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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims include many instances of the term “portion” which the Examiner has taken as having the plain meaning of any subdividable section of a recited structure. E.g. the conveyor is the entire mechanism while a “portion” of the conveyor is any arbitrary section of the whole structure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 4 depend from claim 1 and further modify the stationary portion of the conveyor. However, in claim 1 the stationary portion of the conveyor is an optional structure (see “and/or” clause) as such it is unclear whether claims 2 and 4 must contain the stationary portion of the conveyor or if these limitations are also optional.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4964392 to Bruno et al. .
Regarding claim 1
A conveyor oven for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising: an oven housing (20) defining an oven chamber in which the food is cooked (interior of the oven); a conveyor (22) operable to convey the food through the oven chamber (Col. 2, ll. 36-52); and an opening defined in an end of the oven chamber (see opening through which 22 extends), wherein a portion of the conveyor extends through a first portion of the opening (Fig. 1; right or left side opening), and a second portion of the opening below the conveyor is closed by a removable end plug (access panel 32),
Bruno further teaches an access component plug (24) wherein the removable end plug is configured to pivot (48) into a closed position while an upper edge of the removable end plug is received in a pocket (indentation in housing) formed at the end of the oven chamber (Fig. 2-5 shows opening and closing of access) by the oven housing and/or at least one stationary portion of the conveyor (by the oven housing).
The difference between Bruno and the prior art is that the pivoting access component plug (24) with the associated pocket is not in the claimed location (below the conveyor). However it is noted that the access panel located below the conveyor in the claimed location (32) is in the correct location (as mapped above).
That being said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Access panel 32 to have the pivoting/pocket arrangement as claimed as this is nothing more than a simple substitution of known structures, both of which are described as “access panels” , which would yield nothing more than the predictable result of providing access to the portion below the conveyor.
Regarding claim 2
Bruno as modified also teaches: wherein the pocket includes multiple portions of a weldment of a projecting frame portion of the conveyor outside a longitudinal end of the oven housing (see support locations 46 and flange 42).
While it is not explicitly stated due to the configurations shown in the unmodified Bruno that the at least one stationary portion of the conveyor forms a portion of the weldments. After modification it is considered reasonable to call the flanges (46 and 42 multiple portions of a stationary portion of the conveyor as they are immediately below the conveyor and will provide structural stationary support).
Regarding claim 3
Bruno as modified further teaches: wherein an inboard side of the pocket is formed at least in part by an end of a longitudinally extending support member secured on an interior side of an outer wall to support the conveyor (This could be the axial extending portion of 50 shown in Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 23
Bruno as modified further teaches: wherein the conveyor comprises a frame (see supports on each lateral edge of conveyor in Fig. 1), and wherein the conveyor, including the frame, remains secured in an operational assembly position as the removable end plug is pivoted into the closed position (Figs. 1-5, 32 is completely below the conveyor lateral supports).
Regarding claim 24
Bruno as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach at least one fastener to secure the removable end plug to the housing (the hinge pin can be considered a fastener in this context).
Claim(s) 5-9, 14, 15, 16, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno in view of US 2679850 to Kamp.
Regarding claims 5 and 21
Bruno as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach specifically teach wherein a lower edge of the removable end plug includes an oblique chamfer surface that faces into the oven chamber in the closed position, the chamfer surface having an angle and a length that provides clearance between the lower edge of the removable end plug and a bottom wall of the oven housing to permit the end plug to be pivoted into the closed position with the upper edge received in the pocket. Specifically, Bruno uses a flat door which does not have a chamfer.
Another way of making an appliance door, as taught by Kamp and widely used in appliance design, is giving a lower edge of the removable end plug an oblique chamfer surface that faces into the appliance in the closed position (annotated Fig. 1 below), the chamfer surface having an angle and a length that provides clearance between the lower edge of the removable end plug and a bottom wall of the oven housing to permit the end plug to be pivoted into the closed position with the upper edge received in the pocket (Col. 1, ll. 43-Col. 2, ll. 10 – “the door may be closed”).
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the door of Bruno with the chamfered arrangement as claimed as this is a known configuration for appliance doors and would have yielded only the predictable result of a known door arrangement capable of closing the oven.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9, 14 and 15
A conveyor oven for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising: an oven housing (20) defining an oven chamber in which the food is cooked (interior of the oven); a conveyor (22) operable to convey the food through the oven chamber (Col. 2, ll. 36-52); and an opening defined in an end of the oven chamber (see opening through which 22 extends), wherein a portion of the conveyor extends through a first portion of the opening (Fig. 1; right or left side opening), and a second portion of the opening below the conveyor is closed by a removable end plug (access panel 32). Wherein the conveyor includes a movable track portion (belt shown in Fig. 1) and a frame (lateral side support portions shown in Fig. 1 and portion of frame underneath conveyor that supports the lateral side portions).
Bruno further teaches an access component plug (24) wherein the removable end plug is configured to pivot (48) into a closed position while an upper edge of the removable end plug is received in a pocket (indentation in housing) formed at the end of the oven chamber (Fig. 2-5 shows opening and closing of access) by the oven housing and/or at least one stationary portion of the conveyor (by the oven housing).
The difference between Bruno and the prior art is that the pivoting access component plug (24) with the associated pocket is not in the claimed location (below the conveyor). However it is noted that the access panel located below the conveyor in the claimed location (32) is in the correct location (as mapped above).
That being said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Access panel 32 to have the pivoting/pocket arrangement as claimed as this is nothing more than a simple substitution of known structures, both of which are described as “access panels” , which would yield nothing more than the predictable result of providing access to the portion below the conveyor.
After modification the top flange portion (42) can be considered the housing portion that provides support for the lateral legs of the conveyor and thus is part of the conveyer frame.
Bruno also does not teach specifically teach wherein a lower edge of the removable end plug includes an oblique chamfer surface that faces into the oven chamber in the closed position, the chamfer surface having an angle and a length that provides clearance between the lower edge of the removable end plug and a bottom wall of the oven housing to permit the end plug to be pivoted into the closed position with the upper edge received in the pocket. Specifically, Bruno uses a flat door which does not have a chamfer. Bruno also does not teach wherein a bottom portion of the chamfer surface terminates at a flat horizontal ledge portion that rests on top of the bottom wall of the oven housing in the closed position of the removable end plug or wherein a lower edge of the removable end plug includes the ledge portion, the chamfer surface, and a portion configured to abut an outside surface of the bottom wall of the oven housing.
However, such an arrangement is known from Kent wherein a lower edge of the removable end plug includes an oblique chamfer surface that faces into the oven chamber in the closed position (annotated Fig. below), the chamfer surface having an angle and a length that provides clearance between the lower edge of the removable end plug and a bottom wall of the oven housing to permit the end plug to be pivoted into the closed position with the upper edge received in the pocket (“the door closes”). Bruno also does not teach wherein a bottom portion of the chamfer surface terminates at a flat horizontal ledge (annotated edge) portion that rests on top of the bottom wall of the oven housing in the closed position of the removable end plug or wherein a lower edge of the removable end plug includes the ledge portion (all annotated portions are on the lower edge), the chamfer surface, and a portion configured to abut an outside surface of the bottom wall of the oven housing (see flat contacting portion of door laterally adjacent to chamfered portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 16
Bruno as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above and further teaches that the chamfer surface extends from a pair of surfaces (the termination end surfaces of the chamfer) and further teaches that the chamfer surface is “straight” (substantially straight as shown in the annotated Fig. above).
Bruno is silent as to the angle of the chamfer. However, the purpose of the chamfer in the claimed invention is entirely to allow the door to close without the indented portions interfering this is the same purpose of the chamfer in the prior art. Further, there is no unexpected or synergistic result derived from the 45 degree chamfer. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the chamfer at a 45 degree angle. Note that it has been held that when the shape of a component does not effect the function a finding of prima facie obviousness (MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 7
wherein a bottom portion of the chamfer surface terminates at a flat horizontal ledge portion of the removable end plug configured to rest on top of the bottom wall of the oven housing. (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 8
wherein the lower edge of the removable end plug includes the ledge portion, the chamfer surface, and a portion configured to abut an outside surface of the bottom wall of the oven housing (see annotated Fig. above)
Regarding claim 22
Bruno as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but is silent as to whether contact occurs between the lower edge of the removable end plug and bottom wall of the oven housing to cam the end plug into the pocket during pivoting of the removable end plug into the closed position.
The examiner takes official notice that the claimed configuration is well-known in appliance doors, being near ubiquitous in bottom hinge dishwashers and ovens and that the purpose of this is to act as a guide so that the door will be in a tight position with the interior to prevent heat/water escape.
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the chamfer in a cam arrangement as claimed in order to guide the door to a tight fit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach the skid bar and support in the specific arrangements claimed in claims 10-13.
Claim 4 is similar in scope to claims 10-13, but is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761