DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 11/19/2025. Claim(s) 1–38 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, 19, 25, 27, & 37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 & 20, Applicant argues that McKee in view of Sergent fails to disclose, in a first configuration, a first heat transfer characteristic and, in a second configuration, a second heat transfer characteristic because in the second configuration, no air stream is flowing into the cooking enclosure. However, the claim does not require that air stream flow into the cooking enclosure; instead, the claim requires that heat be transferred to the cooking chamber. In the case of the second configuration, heat is transferred to the cooking chamber by conduction through the chamber wall.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 14 & 30 are persuasive and the rejections of those claims have been withdrawn.
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) 1–3, 5, & 7–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee et al. (US 2018/0031250 A1), hereinafter McKee in view of Sergent (CA 3130375 A1), hereinafter Sergent.
Regarding claim 1, McKee discloses:
An oven (Convection Oven 600), comprising: a cooking chamber (Cooking Cavities 650, 651, 652); a blower (Air Blower System 710); an air plenum (Air Plenums 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625) configured to receive air from the blower (Air Blower System 710); and first and second jet plates (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) disposed within the cooking chamber (Cooking Cavities 650, 651, 652) and configured to direct a flow of air from the air plenum (Air Plenums 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625) into the cooking chamber (Cooking Cavities 651, 652) wherein: each one of the first and second jet plates (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) includes a plurality of openings (Figures 2, 6, 7, Page 1, Paragraphs 10-11, Page 2, Paragraph 30, Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 77-80).
McKee does not disclose wherein at least one of the first and second jet plates is movable relative to the other jet plate to provide, in a first configuration, an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber and to provide, in a second configuration, an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber.
Sergent discloses wherein at least one of the first and second jet plates (Concealment Means 12) is movable relative to the other jet plate to provide, in a first configuration (Concealed Position 13), an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber and to provide, in a second configuration (Open Position 14), an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of McKee wherein at least one of the first and second jet plates is movable relative to the other jet plate to provide, in a first configuration, an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber and to provide, in a second configuration, an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber as taught by Sergent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it allows for both “heating by radiation and / or by convection” (Page 6, Lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 2, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the first jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) is fixed and the second jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) exists (Figures 2, 6, 7, Page 1, Paragraphs 10-11, Page 2, Paragraph 30)).
McKee does not disclose wherein said plates are movable.
Sergent discloses wherein said plates (Concealment Means 12) are movable (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 3, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein there is a first jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) and a second jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) (Figures 2, 6, 7, Page 1, Paragraphs 10-11, Page 2, Paragraph 30)).
McKee does not disclose wherein said plates are movable.
Sergent discloses wherein said plates (Concealment Means 12) are movable (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 5, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the first heat transfer characteristic is an impingement heat transfer characteristic (Page 1, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 7, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the second heat transfer characteristic is a convection heat transfer characteristic (Page 3, Paragraphs 61-62).
Regarding claim 8, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the plurality of openings (Air Inlets 101) in the first jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) comprises a plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) (Figures 1,4, Page 1, Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 9, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
McKee further discloses wherein, in the first configuration, some of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are open and the rest of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are closed (Figures 2, 6, 7, Page 5, Paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 10, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
McKee further discloses wherein in the second configuration, all of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are open and have a reduced diameter (Page 5, Paragraphs 81 and 88).
Regarding claim 11, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
McKee further discloses in the second configuration, all of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are open and have a reduced diameter (Page 4, Paragraph 75, Page 5, Paragraphs 81 and 88).
Regarding claim 12, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
McKee further discloses wherein in the first configuration, some of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are open and the rest of the plurality of holes (Hole Portions 201) are closed; in the second configuration, all of the plurality of holes are open (Hole Portions 201) and have a reduced diameter; (Page 4, Paragraph 75, Page 5, Paragraph 81).
And the total area of the open holes (Hole Portions 201) in the first configuration is substantially the same as the total area of the open holes (Hole Portions 201) in the second configuration (Page 4, Paragraph 75, Page 5, Paragraphs 81, 88).
Regarding claim 13, McKee and Sergent discloses the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the flow of air from the air plenum (Air Plenums 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625) into the cooking chamber (Cooking Cavities 650, 651, 523) is even across the first and second jet plates (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) in the first configuration and in the second configuration (Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 77-80).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 25, & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee in view of Sergent and further in view of Barnett et al. (US 2015/0150268 A1), hereinafter Barnett.
Regarding claim 4,
McKee and Sergent disclose the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee and Sergent do not disclose wherein the air stream having the first heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is greater than about 41 Watt/m^2K.
Barnett discloses wherein the air stream having the first heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is greater than about 41 Watt/m^2K (Pages 13-15, Paragraph 162).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of McKee and Sergent wherein the air stream having the first heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is greater than about 41 Watt/m^2K as taught by Barnett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as controlling the thermal transfer coefficient controls how efficient the entire oven system is.
Regarding claim 6,
McKee and Sergent disclose the oven of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
McKee and Sergent do not disclose wherein the air stream having the second heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is less than about 40 Watt/m^2K.
Barnett discloses wherein the air stream having the second heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is less than about 40 Watt/m^2K (Pages 13-15, Paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 25,
McKee and Sergent disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
McKee and Sergent do not disclose wherein the air stream having the first heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is greater than about 41 Watt/m^2K.
Barnett discloses wherein the air stream having the first heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is greater than about 41 Watt/m^2K (Pages 13-15, Paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 27,
McKee and Sergent disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
McKee and Sergent do not disclose wherein the air stream having the second heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is less than about 40 Watt/m^2K.
Barnett discloses wherein the air stream having the second heat transfer characteristic has a thermal transfer coefficient h which is less than about 40 Watt/m^2K (Pages 13-15, Paragraph 162).
Claim(s) 20–24, 26, & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKee in view of Sergent and further in view of McMaster (US 3,015,910), hereinafter McMaster.
Regarding claim 20,
McKee discloses a jet plate assembly (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) for directing a flow of air into a cooking chamber of an oven, the jet plate assembly (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) comprising: a first jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) including one or more openings (Hole Portions 201) and disposed within the cooking chamber (Cooking Cavities 650, 651, 652); a second jet plate (Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) including one or more openings (Hole Portions 201) and disposed vertically adjacent the first jet plate(Jet Plates 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645) (Figures 2, 6, 7, Page 1, Paragraphs 10-11, Page 2, Paragraph 30, Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 77-80);
McKee does not disclose a mechanism configured to move at least one of the first and second jet plates relative to the other jet plate to provide and a first configuration, an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic and in a second configuration, an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic.
Sergent at least one of the first and second jet plates (Concealment Means 12) relative to the other jet plate to provide and a first configuration (Concealed Position 13), an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic and in a second configuration (Open Position 14), an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic. (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of McKee wherein at least one of the first and second jet plates is movable relative to the other jet plate to provide, in a first configuration, an air stream having a first heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber and to provide, in a second configuration, an air stream having a second heat transfer characteristic to the cooking chamber as taught by Sergent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as it allows for both “heating by radiation and / or by convection” (Page 6, Lines 29-35).
McMaster discloses a mechanism (Cylinders 125, Motor 205) configured to move jet plates (Jet Plates 221 and 221B) (Column 6, Lines 49-58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of McKee and Sergent so that it includes a mechanism configured to move at least one of the first and second jet plates as taught by McMaster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as moving the heat source relative to what is being heated will allow for more even, consistent heating.
Regarding claim 21, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
Sergent further discloses wherein the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is fixed and the second jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is movable in a forward and a rearward direction relative to the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
Additionally, McMaster discloses wherein the jet plates are movable in a forward and a rearward direction (Column 6, Lines 49-58) which could be combined with the movable plates relative to one another as taught in Sergent.
Regarding claim 22, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
Sergent discloses wherein the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is fixed and the second jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is movable from side-to-side relative to the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
Additionally, while McMaster does not explicitly state “movable from side-to-side” it does disclose “the jets are mounted in cylinders and the cylinders are oscillated in opposite directions to swing the jets opposite to the glass. The other figures illustrate movable plates which carry the jets each of which is reciprocated as a unit in suitable guideways” (Column 6, Lines 49-58). This can be considered equivalent to side-to-side and can be combined with Sergent’s independently movable jet plates.
Regarding claim 23, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
Sergent discloses wherein the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is fixed and the second jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is movable from relative to the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
While McMaster does not explicitly state “movable in a forward and a rearward direction” it does disclose “the jets are mounted in cylinders and the cylinders are oscillated in opposite directions to swing the jets opposite to the glass. The other figures illustrate movable plates which carry the jets each of which is reciprocated as a unit in suitable guideways” (Column 6, Lines 49-58). However, this can be considered equivalent to movable in a forward and rearward direction. This can be combined with Sergent’s teaching of movable jet plates relative to one another to determine the range of movement.
Regarding claim 24, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
Sergent discloses wherein the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is fixed and the second jet plate (Concealment Means 12) is movable from side-to-side relative to the first jet plate (Concealment Means 12) (Figures 1, 2, Page 8, Lines 22-26). While Sergent does not specifically use the term “jet plate,” Sergent discloses two plates in the context of an oven wherein jets of air are being sent through or blocked by the plates as the plates move which is equivalent to the application.
Additionally, while McMaster does not explicitly state “movable from side-to-side” it does disclose “the jets are mounted in cylinders and the cylinders are oscillated in opposite directions to swing the jets opposite to the glass. The other figures illustrate movable plates which carry the jets each of which is reciprocated as a unit in suitable guideways” (Column 6, Lines 49-58). This can be considered equivalent to side-to-side and can be combined with Sergent’s independently movable jet plates.
Regarding claim 26, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the first heat transfer characteristic is an impingement heat transfer characteristic (Page 1, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 28, McKee, Sergent, and McMaster disclose the oven of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
McKee further discloses wherein the second heat transfer characteristic is a convection heat transfer characteristic (Page 1, Paragraph 4, Page 3, Paragraphs 61-62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14–19 & 30–38 are allowed.
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 DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights