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 .
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.
Claims 31-36, 39-44, 47-50, 54-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skala [Pat. No. 4,173,993] in view of Patti et al [Pat. No. 6,818,869] and Rambaud [Pat. No. 3,835,762].
Skala teaches a domestic appliance system (title) comprising a thermal container with an inner volume holding a food product (Figure 3, #20A), a fluid jacket partially surrounding the inner volume (Figure 3, #22A; column 6, line 41), a circulation system including a cooling portion and heating portion (Figure 3, #30A-B), a reservoir or expansion vessel which regulates pressure due to thermal expansion of the fluid during circulation and communicates with the jacket and heating portion but not the cooling portion (column 11, line 2-5), a first refrigeration state circulating liquid through the jacket and cooling portion (Figure 3, #22A, 30B, 21A), a second state/first cooking state circulating fluid through the jacket, heating portion, and reservoir to regulate pressure (Figure 3, #22A, 30A; column 11, lines 2-5), the device having a housing containing the jacket (Figure 3, #20A), the reservoir located between the heating portion and a pump (column 11,lines 2-5), a valve which switches between the first and second states (Figure 3, #21A), the cooling portion including a heat exchanger (Figure 3, #12B), first refrigerating the food with cold fluid (column 9, line 62 to column 10, line 13), and subsequently cooking the food with hot fluid (column 10, lines 13-32).
Skala does not explicitly recite an electric heating element in the thermal container (claim 31, 39, 47, 54), the fluid being water (claim 31, 39, 47, 54), a water reservoir which also purges air while water circulates in the reservoir (claim 31, 39, 47, 54), the reservoir being removable (claim 32, 40, 47), the reservoir being refillable (claim 33, 41), a higher rate of thermal heat transfer from the heating element (claim 48, 55).
Patti et al teach a cooking device and method comprising a device with a housing and thermal container (Figure 1, #12, 17, 19), electric radiant heating elements above the food (Figure 1, #42, 46), conductive heating elements below the food (Figure 1, #44, 48), a mode of operation using both radiant and conductive heat to provide enhanced efficiency, uniform baking, and significant cook time reduction (column 7, lines 55-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed electric heating element with a higher rate of thermal heat transfer into the invention of Skala, in view of Patti et al, since both are directed to food preparation systems, since Skala already included cooking by conductive heat transfer from the fluid jacket, since food cooking systems commonly used an electric radiant heating elements above the food (Figure 1, #42, 46), conductive heating elements below the food (Figure 1, #44, 48), and a mode of operation using both radiant and conductive heat to provide enhanced efficiency, uniform baking, significant cook time reduction (column 7, lines 55-64) as shown by Patti et al; since many consumers desired a browned/toasted/broiled food which could not be easily provided by conductive heating alone, since many food recipes required a browning or broiling step which required a high rate of thermal heat transfer, and since the addition of a powerful electric radiant heat element would have enabled greater flexibility in choosing the cooking mode of Skala.
Rambaud teaches a sterilization system comprising an autoclave chamber containing sealed bags of food (Figure 1, #11, S), a circulation system which transfers heated water to the chamber and includes a reservoir (Figure 1, #24), the reservoir containing heated water (Figure 1, E) which would naturally include circulation via convection currents within the reservoir, a source of cold water for cooling the food items (Figure 1, #18), the reservoir including a safety valve for purging excess pressure from the reservoir to the atmosphere (Figure 1, #27; column 4, line 61), purging air from the reservoir to the atmosphere via an additional valve (Figure 1, #29; column 4, line 1; column 5, lines 25-32), refilling the reservoir (Figure 1, #18, 33), initially filling the chamber with heated water from a first reservoir (Figure 1, #24; column 6, lines 55-62), next filling the chamber with hotter water from a second reservoir (Figure 1, #24’; column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 3), then cooling the food with cold water from a separate source (Figure 1, #18; column 7, lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed water into the invention of Skala, in view of Rambaud, since both are directed to food preparation systems, since Skala already included circulation of a fluid for heating and cooling but simply did not mention whether it contained water, since Skala also disclosed the cold latent heat storing material being water with ethylene glycol or ethanol to reduce its freezing point to about -20F (column 9, line 4), since food preparation systems commonly used water as both a cooling liquid and a heating liquid as shown by Rambaud, since the substitution of one known heat transfer fluid for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since water was easily acquired, simple to handle, and would not contaminate the food of Skala, in view of Rambaud.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed purged reservoir the device into the invention of Skala, in view of Rambaud and Patti et al, since all are directed to food preparation systems, since Skala already included a reservoir/expansion vessel to accommodate thermal expansion of the fluid during circulation (column 11, lines 2-5) but simply did not mention whether it was open to the atmosphere, since the electric heating element of Patti et al would have contributed additional heat to the circulating water of Skala, since excessive pressure in the circulation system of Skala could cause fluid leaks or other damage, since food heating systems commonly included a reservoir containing heated water (Figure 1, E) which would naturally include circulation via convection currents within the reservoir, the reservoir including a safety valve for purging excess pressure from the reservoir to the atmosphere (Figure 1, #27; column 4, line 61), purging air from the reservoir to the atmosphere via an additional valve (Figure 1, #29; column 4, line 1; column 5, lines 25-32), and refilling the reservoir (Figure 1, #18, 33) as shown by Rambaud, and since venting/purging excess pressure would have further ensured that the circulation system of Skala was not damaged.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed removable reservoir into the invention of Skala, in view of Patti et al and Rambaud, since all are directed to food preparation systems, since Skala already included a reservoir or thermal expansion vessel (column 11,lines 2-5), since mechanical systems commonly included removable components for the purpose of repair, modification, and/or replacement; and since a removable reservoir would have extended the service life of the system of Skala.
Claims 37-38, 45-46, 51-53, 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skala, in view of Patti et al, Rambaud, as applied above, and further in view of Smith Jr [Pat. No. 2,812,254].
Skala, Patti et al, Rambaud teach the abovementioned concepts and components. Skala also teaches a heater isolated from the cooling portion (Figure 3, #33A, 30B).
Skala does not explicitly recite a second state in which the heater does not heat the water (claim 37), a first flow path isolated from the heater (claim 38), a second flow path isolated from the heater (claim 45, 51), a valve switching between first and second flow paths (claim 46), a valve switching between first and second states (claim 60).
Smith Jr teaches a cooking system comprising a heater for a heat transfer medium (Figure 1, #16) and a valve permitting the medium to bypass the heater in a different path/state (Figure 1, #27-28).
Rambaud also taught a valve for opening the cold water source to produce a first state (Figure 1, #20), a valve to open the first hot water reservoir and produce a second state (Figure 1, #37), and a valve to open the second hot water reservoir and produce a third state (Figure 1, #37’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed valve arrangement and water circulation states into the invention of Skala, in view of Patti, Smith Jr, and Rambaud, since all are directed to cooking systems, since Skala already included a heater for the fluid, since cooking systems commonly included a valve permitting the medium to bypass the heater in a different path/state (Figure 1, #27-28) as shown by Smith Jr, since food processing systems also commonly included a valve for opening the cold water source to produce a first state (Figure 1, #20), a valve to open the first hot water reservoir and produce a second state (Figure 1, #37), and a valve to open the second hot water reservoir and produce a third state (Figure 1, #37’) as shown by Rambaud, since a bypass valve would have permitted greater control of the fluid temperature of Skala and permitted toasting, browning, and broiling of foods without overheating them through excessive heat from the circulating fluid, since many food recipes would have also benefited from the combined heating effect of radiant and conductive heating as shown by Patti et al, and since the ability to bypass the heater would have of Skala would have prevented overheating of the water during periods when food heating was not necessary or needed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 31-60 (particularly claim 47) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 (particularly claim 4) of U.S. Patent No. 11,533,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations required by present claim 31 are also present in claim 1 of ‘937.
Claims 31-60 (particularly claim 47) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 (particularly claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 11,284,636 in view of Skala, Rambaud. The ‘636 patent does not explicitly claim a reservoir which regulates a pressure increase and is open to the atmosphere. Skala, Rambaud teach the above mentioned concepts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed reservoir features into the invention of ‘636, in view of Skala and Rambaud, since all are directed to methods of cooling and heating food, since ‘636 already included circulation of heated fluid through the jacket and a heating element in the container (claim 1), since food preparation systems commonly included a fluid heating circuit with a reservoir or expansion vessel which regulates pressure (column 11, line 2-5) as shown by Skala, since food systems commonly included a reservoir which urged excess pressure to the atmosphere as shown by Rambaud, and since a vented reservoir would have prevented potentially dangerous or damaging rises in pressure of the circulating heated fluid of ‘636.
Claims 31-60 (particularly claim 47) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 (particularly claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 10,798,953 in view of Skala, Rambaud. The ‘636 patent does not explicitly claim a reservoir which regulates a pressure increase and is open to the atmosphere. Skala and Rambaud teach the above mentioned concepts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed reservoir features into the invention of ‘953, in view of Skala and Rambaud, since all are directed to methods of cooling and heating food, since ‘953 already included circulation of heated fluid through the jacket and a heating element in the container (claim 1), since food preparation systems commonly included a fluid heating circuit with a reservoir or expansion vessel which regulates pressure (column 11, line 2-5), since food systems commonly included a reservoir which urged excess pressure to the atmosphere as shown by Rambaud, and since a vented reservoir would have prevented potentially dangerous or damaging rises in pressure of the circulating heated fluid of ‘953.
Claims 31-60 (particularly claim 47) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 (particularly claim 6) of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,097 in view of Skala, Rambaud. The ‘097 patent does not explicitly claim a reservoir which regulates a pressure increase and is open to the atmosphere. Skala and Rambaud teach the above mentioned concepts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed reservoir features into the invention of ‘097, in view of Skala, Rambaud, since all are directed to methods of cooling and heating food, since ‘097 already included circulation of heated fluid through the jacket and a heating element in the container (claim 1), since food preparation systems commonly included a fluid heating circuit with a reservoir or expansion vessel which regulates pressure (column 11, line 2-5), since food systems commonly included a reservoir which urged excess pressure to the atmosphere as shown by Rambaud, and since a vented reservoir would have prevented potentially dangerous or damaging rises in pressure of the circulating heated fluid of ‘097.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Skala could not use water due its freezing functions. However, Skala clearly disclosed the cold latent heat storing material being water with ethylene glycol or ethanol to reduce its freezing point to about -20F (column 9, line 4). Clearly, water could be used at freezer temperatures.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792