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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 April 2026. These drawings are unacceptable because the depiction of the specific structure for bottom-heat heating element 15, and for bottom-heat heating element 27a on upper side 26b, include new matter. The replacement drawings have not been entered.
The Office apologizes, as the objections to the drawings in the previous Office action for failure to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims should not have been made by the Examiner. Such an objection cannot be raised in PCT applications, as it is a requirement stricter than those provided by PCT rules. See MPEP § 1893.03(f).
The drawings are objected to because the submitted fig. 1 has a clear error in that there is a large white-out block, plus other small white-out blocks, in the lower middle of the page. This is clearly appreciable when looking at fig. 1 of the German patent priority document 10 2021 212 760.6.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 16 April 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The material added in the amendment relating to the new drawings, which were (as indicated above) not entered for introducing new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 is objected to because it’s unclear what the word “respectively” is doing in this claim, as there is no differentiation between the at least two slide-in levels introduced therein.
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.
Claims 16, 20–22, 26, 29, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (GB 2321962 A) in view of Nitzinger et al. (DE 4224797 A1).
Claim 16: Bennett discloses a cooking appliance (1), comprising:
a housing (1) having a cooking compartment (21, 22) including a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (the part receiving 3, best shown in fig. 2a);
a plate-shaped cooking compartment divider (3) designed for positioning in the cooking compartment on the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (see figs. 2a and 2b) to divide the cooking compartment into an upper cooking compartment region (21) and a lower cooking compartment region (22), wherein a base unit of the cooking compartment divider forms a coherent and uninterrupted unit forming a base wall for the upper cooking compartment region and simultaneously a ceiling wall for the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted into an end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level in the cooking compartment (all attributable to cavity divider 3, and evident from fig. 2b, inter alia);
a hot-air system (42) designed to supply hot air into the cooking compartment; and
a wall (the back wall on which 42 is placed in figs. 2a and 2b) designed to delimit the cooking compartment,
wherein no part of the hot-air system, viewed in a height direction of the cooking appliance, is arranged below the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (appreciable from fig. 2b), and
wherein, when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level and the hot air system is activated, the hot air system is only effective in the upper cooking compartment region and does not or substantially does not have any effect on the lower cooking compartment region (ibid.; “When the insulating divider is located in the cavity 20, a switch, which might for example be a microswitch, disconnects the heating element underneath the cavity 41, so that only the heating elements 40 and 42 arranged to heat the upper cavity 21 are controlled by the cavity control temperature knob”).
Bennett does not explicitly disclose its wall including ventilation openings through which the hot air of the hot-air system is supplied into the cooking compartment. Bennett’s specification is non-descript about its fan or fan-assisted heating element 42.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the fan or fan-assisted heating element 42, as depicted in figs. 2a and 2b, would likely have ventilation openings. Nitzinger discloses an example of a highly similar apparatus with its own wall 12, and its own similar air system including a fan wheel 20, suction opening 19, and exhaust slots 21 and 22, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these openings from Nitzinger onto the wall and in conjunction with the hot-air system of Bennett to improve the circulation within the chamber by making it laminar.
Claim 20: Bennett does not explicitly disclose that its upper cooking compartment region is arranged with a height that is greater than a height of the lower cooking compartment at least because its figures are not disclosed as being to scale.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, viewing fig. 2a of Bennett, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily considered constructing Bennett as if its cooking compartment was to scale. Alternatively, or in addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered designing the upper cooking compartment to be larger than the lower cooking compartment to allow a larger and a smaller food item to be cooked at the same time.
Claims 21 and 22: Continuing from the line of reasoning presented for claim 20, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the height of the upper cooking compartment to be a degree greater, including between 10% to 30% greater, to permit the oven to cook an accordingly larger and smaller food item at the same time.
Claim 26: Bennett discloses a heating element (40) arranged in a fixed manner (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed for any of its modes of operation) in the upper cooking compartment region (see figs. 2a and 2b) and embodied as a top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element (necessary and inherent with heating element 40).
Claim 29: Bennett discloses disclose that the lower cooking compartment region includes a heating element (41) arranged in a fixed manner as a bottom-heat heating element (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed for any of its modes of operation).
Claim 34: Bennett discloses that the base unit is thermally insulating such that the upper cooking compartment region is thermally insulated from the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (evident from “insulating cavity divider 3”).
Claim 36: Bennett discloses that only one cooking compartment divider slide-in level is formed in the cooking compartment (cf. figs. 2a and 2b with fig. 3).
Claims 16, 26, 29, 31, and 34–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allera et al. (US Pub. 2002/0060215) in view of Nitzinger et al. (DE 4224797 A1).
Claim 16: Allera discloses a cooking appliance (10, see fig. 12), comprising:
a housing (10) having a cooking compartment (12) including a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (28);
a plate-shaped cooking compartment divider (18) designed for positioning in the cooking compartment on the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (see figs. 1, 2, and 6) to divide the cooking compartment into an upper cooking compartment region (12b) and a lower cooking compartment region (12c), wherein a base unit of the cooking compartment divider forms a coherent and uninterrupted unit forming a base wall for the upper cooking compartment region and simultaneously a ceiling wall for the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted into an end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level in the cooking compartment (all attributable to separating plate 18);
a hot-air system (56, 58) designed to supply hot air into the cooking compartment; and
a wall (the back wall on which 56 is placed in fig. 12) designed to delimit the cooking compartment,
wherein no part of the hot-air system, viewed in a height direction of the cooking appliance, is arranged below the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (appreciable from fig. 12), and
wherein, when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level and the hot air system is activated, the hot air system is only effective in the upper cooking compartment region and does not or substantially does not have any effect on the lower cooking compartment region (ibid.).
Allera does not explicitly disclose its wall including ventilation openings through which the hot air of the hot-air system is supplied into the cooking compartment. Allera’s specification is non-descript about its fan or fan-assisted heating element 42.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the fan or fan-assisted heating element 42, as depicted in figs. 2a and 2b, would likely have ventilation openings. Nitzinger discloses an example of a highly similar apparatus with its own wall 12, and its own similar air system including a fan wheel 20, suction opening 19, and exhaust slots 21 and 22, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these openings from Nitzinger onto the wall and in conjunction with the hot-air system of Allera to improve the circulation within the chamber by making it laminar.
Claim 26: Allera discloses a heating element (59; see also ¶ 43, “A grill type heater (not shown) may also be provided along the upper portion of the cavity 12”) arranged in a fixed manner (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed) in the upper cooking compartment region (see fig. 12) and embodied as a top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element (necessary and inherent with heating element 59 or the grill heater mentioned in ¶ 43).
Claim 29: Allera discloses disclose that the lower cooking compartment region includes a heating element (see 118 in fig. 13, which may be joined with the embodiment shown in fig. 12, including by replacing quartz lamps 50) arranged in a fixed manner as a bottom-heat heating element (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed).
Claim 31: Allera discloses that the cooking compartment is divided by the cooking compartment divider in such a way that in one of the upper (12b) and lower (12c) cooking compartment regions a first heating mode is being able to be carried out and in the other one of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions simultaneously a second heating mode is being able to be carried out and is different from the first heating mode (see ¶ 55), wherein the first and second heating modes in the upper and lower cooking compartment regions do not or substantially do not have any effect on one another (ibid.).
Claim 34: Allera discloses that the base unit is thermally insulating such that the upper cooking compartment region is thermally insulated from the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the end position in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (see the insulating effects of the divider 18 discussed in ¶¶ 19 and 34).
Claim 35: Allera discloses that the cooking compartment is divided by the base unit of the cooking compartment divider such that the cooking appliance is configured to carry out a first heating mode in one of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions and simultaneously to carry out a second heating mode, which is different from the first heating mode, in another of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions (see ¶ 55), or simultaneously while the other of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions is not used at all or is not to be heated (see each of ¶¶ 53 and 54), and wherein either of the first and second heating modes in the upper and lower cooking compartment regions does not or substantially does not have any effect on heating of the other of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions (evident from the insulating effect of the divider 18 discussed in ¶¶ 19 and 34).
Claim 36: Allera discloses that only one cooking compartment divider slide-in level (28) is formed in the cooking compartment.
Claims 18, 23–25, 27, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allera in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bally et al. (EP 2431167 A1, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Comment: Although Allera is depicted as a smaller-type oven, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that its features could be joined with those of larger-type ovens, particularly given that larger-type ovens (including the Bally reference cited here) are known to be configured for use with dividers. The Office also points out that Allera’s fig. 13 embodiment features an oven heating arrangement that is more conventional than most of its embodiments, and is implementable in its other embodiments, including that of fig. 12.
Claim 18: Allera does not disclose that a heating element is arranged on the base unit and embodied as a top-heat heating element for the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level.
However, Bally discloses a similar apparatus and discloses that a heating element (10) is arranged on a base unit (9) and embodied as a top-heat heating element for a lower cooking compartment region when a cooking compartment divider is arranged in a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (evident from fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the heating element of Bally to the base unit of Allera to properly provide desired heat from an upper position in the lower cooking compartment.
Claim 23: Allera does not disclose that the upper cooking compartment region has at least one slide-in level for a carrier for food to be cooked, which carrier is different from the cooking compartment divider and positioned in the upper cooking compartment region at a distance from an upper side of the cooking compartment divider.
However, Bally discloses a similar apparatus where an upper cooking compartment region (the space above 9) has at least one slide-in level (5) for a carrier (“food carriers”) for food to be cooked, which carrier is different from the cooking compartment divider and positioned in the upper cooking compartment region at a distance from an upper side of the cooking compartment divider (evident at least from fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the at least one slide-in level for a carrier taught by Bally into Allera to provide one or more carriers to properly hold food a suitable distance away from the heating element in the upper cooking compartment region.
Claims 24 and 25: Modified as per claim 23 above, Bally does not disclose that a distance, viewed in the height direction, between the upper side of the cooking compartment divider, when inserted into the cooking compartment divider slide-in level, and an upper side of the carrier when inserted into the slide-in level, is between either 10 mm and 30 mm, or 19 mm and 24 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the positions of the slide-in levels such that the divider could confine the cooking compartment to regions of appropriate size, while also allowing the food carrier to adopt appropriate positions within the confined region (e.g. such that it would be an appropriate distance from the cooking elements, including not too close so that the elements would burn the food), including such that the upper side of the divider and the upper side of the carrier would be between 19 mm and 24 mm as claimed.
Claims 27 and 28: Allera discloses a heating element (59; see also ¶ 43, “A grill type heater (not shown) may also be provided along the upper portion of the cavity 12”) arranged in a fixed manner (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed) in the upper cooking compartment region (see fig. 12) and embodied as a top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element (necessary and inherent with heating element 59 or the grill heater mentioned in ¶ 43).
Allera does not disclose that a distance, viewed in the height direction, between the upper side of the carrier, when inserted into the slide-in level of the upper cooking compartment region, and the top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element in the upper cooling compartment region and/or an upper edge of a boundary flange, which delimits a loading opening of the cooking compartment, is between 160 mm and 210 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the slide-in level of the upper cooking compartment such that it was a suitable position from the top heating element, so that it would emit a desirable amount of heat directly to the surface of the food without being so close that it would burn the food, including with a distance of between 166 and 189 mm as claimed.
Claim 30: Allera does not disclose that the cooking compartment includes at least two slide-in levels for support of carriers for food to be cooked, respectively, said at least two slide-in levels positioned at different heights, said hot air system simultaneously supplying hot air to at least two of the at least two slide-in levels when the cooking compartment divider is removed from the cooking compartment.
However, Bally discloses a similar apparatus with a cooking compartment (2) that includes at least two slide-in levels (5) for support of carriers (“food carriers”) for food to be cooked, respectively, said at least two slide-in levels positioned at different heights (see fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the at least two slide-in levels for carriers of Bally into Allera to allow for the placement of food away in the cooking compartment away from its walls.
Furthermore, when implemented into Bennett, said hot air system would simultaneously supply hot air to at least two of the at least two slide-in levels when the cooking compartment divider is removed from the cooking compartment.
Claim 32: Allera does not disclose that its cooking compartment divider includes a heating element having electrical connection contacts which automatically make contact with electrical mating connection contacts of the cooking appliance when the cooking compartment divider is inserted into the end position in the cooking compartment.
However, Bally discloses a similar apparatus, where its cooking compartment divider (9) includes a heating element (10) having electrical connection contacts (11) which automatically make contact with electrical mating connection contacts (12) of the cooking appliance when the cooking compartment divider is inserted into the end position in the cooking compartment (appreciable from fig. 1, inter alia).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the heating element of Bally to the base unit of Allera to properly provide desired heat from an upper position in the lower cooking compartment.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allera in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Taplan et al. (US Pub. 2013/0327760)
Allera does not disclose that the cooking compartment divider includes a heating element embodied as a bottom-heat heating element and provided for the upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level.
However, Taplan discloses a similar apparatus with a cooking compartment divider (¶ 40, “heating element 10 used as a baking-space divider”; see 10a in fig. 5) includes a heating element (14) embodied as a bottom-heat heating element (given the position of the glass-ceramic plate 20 and the thermal insulation layer 22, 10d is arranged as a bottom-heat heating element that aims heat upwards). Taplan teaches that this particular cooking compartment divider could be provided for an upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (¶ 50 discloses that 10a is for heating only a spatial region 12a, which is an upper cooking compartment region as per figs. 1b to 1d). Taplan otherwise broadly teaches the use of heating element dividers with differently oriented heating elements in different positions (appreciable from at least ¶ 49).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the bottom-heat heating element of Taplan to the cooking compartment divider of Allera to increase the heating in an upper cooking compartment region.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allera in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bally et al. (EP 2431167 A1) and Linke (DE 1861227 U; no translation provided, elements translated here using Google Translate).
Allera does not disclose that the cooking compartment divider includes a heating element
However, Bally discloses a similar apparatus with a cooking compartment divider that includes a heating element (18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the heating element of Bally to the base unit of Allera to properly provide desired heat from an upper position in the lower cooking compartment.
Neither Allera nor Bally does not disclose that said cooking compartment divider includes support feet which extend further downward in the height direction than the heating element of the cooking compartment divider.
However, Linke discloses a similar apparatus where a cooking compartment divider (flat hot plate 4) includes support feet (feet 6) which extend further downward in a height direction than the heating element of the cooking compartment divider (see figs. 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the feet of Linke to the cooking compartment divider of Allera modified by Bally to allow it to be more quickly placed on a surface outside of the oven (e.g. after using the divider/heater) without burning said surface (i.e. due to residual heat from said use).
Comment: Linke appears to disclose its own heating element with its “45 Watt Heizleistung für Warmhaltung,” but as a completely translation is not readily available, the Office finds it better to rely on Bally for this element.
Conclusion
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights