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 Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 11/4/25 response to the Office Action dated 8/7/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections and those objections are withdrawn accordingly.
Claim Interpretation
The term “washer” used in claim 3 suggests the “sink washer” is a flat, thin ring. However, sink washer 212 in Figure 2 does not appear to be thin and therefore does not appear to match this interpretation. Examiner interprets a “sink washers” as a flat ring without any restrictions on its thickness (i.e., does not have to be thin).
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to claim 1 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.
Claim 1 now requires additional limitations, such as “a sink washer positioned around and in contact with a surface of the barrel lens between the insulation block and the lens to cool the lens via forced air from an oven cooling system” that were not present in the previous claim set filed 12/19/2022. Therefore, claim 1 has a new scope that requires further search and/or consideration. At least independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Garuccio et al. (US 20200166276 A1, hereafter Garuccio) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2019148700 A1, hereafter Liu). Garuccio and Liu are newly cited references applied to the rejection to claim 1 (and dependent claims therefrom), which comprise a new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio et al. (US 20200166276 A1, hereafter Garuccio) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2019148700 A1, hereafter Liu) and Hoffman et al. (US 20160223207 A1, hereafter Hoffman).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Liu ‘700.
Regarding claim 1, Garuccio discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, casing 14) having walls (Fig. 1, first and second side walls 90, 92, top wall 18, bottom wall 94) defining an oven cavity (Fig. 1, cooking cavity 16), at least one wall (Fig. 3, top wall 18) defining a window (Figs. 3 and 7, second opening 34) to view into the oven cavity from an outer side of the housing (Fig. 3, outer side of casing 14);
a camera (Fig. 3, imaging device assembly 38 and Par. 0023, “An imaging device assembly 38, e.g. a camera”) arranged on the outer side of the housing (Fig. 3) and being positioned such that a barrel lens (Fig. 7, lens barrel 224) of the camera has a visibility area through the window (Figs. 3 and 7 and Par. 0004, “a lens of the imaging device assembly is aligned with the first opening of the chamber to view the cavity”);
cooling the lens via forced air from an oven cooling system (Par. 0024, “When the cooking appliance 12 reaches 450° C. or other high temperatures, the cooling system 10 may be used to protect the imaging device assembly 38”); and
an insulation block (Figs. 1 and 7, supporting member 22 and Par. 0034, “The supporting member 22 may be at least partially formed of a thermally insulating material such as, for example, fiberglass or alkaline earth silicate fibers.” A block is a compact usually solid piece of substantial material especially when worked to serve a particular purpose, therefore supporting member 22 is an ‘insulation block’ because it is compacted between body cavity 78 and exterior panels 80 (See Fig. 1), is a solid piece formed at least partially of insulation and serves the particular purpose of insulating heat), the insulation block positioned between the housing and the camera (Fig. 3), and defining a channel (Fig. 3, gap 234) within the insulation block corresponding to the visibility area of the lens extending from the camera to the window (Fig. 3).
However, Garuccio does not disclose a sink washer positioned around and in contact with a surface of the barrel lens between the insulation block and the lens to cool the lens via forced air from an oven cooling system; and
an insulation block having a foamed glass body; and
defining a channel within the foamed glass body.
Liu discloses a solution for reducing internal temperatures (Par. 0005), similar to the problem of protecting thermos-sensitive components within the oven in the present invention. Liu further discloses a sink washer (Fig. 3, heat dissipation fins 41, which collectively form a flat ring and therefore meet the interpretation of ‘sink washer’ as explained in the “Claim Interpretation” section above) positioned around and in contact with a surface of a barrel lens (Fig. 3, outer surface of lens barrel 10) to cool the lens via forced air from a cooling system (Par. 0022, “The first fan is used to introduce cool airflow for heat dissipation from the outside of the housing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Garuccio to include the sink washer as disclosed by Liu in order to have a sink washer positioned around and in contact with a surface of the barrel lens between the insulation block and thereby reduce the temperature of the lens barrel (As suggested by Par. 0067 of Liu: “The densely packed sheet-like structure of the heat dissipation fins increases the heat dissipation surface area of the lens barrel 10, thereby effectively reducing the temperature of the lens barrel 10”) for increased reliability and/or cost-savings. To elaborate, the lens is less likely to malfunction if the environment does not exceed its temperature rating and a lens with a lower temperature rating is generally cheaper.
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that modified Garuccio teaches a sink washer positioned between the insulation block and the lens. To elaborate, the heat dissipation fins 41 of Liu (i.e., sink washer) will at least be positioned between the supporting member 22 of Garuccio (i.e., insulation block) and the lens barrel 224 (i.e., lens) at the areas identified in annotated Fig. A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 7 from Garuccio showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Garuccio, as modified above, does not disclose the insulation block having a foamed glass body, and
defining a channel within the foamed glass body.
Hoffman discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Hoffman further discloses it is known for an insulation block (Fig. 4, third sub-layer 4.3 and Par. 0028. A block is a compact usually solid piece of substantial material especially when worked to serve a particular purpose, therefore third sub-layer 4.3 is an ‘insulation block’ because it is compacted between second sub-layer 4.2 and housing 13, is a solid piece of insulation and serves the particular purpose of insulating heat) to have a foamed glass body (Par. 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulation block of Garuccio with the foamed glass disclosed by Hoffman in order to ensure the insulation has a low coefficient of thermal conductivity to enhance the heat insulation, as suggested by Par. 0028 of Hoffman, and thereby reduce the energy loss of the baking oven, as suggested by Par. 0001 of Hoffman, for increased energy efficiency and safety.
Regarding claim 3, Garuccio, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the sink washer (Liu: Fig. 3, heat dissipation fins 41, as explained in claim 1) has a portion (areas identified in annotated Fig. A, as explained in corresponding note for Fig. A) positioned between the insulation block (Garuccio: Fig. 7, supporting member 22 and Par. 0034, as quoted and explained in claim 1) and the camera (Garuccio: Fig. 3, imaging device assembly 38 and Par. 0023, “An imaging device assembly 38, e.g. a camera”) to reduce surface contact of the camera with the insulation block (annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 6, Garuccio discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, further comprising an oven wrapper (Fig. 1, body 60) forming the walls (Par. 0025, “The body 60 includes a first side wall 64 and a second side wall 66 joined by a lower wall 70 and an upper wall 72”) inside an oven frame (Fig. 1, exterior panels 80 and Par. 0027, “exterior panels 80 may extend from the top panel 58 to the bottom of the first and second side walls 64, 66”), the oven frame and the oven wrapper defining an oven channel therebetween (Fig. 1, space 86 and Par, 0028, “The upper wall 72 of the body 60 defines a space 86 configured to receive the supporting member 22”. Examiner notes space 86 is defined between upper wall 72 and the portion of exterior panels 80 that corresponds with top panel 58), and the camera (Fig. 3, imaging device assembly 38 and Par. 0023, as quoted in claim 1) and insulation block (Fig. 7, supporting member 22 and Par. 0034, as quoted and explained in claim 1) are arranged within the oven channel (Figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Garuccio discloses the cooking appliance of claim 6, wherein the camera (Fig. 3, imaging device assembly 38 and Par. 0023, as quoted in claim 1) is mounted via a camera mounting bracket (Fig. 6, bracket 194 and Par. 0042, “imaging device assembly 38 may be coupled to the bracket 194”) separating the camera from other components of the cooking appliance (Fig. 6, bracket 194 separates imaging device assembly 38 at least from upper wall 72 and supporting member 22 of cooking appliance 12).
However, Garuccio, as modified above, does not disclose the camera is mounted to the oven frame. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to mount the camera to the oven wrapper instead of the oven frame since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (camera mounted to the oven frame, camera mounted to the oven wrapper). One could have expected the camera to perform substantially equally well, whether mounted on the oven wrapper or in its original position.
Regarding claim 8, Garuccio discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the channel (Fig. 3, gap 234) has a larger diameter toward the window (Fig. 3, second opening 34) than at the camera (Fig. 3, imaging device assembly 38 and Par. 0023, as quoted in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Garuccio discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the window (Figs. 3 and 7, second opening 34) includes a view port glass (Fig. 7, transparent member 244, which covers the view provided by second opening 34 and is therefore a ‘view port and Par. 0041, “the transparent member 244 may be formed of a glass-based material”, which discloses transparent member 244 can be a glass-based material and is therefore a ‘view port glass’) at least partially enclosed by the insulation block (Figs. 1 and 7, supporting member 22 and Par. 0034, as quoted and explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Garuccio discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the insulation block (Figs. 1 and 7, supporting member 22 and Par. 0034, as quoted and explained in claim 1) overlays a portion of an inner surface (Fig. 7, surface of transparent member 244 facing the inside of gap 234) of a view port glass (Fig. 7, transparent member 244 and Par. 0041, as quoted and explained in claim 9) provided at the window (Figs. 3 and 7, second opening 34).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio et al. (US 20200166276 A1, hereafter Garuccio) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2019148700 A1, hereafter Liu) and Hoffman et al. (US 20160223207 A1, hereafter Hoffman) and further in view of Owens Corning (see NPL in attached PTO-892, hereafter Corning. Note a publication date of November 2020 in the bottom right corner of the last page). Evidenced by Nick Connor (see NPL in attached PTO-892, hereafter Connor. Note a publication date of 2019 in the bottom left corner of the first page and/or an earliest recorded access date of January 21, 2021 in the bottom left corner of the first page).
Regarding claim 2, Garuccio, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1.
However, Garuccio, as modified above, does not disclose the insulation block has a K- coefficient of 100 to 140 mW/mK.
Corning discloses a solution to the problem of sourcing foam glass insulation (First paragraph of pg. 2 of Corning, sealed glass cells correlate with foam glass because foam glass comprises gas-filled pockets. Further support is provided by pg. 1 of Corning (sourced from https://www.owenscorning.com/en-us/insulation/industrial/products/cellular-glass, note the page title is “INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CELLULAR GLASS” and the page includes an entry for FOAMGLAS ONE insulation. Cellular glass is foam glass, as evidenced by the first paragraph of Connor) similar to the problem of using foam glass as an insulation material in the present invention. Corning further discloses a foam glass insulation (Pg. 1 and first paragraph of pg. 2 of Corning, as explained above) with a K- coefficient of 100 to 140 mW/mK (Table titled “Thermal Conductivity (λ) Values at Select Mean Temperatures (EN ISO 13787)³” on last page of Corning. The thermal conductivity for a temperature of 300°C is 0.107 W/mK which converts to 107mW/mK. Thermal conductivity is the K-coefficient, as evidenced by the first paragraph of pg. 1 of Connor which states thermal conductivity is measured in W/mK and the equation on pg. 5 of Connor which states k is the materials conductivity in units of W/mK. A coefficient is a number that serves as a measure of some property, therefore k is a ‘k coefficient’ because it is a number that serves as a measure of the property of conductivity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foamed glass body of Garuccio, as modified above, with the foam glass material of Corning so the foamed glass body is impermeable to water and vapor, noncombustible, nonabsorbent, and provides constant insulating efficiency, as suggested by the “Features” on pg. 1 of Corning, thereby balancing the resistance of the foamed glass body to heat transfer with the longevity of the foamed glass body and the safety of the cooking appliance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio et al. (US 20200166276 A1, hereafter Garuccio) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2019148700 A1, hereafter Liu) and Hoffman et al. (US 20160223207 A1, hereafter Hoffman) and further in view of Campbell (US 6339212 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Garuccio, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3.
However, Garuccio, as modified above, does not disclose the sink washer is aluminum.
Campbell discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Campbell further discloses it is known for a sink (Fig. 1, heat sink wall 28) to be aluminum (Col. 2, lines 62-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink washer of Garuccio, as modified above, to be aluminum as disclosed by Campbell in order to give the sink washer a high thermal conductivity, as suggested by Col. 2, lines 62-64 of Campbell, and thereby have a large capacity to absorb heat, as suggested by Col. 2, lines 64-66, of Campbell, to better protect the camera from the high temperatures generated by the cooking appliance, as suggested by Col. 1, lines 10-16 of Campbell for increased reliability and/or cost-savings. To elaborate, the camera is less likely to malfunction if the environment does not exceed its temperature rating and a camera with a lower temperature rating is generally cheaper.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio et al. (US 20200166276 A1, hereafter Garuccio) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2019148700 A1, hereafter Liu) and Hoffman et al. (US 20160223207 A1, hereafter Hoffman) and further in view of Nather et al. (DE 102017220887 A1, as cited in the Applicant’s 6.22.23 IDS, hereafter Nather).
Regarding claim 5, Garuccio, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3.
However, Garuccio, as modified above, does not disclose an air gap defined between the insulation block and sink washer to reduce surface contact therebetween.
Nather discloses a cooking appliance (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Nather further discloses it is known to have an air gap (Fig. 1, intermediate space 19) defined between an insulation block (Fig. 1, insulation 5 and Par. 0053, line 444. A block is a compact usually solid piece of substantial material especially when worked to serve a particular purpose, therefore insulation 5 is an ‘insulation block’ because it is compacted between the wall labeled oven 3 and intermediate wall 13, is a solid piece of insulation and serves the particular purpose of insulating heat) and sink washer (Fig. 1, tubular housing 17, which is a flat ring and therefore meets the interpretation of ‘sink washer’ as explained in the “Claim Interpretation” section above) to reduce surface contact therebetween (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Garuccio, as modified above, to have an air gap as disclosed by Nather in order to have an air gap defined between the insulation block and sink washer and thereby provide thermal insulation (As suggested by Par. 0045 of Nather: “an intermediate space between two panes is designed as a vacuum space, which enables particularly effective thermal insulation”) for increased reliability and/or cost-savings. To elaborate, the camera is less likely to malfunction if the environment does not exceed its temperature rating and a camera with a lower temperature rating is generally cheaper.
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 Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762