 onto vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1 and Col. 8, lines 9-29) through which cooling fluid (From Helm: water, Col. 8, lines 8-9, Col. 8, lines 14-13, and Col. 8, lines 17-19) can be applied to the at least one cooling member (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51; and Col. 8, lines 15-29).
Regarding claim 16, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one cooling member (From Helm: vapor guide element 43, Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 47-51; and Col. 8, lines 15-29) in each case has one or more defined outlets (From Helm: leftmost horizontal arrow, as shown in Fig. 2. This leads into the bottom of container 41, as shown in Fig. 1) for draining cooling fluid (From Helm: water, Col. 8, lines 8-9, Col. 8, lines 14-13, and Col. 8, lines 17-19) into the bottom tray (From Helm: bottom surface of container 41, Fig. 1. A bottom tray is a receptacle with a flat bottom and a rim for holding articles that is located at the bottom of something, therefore the bottom surface of container 41 is a “bottom tray” because it has a flat bottom and walls for holding liquid bath 42 and is located at the bottom of container 41) of the fluid-tight container (From Helm: container 41, Fig. 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Niemela explained in claim 7).
Regarding claim 55, Helm, as modified above, discloses a kitchen appliance (From Helm: Col. 1, line 6, “The invention relates to a cooking apparatus” and Col. 1, lines 48-49, “the surroundings of the cooking apparatus and in the entire kitchen premises”) comprising a device for treating vapors according to claim 7 (See rejection to claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 60, Helm discloses a device for treating vapors (vapor condensation device 40, Fig. 1, Abstract, “A vapor condensation device (40) brings the vapors into contact with cooling liquid.” and Col. 4, lines 38-43, “In contrast to conventional exhaust air, this exhaust air now contains appreciably less moisture and also contains markedly less fat and oil aerosols or other contaminants, because these are retained to the greatest degree possible in the liquid bath due to the condensation”), comprising:
a container (container 41, Fig. 1), which can be filled with a cooling fluid at least in some regions (water, Col. 8, lines 14-13, “controls the feed 34 of cool fresh water to the container 41 and hence also to the liquid bath 42” and Col. 8, lines 17-19, “the cooling water of the cooling water feed 34 is retained temporarily above at the wall 44 and thus ensures a cooling of this wall 44”) at least in some regions (region around liquid bath 42, Fig. 1), the fluid container comprising:
vapor inlet (vapor outlet channel 31, Fig. 1 and Col. 7, lines 39-40, “The vapor outlet channel 31 leads into a vapor condensation device 40.” Vapors flow into the vapor condensation device 40 via vapor outlet channel 31, therefore, from the reference point of the vapor condensation device 40, vapor outlet channel 31 is a “vapor inlet”);
vapor outlet (exhaust air channel 38, Fig. 1 and Col. 7, line 67 thru Col. 8, line 4, “fat and oil aerosols and other components, as well as other gases entering the container 41 from the cooking chamber 10 via the vapor outlet channel 31, can be discharged into the surroundings of the cooking apparatus via an exhaust air channel 38 out of the container 41”);
a through-flow connection (annotated Fig. A, the labeled ‘through-flow connection’ within container 31 allows vapor to flow from the vapor outlet channel 31 (i.e., vapor inlet) to the exhaust air channel 38 (i.e., vapor outlet)) which connects the vapor inlet to the vapor outlet; and
However, Helm doesn’t explicitly disclose that the container is “fluid-tight” and
a circulation pump for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container.
NOTE: It is the examiner’s position that making the container 41 fluid-tight would be highly desirable or strongly suggested by the disclosure of Helm. For example, container 41 which is connected to chamber 10 per vapor outlet channel 31, Fig. 1. A fluid-tight container is designed to prevent fluids from leaking, therefore per the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in reading the disclosure of Helm, container 41 is suggestive of a “fluid-tight container” because it receives incoming vapor from the vapor outlet channel 31. The vapor then condenses with liquid bath 42, and flows out of drain 36 at a certain level of accumulation. Page 49, top paragraph, of the Applicant’s as-filed Specification says “the connection from the receiving space 3 to the container of the device 30 is always fluid-tight to the outside…” Examiner takes the position that the connection 10 and 41 per 31 in Helm, is strongly suggested to be fluid-tight in the same manner.
Niemela discloses a solution for holding fluid in a tank (Col. 9, lines 61-64, “The top edge 164 of tube 160 and the bottom interior portion of top wall 158 define a circumferential, laterally extending opening to the interior water-holding portion of the humidifying tank” and humidifier, Fig. 8), similar to the problem of holding fluid in a container in the present invention. Niemela further discloses it is known for a tank to be fluid-tight (Col. 9, lines 51-52, “The humidifer is a fluid-tight tank” and Claim 15, “a fluid-tight water tank extending around said outlet and having an opening directed laterally inwardly of said outlet and into a vertically upwardly extending opening communicating with said lateral opening, and means for inserting water in said tank”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Helm to be fluid-tight as disclosed by Niemela for the predicable benefit of effectively exhausting fluids from the air exhaust channel 38, vapor outlet channel 31, and cooking apparatus drain 36 while minimizing the risk of leaks that could cause damage to nearby components.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Through-flow connection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Helm showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Helm, as modified above, doesn’t disclose a circulation pump for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container.
Song discloses a solution for controlling the supply and discharge of water from a tank (Par. 0069) similar to the problem of controlling the supply and discharge of cooling fluid to the fluid-tight container in the present invention. Song further discloses it is known to have a circulation pump (Fig. 7 and Par. 0079, water supply pump 31) for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the addition of more water via water supply pump 31 would necessarily mix the cooling fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for treating vapors of Helm, as modified above, to include a water-level sending module 28, pump 31, and controller 3 as taught by Song in order to measure and control the water level in the fluid-tight container and thereby operate the device for treating vapors more efficiently and/or ensure there is enough cooling fluid for the device for treating vapors to operate while preventing the cooling fluid from overflowing and causing damage to nearby components.
Regarding claim 61, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 57 above. Therefore, claim 61 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 57 above.
Regarding claim 62, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 58 above. Therefore, claim 62 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 58 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A) and Song (US 20200191404 A1) and further in view of Giger et al. (US 9668490 B2), hereafter Giger.
Regarding claim 22, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device according to claim 7.
However, Helm, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the through-flow connection has a flow cross-section increasing in the direction of flow.
Giger discloses a vapor condenser (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Giger further discloses it is known for a through-flow connection (Fig. B) has a flow cross-section (height of through-flow connection, Fig. B) increasing in the direction of flow (height of through-flow connection increases in the same direction as the direction of flow represented by the arrows, Fig. B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through-flow connection of Helm, as modified above, with the same as disclosed by Giger in order to have a flow cross-section increasing in the direction of flow and thereby increase the efficiency of the device for treating vapors by increasing mass transfer between the vapor and the cooling fluid (As suggested by Col. 15, lines 18-25 of Giger, “On this path the vapor is in direct contact with the cooling medium. Along this path a mass transfer occurs over the surface of the cooling medium stream by absorbing vapor from the cooling medium stream. The cooling medium stream flows in the manner of a water fall from the lower end of the channel floor 10 in the sump 11. Thereby a splash layer is generated which further increases mass transfer.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
318
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Through-flow connection)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Giger showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 23 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A) and Song (US 20200191404 A1) and further in view of Cescot et al. (US 20130333684 A1), hereafter Cescot.
Regarding claim 23, Helm, as modified above, discloses an apparatus for cleaning vapors (cooking chamber 10 and vapor condensation device 40, Abstract) comprising;
a device for treating vapor according to claim 7 (See rejection to claim 7 above).
However, Helm, as modified above, does not disclose a fan for applying negative pressure to the fluid-tight container.
Cescot discloses a vapor exhaust system (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Cescot further discloses it is known to have a fan (fan 180, Fig. 1 and Par. 0061, “The fan 180, that preferably is selectively activatable by the oven control unit 423, creates a depression inside the exhaust tower 155 and sucks the vapor and the cooling fluxes inside it.”) for applying negative pressure to a container (exhaust tower 155, Fig. 1. A container is a receptacle for holding goods, therefore exhaust tower 155 is a “container” because it is a receptacle for holding goods, in particular cooling water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Helm to include a fan as disclosed by Cescot in order to apply a negative pressure to the fluid-tight container of Helm, as modified above, and thereby enable better ventilation control and increase energy efficiency by adjusting the speed of the fan (As suggested by Par. 0098 of Cescot, “activation of the fan 180 is selective, depending on the cooking process”) to create a larger or smaller negative pressure on the container. To elaborate, a variable pressure will better and more efficiently meet the varying ventilation needs of cooking processes such as high-temperature baking, which may generate higher levels of airborne pollutants and thereby require higher ventilation, or lower-temperature baking, which may generate lower levels of airborne pollutants over the same period time and thereby not require as much ventilation.
Regarding claim 56, Helm, as modified above, discloses a kitchen appliance (Col. 1, line 6, “The invention relates to a cooking apparatus” and Col. 1, lines 48-49, “the surroundings of the cooking apparatus and in the entire kitchen premises”) comprising an apparatus for cleaning vapors according to claim 23 (See rejection to claim 23 above).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A), Song (US 20200191404 A1), and Cescot et al. (US 20130333684 A1), hereafter Cescot, and further in view of Faraldi et al (US 20170321904 A1), hereafter Faraldi.
Regarding claim 24, Helm, as modified above, discloses the apparatus for cleaning vapors according to claim 23.
However, Helm, as modified above, does not disclose a second sensor is connected in a signal-transmitting manner to the controller arranged to control the volume flow that is extracted by the fan.
Faraldi discloses a solution to the problem of controlling the volume flow of vapor (Par. 0031) similar to the problem of controlling the volume flow of cleaned vapors in the present invention. Faraldi further discloses it is known for a second sensor (Par. 0057, “independent devices such as flow meter, temperature gauges, or humidity sensors”) to be connected in a signal-transmitting manner to a controller (controller; Fig. 3; Par. 0056, “first valve…is a throttle valve” and Par. 0057, “Such throttle valve may represent a flow control valve regulating the flow or pressure of a fluid, here the exhausting steam…Such control valve normally responds to signals generated by independent devices such as flow meter, temperature gauges, or humidity sensors” and Claim 19, “a controller operatively coupled to each of said first and second valves and configured to operate them”) for controlling a volume flow that is extracted by a fan (first fan 15; Fig. 3; Par. 0145, “Such first fan 15 is of particular advantage in driving the air A stream of said cooling and provoking a circulation of such cooling air A stream and thus may contribute and assist an exhaustion of steam and/or vapor S out of the cavity 2 through the first duct 4, particularly, where the first duct 4 is in fluid communication with the cooling system 9, preferably the cooling chamber 10”; and Par. 0144, “the main cooling fan for driving the main cooling flow M may be advantageously used as said first fan 15.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Helm, as modified above, to include the sensor, first valve, and capabilities of the controller as disclosed by Faraldi in order to control the volume flow that is extracted by the fan of Helm, as modified above, and thereby better control the humidity level within the cavity (As suggested by Par. 0080 of Faraldi, “Such humidity sensor may advantageously monitor the actual humidity within the cavity and further may provide an according signal to the control unit of the appliance, which may be processed and evaluated such that a humidity level within the cavity may be adjusted to the desired needs…Accordingly, the humidity level within the cavity may be determined by such humidity sensor and advantageously controlled due to the information provided to the control unit of the appliance.”) to better accommodate a wider range of cooking methods. To elaborate, varying the volume flow of the fan would help the apparatus better support cooking methods that tend to require higher humidity, such as steaming, as well as cooking methods that tend to require lower humidity, such as broiling.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A), Song (US 20200191404 A1, and Cescot et al. (US 20130333684 A1), hereafter Cescot and further in view of Wang (CN 109028208 A).
Regarding claim 25, Helm, as modified above, discloses the apparatus for cleaning vapors according to claim 23.
However, Helm, as modified above, does not disclose at least one filter device
which is connected to the device in a fluid-conducting manner and
which is arranged downstream from the vapor outlet of the device.
Wang discloses a technology for treating cooking fumes (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Wang further discloses it is known to have at least one filter device (odor filter 14, Fig. 1)
which is connected to a device (Par. 0029, “the present invention relates to a fume eliminator”) in a fluid-conducting manner (Par. 0029, “the present invention relates to a fume eliminator comprising…an odor filter 14…The air with odor flows to the odor filter 14 and is filtered by the filter”) and
which is arranged downstream from a vapor outlet (outlet of liquid filter 12, Fig. 1 and Par. 0037, “After the airflow passes through the liquid filter, it flows out from the gas outlet 1202 with various odors in the oil smoke and enters the next odor filter.”) of the device (fume eliminator (unnumbered), Fig. 1 and Par. 0029, “As shown in Figure 1: the present invention relates to a fume eliminator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Helm, as modified above, to include a filter as disclosed by Wang in order to filter odors after they leave the container of Helm, as modified above, and thereby increase the efficiency of the apparatus (As suggested by Par. 0029 of Wang, “The remaining small water droplets and oil droplets flow to the liquid filter 12 together with the air. The small water droplets and oil droplets are absorbed by the liquid filter and transformed into liquid and flow to the bottom of the chassis shell. The air with odor flows to the odor filter 14 and is filtered by the filter.”)
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm (US 9119402 B2) in view of Niemela (US 4206743 A), and Song (US 20200191404 A1) and further in view of Wagner et al. (DE 10134005 A1, hereafter Wagner).
Reference is made to the German to English machine translation of Wagner ‘208.
Regarding claim 57, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device for treating vapors according to claim 7.
However, Helm, as modified above, does not disclose the circulation pump further comprises an actuator arranged downstream of an outlet of the circulation pump and arranged to switch between different circulation circuits.
Wagner discloses a steam cleaning device (Pars. 0007 and 0031) similar to the present invention and Wagner further discloses it is known for a circulation pump (Fig. 3, pump 29 and valve 33) to comprise an actuator (Fig. 3, valve 33) arranged downstream of an outlet of the circulation pump (Fig. 3 and Par. 0037, which show valve 33 is downstream of pump 29. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this necessarily means valve 33 is downstream of an outlet of pump 29) and arranged to switch between different circulation circuits (Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, circulation circuit through disposal line 35; circulation circuit including water inlet 43, valve 41, and first duct 13; circulation circuit including water inlet 43, rinse aid container 45, valve 41, and first duct 13; and circulation circuit including water inlet 43, detergent reservoir 47, valve 41, and first duct 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device for treating vapors of Helm, as modified above, to include the pump 29, valve 33, disposal line 35, first duct 13, exhaust line 36, valve 41, rinse aid container 45, and detergent reservoir 47 as taught by Wanger in order to include a circulation pump with an actuator arranged downstream of an outlet of the circulation pump and arranged to switch between different circulation circuits and thereby support the addition of rinse aids and/or detergents (As suggested by Pars. 0040 and 0031) to increase the effectiveness of the device for treating vapors.
Regarding claim 58, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device for treating vapors according to claim 57, wherein the different circulation circuits (Wagner: Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, circulation circuit through disposal line 35; circulation circuit including water inlet 43, rinse aid container 45, valve 41, and first duct 13; and circulation circuit including water inlet 43, detergent reservoir 47, valve 41, and first duct 13) are arranged to: (i) mix the cooling fluid in the container (Helm in view of Wagner: water from valve 53 of Helm passes through the circulation circuit including the water inlet 43, valve 41, and first duct 13 of Wagner. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the addition of more water would necessarily mix the cooling fluid in the container); (ii) flush the container with cleaning liquid (Wagner: Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, circulation circuit including water inlet 43, detergent reservoir 47, valve 41, and first duct 13); and (iii) pump liquid from the container (Wagner: Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, circulation circuit through disposal line 35).
Regarding claim 59, Helm, as modified above, discloses the device for treating vapors according to claim 57, wherein the actuator is a four-three-way valve (Fig. 3, valve 33, which has one inlet and three outlets and is therefore a ‘four-three-way valve’).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Helm (US 20060260476 A1) discloses a circulation pump for actively mixing the cooling fluid within the container.
Wurdinger et al. (US 20140290500 A1) discloses a device for treating vapors with different circulation circuits arranged to: (i) mix the cooling fluid in the container; (ii) flush the container with cleaning liquid; and (iii) pump liquid from the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights