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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 12-16 and 18-25 have been amended. Claims 26-32 are new. Therefore, claims 12-16 and 18-32 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/27/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the drawing objections. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that Klement teaches away from determining the optimal range for the distance between the upper face of the cooking food support and the heating element. Applicant points out that Klement states, “[i]n any case, experience shows that optimization is laborious and often impossible” in paragraph [0004] of Klement.
However, this sentence in Klement is directed to the fact that it is difficult to choose a single distance at which a food carrier should be placed with respect to a top heating element and a bottom heating element. Klement’s solution to this problem is the same as that of the Applicant, which is to provide a food carrier whose height is adjustable. As such, Klement does not teach away from a particular range of distances at which the food carrier can be placed. Rather, Klement merely explains that it is less desirable to have a food carrier whose distance from the heating elements is fixed. This is unrelated to the range of distances at which the food carrier can be desirably placed.
On page 13, Applicant states, “the claimed vertical distance ranges are not arbitrary design choices. Rather, they are critical design parameters that enable functionality across a variety of cooking vessels, heating methods, and cooking techniques while minimizing user effort and adjustment. See, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0019], [0023], [0063]-[0066], and [0068] of Applicant's Specification.”
However, Applicant’s specification does not indicate that the claimed vertical distance ranges are critical. That is, there is nothing in Applicant’s disclosure indicating that a distance outside of this range would result in Applicant’s invention failing to function. Given this lack of criticality, along with Klement’s teachings regarding the vertical distance of the cooking support, the claimed vertical distance ranges are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 indicates that the plate-shaped divider includes a heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber. Claim 31 depends from claim 29, and claim 29 indicates that the plate-shaped divider includes a heating element configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber. While Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the plate-shaped divider can have either a heating element that directs heat upward or a heating element that directs heat downward, the disclosure does not indicate that the plate-shaped divider can have both of these heating elements in a single embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-16, 23, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Klement (DE 3246445).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses a cooking appliance (“oven” with “cooking spaces” [Abstract]), comprising:
a housing comprising a cooking chamber including a divider slide-in level (Fig. 1, housing / “inner case 13” comprises “cooking chamber 11” [Col. 2, lines 61-62] with divider slide-in level / “mounting parts 17” [Col. 3, lines 12-13]);
a plate-shaped divider (Fig. 1, “partition 16” [Col. 2, line 7]) removably disposed on the divider slide-in level (Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 5-16]) to divide the cooking chamber into an upper cooking chamber (Fig. 1, “first cooking chamber 11a” [Col. 3, lines 5-6]) and a lower cooking chamber (Fig. 1, “second cooking chamber 11b” [Col. 3, line 6]), wherein the upper cooking chamber includes a food support slide-in level (Fig. 1, “shelf supporting members 19a” [Col. 3, lines 21-22]; and
a food support (Fig. 1, food shelf 18a [Col. 3, line 17]) disposed on the food support slide-in level (Fig. 1).
Park does not expressly disclose wherein the food support is removably disposed on the food support slide-in level;
a first heating element fixedly arranged in the upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the food support slide-in level; and
wherein a second vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element is between 160 mm and 210 mm.
Klement is directed to an oven [0003]. Klement discloses a food support removably disposed on a food support slide-in level (“cooking tray 18 can be inserted into the oven cavity at different heights on supports 8” [0015]);
a first heating element (Fig. 4, “heating element 4” ([0013] of attached translation) fixedly arranged (“Grill heater 4 permanently installed” [0015]) in an upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward a food support slide-in level (Fig. 4); and
wherein a vertical distance between an upper face of the food support (cooking tray 8) and the heating element (heating element 4) is adjustable (Fig. 4, “cooking tray 18 can be inserted into the oven cavity at different heights on supports 8” [0015]).
Klement does not expressly disclose wherein the vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element is between 160 mm and 210 mm.
However, Klement describes wherein the distance between the food and the heating element can be adjust as follows: “The cooking support, designed as a rack or pan, can be hung at different heights in the oven's cooking chamber, whereby different cooking results can be obtained by changing the height” [0004]; “the distances between the heating elements and the food being cooked can be selected in such a way as to obtain optimal roasting results” [0005]; “It is possible to place the heating elements so close to the food being cooked that even a very low amount of heating energy is sufficient to achieve the best possible cooking results” [0008].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a food support removably disposed on a food support slide-in level, a first heating element fixedly arranged in the upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the food support slide-in level, and wherein a second vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element is between 160 mm and 210 mm. A food support that is removably disposed on a food support slide-in level allows for positioning the food support at various heights as desired. A first heating element fixedly arranged in the upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the food support slide-in level allows for grilling/broiling food, resulting in a cooked food that can be toasted, with more heat being applied to the food. Regarding the claimed vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element of between 160 mm and 210 mm, Klement describes that the distance between the heating element and the food to be cooked affects the results. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the heating element is relatively close to the food, the food will receive relatively more heat, and thus will be cooked differently compared to when the heating element is relatively far from the food. Regarding the claimed range of between 160 mm and 210 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Park does not expressly disclose wherein a first vertical distance between an upper face of the plate-shaped divider and an upper face of the food support is between 10 mm and 30 mm.
However, Park teaches a plate-shaped divider and a food support, as described above. Additionally, Klement teaches wherein a height of a food support is adjustable, as described above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a first vertical distance between an upper face of the plate-shaped divider and an upper face of the food support is adjustable, as this advantageously results in positioning the food support either close to or away from the heating element, depending on the type of cooking that is desired. Regarding the claimed range, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a first vertical distance between an upper face of the plate-shaped divider and an upper face of the food support is between 10 mm and 30 mm,” since the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 13, Park / Klement do not expressly disclose wherein the first vertical distance between the upper face of the plate-shaped divider (Fig. 1, partition 16) and the upper face of the food support (Fig. 1, food shelf 18a) is between 19 mm and 24 mm.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first vertical distance between the upper face of the plate-shaped divider and the upper face of the food support is between 19 mm and 24 mm, since the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 14, Park / Klement do not expressly disclose wherein the second vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element is between 166 mm and 189 mm.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second vertical distance between the upper face of the food support and the heating element is between 166 mm and 189 mm. As described in the rejection of claim 12, Klement describes that the distance between the heating element and the food to be cooked affects the results. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when the heating element is relatively close to the food, the food will receive relatively more heat, and thus will be cooked differently compared to when the heating element is relatively far from the food. Regarding the claimed range of between 166 mm and 189 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses a hot air system (Figs. 1 and 2, hot air system includes “first circulating fan 22a” [Col. 3, line 33]) configured to conduct hot air into the cooking chamber (Figs. 1 and 2, air is heated by “first heater 23a” [Col. 3, line 32] and circulated by fan 22a) via a plurality of openings disposed only above the divider slide-in level (Figs. 1 and 2, the rear wall has “suction holes 26a” and “discharge holes 27a” for circulating hot air [Col. 3, lines 43-48]; while there are ventilation openings 26b and 27b that are below the cooking chamber divider slide-in level, these are separate ventilation openings; the cooking chamber divider / partition 16 insulates upper cooking chamber 11a from lower cooking chamber 11b, such that hot air flowing into the upper cooking chamber does not circulate to the lower cooking chamber; “partition 16 is made of an insulating member, and an insulating unit is mounted at the side walls of the inner case 13 between the first cooking chamber 11a and the second cooking chamber 11b (the side walls of the inner case). As a result, heat transfer along the partition 16 and the side walls 13a of the inner case 13 between the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b is minimized” [Col. 4, lines 12-19]).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses wherein the hot air system (Figs. 1 and 2, hot air system includes “first circulating fan 22a” [Col. 3, line 33]) is configured to conduct the hot air only in the upper cooking chamber (as described in the rejection of claim 15, partition 16 insulates upper cooking chamber 11a from lower cooking chamber 11b; Figs. 1 and 2 show wherein the hot air system including fan 22a acts only in upper cooking chamber 11a when partition 16 is inserted).
Regarding claim 23, Park discloses wherein a first type of heating is implemented in the upper cooking chamber while concurrently a second type of heating is implemented in the lower cooking chamber, and wherein the upper and lower cooking chambers are thermally isolated from each other (the first type of heating can be a high-temperature type of heating, and the second type of heating can be a low-temperature type of heating; the cooking chamber divider / partition 16 thermally isolates upper cooking chamber 11a from lower cooking chamber 11b, such that the first and second types of heating substantially do not influence one another; “When it is necessary to cook food simultaneously in both the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b under different temperature conditions, power sources applied to the first and second heaters 23a and 23b are separately controlled such that the interior temperature of the first cooking chamber 11a is different from that of the second cooking chamber 11b” [Col. 3, line 65 – Col. 4, line 4]; “partition 16 is made of an insulating member, and an insulating unit is mounted at the side walls of the inner case 13 between the first cooking chamber 11a and the second cooking chamber 11b (the side walls of the inner case). As a result, heat transfer along the partition 16 and the side walls 13a of the inner case 13 between the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b is minimized” [Col. 4, lines 12-19]).
Regarding claim 26, Park discloses wherein the plurality of openings are disposed both above and below the upper face of the food support (Fig. 1, “suction holes 26a and 26b and discharge holes 27a and 27b” [Col. 3, line 45]).
Regarding claim 27, Park does not expressly disclose wherein at least 70% of the plurality of openings are disposed above the upper face of the food support.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least 70% of the plurality of openings are disposed above the upper face of the food support, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 28, Park discloses wherein the upper cooking chamber and the lower cooking chamber are thermally isolated from each other by the plate-shaped divider (the cooking chamber divider / partition 16 thermally isolates upper cooking chamber 11a from lower cooking chamber 11b, such that the first and second types of heating substantially do not influence one another; “When it is necessary to cook food simultaneously in both the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b under different temperature conditions, power sources applied to the first and second heaters 23a and 23b are separately controlled such that the interior temperature of the first cooking chamber 11a is different from that of the second cooking chamber 11b” [Col. 3, line 65 – Col. 4, line 4]; “partition 16 is made of an insulating member, and an insulating unit is mounted at the side walls of the inner case 13 between the first cooking chamber 11a and the second cooking chamber 11b (the side walls of the inner case). As a result, heat transfer along the partition 16 and the side walls 13a of the inner case 13 between the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b is minimized” [Col. 4, lines 12-19]).
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Klement (DE 3246445), further in view of Rieser (DE 10 2010 030471).
Regarding claim 18, Park / KIement does not expressly disclose wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a base unit and a second heating element coupled to the base unit and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber region.
Rieser is directed to an oven [Title]. Rieser discloses wherein a cooking chamber divider includes a base unit and a heating element coupled to the base unit and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber region (Fig. 2; “The oven has a cooking space (1) closed by an oven door, where the volume of the cooking space is reduced by horizontally covering the cooking space by individual heatable incorporation units. An insertable incorporation unit is inserted into the cooking space and is arranged in a cooking space divider element (5) that is provided with a wide heating element (7). The cooking space is divided into individual heatable neighboring cooking space regions (9, 10) by the divider element. The divider element is turnable around 180 degrees from a bearing axis in the cooking space” [Abstract]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a base unit and a second heating element coupled to the base unit and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber region. This allows the lower cooking chamber to be heated with a top-heat heating body, thus allowing for grilling / broiling to be performed in the lower cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 19, Park / KIement does not expressly disclose wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a third heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber.
Rieser discloses wherein a plate-shaped divider includes a heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward an upper cooking chamber (Fig. 1; “The oven has a cooking space (1) closed by an oven door, where the volume of the cooking space is reduced by horizontally covering the cooking space by individual heatable incorporation units. An insertable incorporation unit is inserted into the cooking space and is arranged in a cooking space divider element (5) that is provided with a wide heating element (7). The cooking space is divided into individual heatable neighboring cooking space regions (9, 10) by the divider element. The divider element is turnable around 180 degrees from a bearing axis in the cooking space” [Abstract]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a third heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber. This allows the upper cooking chamber to have both an upper heating element and a lower heating element, to cook food in the upper cooking chamber as desired.
Claims 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Klement (DE 3246445), further in view of Cadima (US 8,803,045).
Regarding claim 20, Park does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the upper cooking chamber is greater by at least 10% than a height of the lower cooking chamber.
Cadima is directed to an oven comprising a divider [Abstract]. Cadima discloses wherein a height of an upper cooking chamber is greater than a height of a lower cooking chamber (Figs. 4 and 5 show wherein “a moveable oven divider 210” is positioned on supports 220-2 (Fig. 4) and 220-3 (Fig. 5); divider 210 can be “positioned on a support 220-1 through 220-n” [Col. 3, lines 44-46], thus allowing the height of the upper cooking chamber to be greater than the height of the lower cooking chamber, e.g., when the divider is positioned on support 220-n in Fig. 4 or 5).
While Cadima suggests that the height of the upper cooking chamber is greater by at least 10% than a height of the lower cooking chamber, when the divider is positioned on support 220-n in Fig. 4 or 5, Cadima does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the upper cooking chamber is greater by at least 10% than a height of the lower cooking chamber.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a height of the upper cooking chamber is greater by at least 10% than a height of the lower cooking chamber. Allowing the divider to be placed a different heights allows for customizing the height of each cooking chamber to accommodate different foods in each chamber. Additionally, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 21, Park does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the upper cooking chamber is greater than a height of the lower cooking chamber by a percentage between 10% and 30%.
Cadima discloses wherein a height of an upper cooking chamber is greater than a height of a lower cooking chamber (Figs. 4 and 5 show wherein “a moveable oven divider 210” is positioned on supports 220-2 (Fig. 4) and 220-3 (Fig. 5); divider 210 can be “positioned on a support 220-1 through 220-n” [Col. 3, lines 44-46], thus allowing the height of the upper cooking chamber to be greater than the height of the lower cooking chamber, e.g., when the divider is positioned on support 220-3 or 220-n in Fig. 4 or 5).
Cadima does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the upper cooking chamber region is greater than a height of the lower cooking chamber by a percentage between 10% and 30%.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include herein a height of the upper cooking chamber is greater than a height of the lower cooking chamber by a percentage between 10% and 30%. Allowing the divider to be placed a different heights allows for customizing the height of each cooking chamber to accommodate different foods in each chamber. Additionally, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Klement (DE 3246445), further in view of Taplan et al. (US 2013/0327760).
Regarding claim 22, Park discloses a fourth heating element fixedly disposed in the lower cooking chamber (Fig. 2, “second heater 23b” [Col. 3, line 36]).
Park does not expressly disclose wherein the fourth heating element fixedly disposed in the lower cooking chamber is configured to generate and direct heat upward toward a lower face of the plate-shaped divider.
Taplan is directed to a heating element for an oven [Abstract]. Taplan discloses a heating element fixedly disposed in a lower cooking chamber configured to generate and direct heat upward (Fig. 1b shows a lower cooking chamber 12b, wherein “bottom heating unit 17 is disposed at the bottom of baking space 12” [0039], [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the fourth heating element fixedly disposed in the lower cooking chamber is configured to generate and direct heat upward toward a lower face of the plate-shaped divider. This is a known, alternative configuration for an oven heating element, applied to a known device, to yield predictable results.
Claims 24 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Klement (DE 3246445), further in view of Rieser (DE 10 2010 030471), further in view of Taplan et al. (US 2013/0327760).
Regarding claim 24, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the second heating element includes electrical terminal contacts configured to automatically disengage from corresponding electrical mating terminal contacts when the plate-shaped divider is removed from the cooking chamber.
Taplan discloses wherein a heating element (Figs. 1b and 3, “heating element 10 used as a baking-space divider” [0040]) includes electrical terminal contacts (Figs. 2 and 3, “contacting means 30” and “plug contacts 32a, 32b and 32c” [0045]) configured to automatically disengage from corresponding electrical mating terminal contacts when the plate-shaped divider is removed from the cooking chamber (Fig. 3, contacts of plug receptacle 33, which connect to “[e]lectrical leads 31a and 31b” [0045]; “The contacting means 30 is disposed at the edge region 28 of the heating element 10 facing the inner back wall 13 of the baking space 12. The plug contacts 32a, 32b and 32c shown in FIG. 2 project in the direction onto the back wall 13 from the contacting means 30. When the heating element 10 is inserted, the plug contacts 32a, 32b and 32c are taken up in a corresponding plug receptacle 33 on the back wall 13 of the baking space 12. Electrical leads 31a and 31b lead from the plug receptacle 33 to the power supply and control device of baking oven 11” [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second heating element includes electrical terminal contacts configured to automatically disengage from corresponding electrical mating terminal contacts when the plate-shaped divider is removed from the cooking chamber. This provides a power supply for a heating element that is part of the divider, which allows food to be cooked as desired in either/both cooking chamber(s).
Regarding claim 25, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the plate-shaped divider includes support feet extending away from a lower surface of the plate-shaped divider and the second heating element.
Taplan discloses wherein a divider includes support feet extending away from a lower surface of the divider and a heating element (Figs. 1b and 3, “heating element 10 used as a baking-space divider” [0040]; Fig. 5 shows an embodiment 10a of the heating element / divider 10 [0050], wherein element 14 corresponds to the heating element of the divider: “flat electrical heating means 14” [0050]; support feet / “lower frame part 26c” [0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plate-shaped divider includes support feet extending away from a lower surface of the plate-shaped divider and the second heating element. The use of feet / lower frame parts allows for supporting the various portions of the divider, including the heating element and a base portion comprising thermal insulation and a metal plate (Fig. 5 of Taplan).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Rieser (DE 10 2010 030471) and Taplan et al. (US 2013/0327760).
Regarding claim 29, Park discloses a cooking appliance (“oven” with “cooking spaces” [Abstract]), comprising:
a housing comprising a cooking chamber including a divider slide-in level (Fig. 1, housing / “inner case 13” comprises “cooking chamber 11” [Col. 2, lines 61-62] with divider slide-in level / “mounting parts 17” [Col. 3, lines 12-13]);
a plate-shaped divider (Fig. 1, “partition 16” [Col. 2, line 7]) disposed on the divider slide-in level (Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 5-16]) to divide the cooking chamber into an upper cooking chamber (Fig. 1, “first cooking chamber 11a” [Col. 3, lines 5-6]) and a lower cooking chamber (Fig. 1, “second cooking chamber 11b” [Col. 3, line 6]);
a hot air system configured to conduct hot air into the upper cooking chamber via a plurality of openings disposed above the divider slide-in level (Figs. 1 and 2, hot air system includes “first circulating fan 22a” [Col. 3, line 33]; air is heated by “first heater 23a” [Col. 3, line 32] and circulated by fan 22a; the rear wall has “suction holes 26a” and “discharge holes 27a” for circulating hot air [Col. 3, lines 43-48]).
Park does not expressly disclose a first heating element coupled to a base of the plate-shaped divider and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber.
Rieser is directed to an oven [Title]. Rieser discloses a heating element coupled to a divider and configured to generate and direct heat downward (Fig. 2; “The oven has a cooking space (1) closed by an oven door, where the volume of the cooking space is reduced by horizontally covering the cooking space by individual heatable incorporation units. An insertable incorporation unit is inserted into the cooking space and is arranged in a cooking space divider element (5) that is provided with a wide heating element (7). The cooking space is divided into individual heatable neighboring cooking space regions (9, 10) by the divider element. The divider element is turnable around 180 degrees from a bearing axis in the cooking space” [Abstract]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first heating element coupled to a base of the plate-shaped divider and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the lower cooking chamber. This allows the lower cooking chamber to be heated with a top-heat heating body, thus allowing for grilling / broiling to be performed in the lower cooking chamber.
Park does not expressly disclose a second heating element fixedly disposed in the lower cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat upward toward a lower face of the plate-shaped divider; wherein the lower cooking chamber is heated only by the first heating element and the second heating element.
Taplan is directed to a heating element for an oven [Abstract]. Taplan discloses a heating element fixedly disposed in a lower cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat upward (Fig. 1b shows a lower cooking chamber 12b, wherein “bottom heating unit 17 is disposed at the bottom of baking space 12” [0039], [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second heating element fixedly disposed in the lower cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat upward toward a lower face of the plate-shaped divider; wherein the lower cooking chamber is heated only by the first heating element and the second heating element. This is a known, alternative configuration for an oven heating element, applied to a known device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, Park discloses wherein the upper cooking chamber and the lower cooking chamber are thermally insulated from each other by the plate-shaped divider (the cooking chamber divider / partition 16 thermally isolates upper cooking chamber 11a from lower cooking chamber 11b, such that the first and second types of heating substantially do not influence one another; “When it is necessary to cook food simultaneously in both the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b under different temperature conditions, power sources applied to the first and second heaters 23a and 23b are separately controlled such that the interior temperature of the first cooking chamber 11a is different from that of the second cooking chamber 11b” [Col. 3, line 65 – Col. 4, line 4]; “partition 16 is made of an insulating member, and an insulating unit is mounted at the side walls of the inner case 13 between the first cooking chamber 11a and the second cooking chamber 11b (the side walls of the inner case). As a result, heat transfer along the partition 16 and the side walls 13a of the inner case 13 between the first and second cooking chambers 11a and 11b is minimized” [Col. 4, lines 12-19]).
Regarding claim 31, Park / Rieser / Taplan does not expressly disclose wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a third heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber.
However, Rieser discloses a heating element included with a divider as described in the rejection of claim 29. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plate-shaped divider includes a third heating element configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber, because the inclusion of a heating element, configured to generate and direct heat upward toward the upper cooking chamber, is merely a duplication of parts that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “[T]he courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 7,183,520) in view of Rieser (DE 10 2010 030471) and Taplan et al. (US 2013/0327760), further in view of Klement (DE 3246445).
Regarding claim 32, Park does not expressly disclose wherein the cooking appliance comprises a fourth heating element fixedly disposed in the upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the food support slide-in level.
Klement is directed to an oven [0003]. Klement discloses a heating element fixedly disposed in an upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward (Fig. 4, “Grill heater 4 permanently installed” [0015]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the cooking appliance comprises a fourth heating element fixedly disposed in the upper cooking chamber and configured to generate and direct heat downward toward the food support slide-in level. This allows for grilling/broiling food, resulting in a cooked food that can be toasted, with more heat being applied to the food.
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 ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights