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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and the non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 January 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters 32 and 34 in fig. 5B cross the lines of the drawing (MPEP 608.02.V.p). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…the shell floor….” (line 7); “…the outer shell…” (line 9); “…the lower oven portion…” (line 12); and “..the lower oven portion and the upper oven portion…” (line 15).
In claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…the shell floor…” (lines 13-14).
In claim 5, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…the cover including s with a cover gap defined the dual walls…”
In claim 9, recommend amending the claim to recite: “..the lower oven portion and the upper oven portion…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “the spaced gap is sized to minimize heating the lower oven portion.” However, it is not clear what size is sufficient in order for the spaced gap to “minimize heating.” For example, would a length of an inch be sufficient for the “spaced gap… to minimize heating the lower oven portion,” but a length of a half inch be insufficient for the “spaced gap… to minimize heating the lower oven portion?” The Specification does not describe a minimal length or depth for the spaced gap 190 in order to minimize heating. For the purpose of the examination, this limitation we be interpreted such that so long as there is a “spaced gap,” then the “sized” limitation is satisfied.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partsch et al. (DE-102019004371-B3, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Bahreinian et al. (US-20230074532-A1, effective filing date of 8 Sep 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Partsch teaches an outdoor oven with temperature control (“portable, modular pizza oven for baking/cooking/grilling food,” para 0001; “with temperature control” is within the preamble and is not considered a structural limitation; the Specification does not describe any specific structure for performing the “temperature control” and there is no structure within the body of the claim to perform the “temperature control” function, MPEP 2111.02), the outdoor oven comprising:
an upper oven portion (hood 1 and center frame 2, fig. 2) with an outer shell (hood 1 and center frame 2, fig. 2) extending to surround a cooking chamber (space underneath the hood 1, fig. 2), the cooking chamber defined by a lower stone (pizza stone 20, which is on top of the center fame 2, fig. 6), and, the outer shell including a shell floor (center frame 2, fig. 2) extending between opposing sides of a lower end of the outer shell (left and right sides of the bottom of hood 1, fig. 2), the shell floor including a burner opening (gas outlet 21, fig. 6) defined therein (para 0014; fig. 6), and the outer shell extending to define a front opening (opening in the hood 1 with door 11 raised, fig. 5) sized to access the cooking chamber (“open position,” para 0014; the open position with the door open is construed as being a position that permits access); and
a lower oven portion (lower part 3, fig. 2) including a burner knob (gas valve control 8, fig. 2) coupled thereto, the burner knob coupled to a burner (“burner,” para 0004; the gas valve controls “gas outlets” that provide gas to the burner, paras 0004 and 0014) such that the burner is positioned at least partially below the burner opening defined in the lower floor of the upper oven portion (the burner is located in the lower segment beneath the gas outlets 21, paras 0004 and 0014), the lower oven portion positioned below the upper oven portion with a spaced gap therebetween (space provided by the spacers 10 between center frame 2 and the lower part 3, fig. 2) such that the spaced gap is sized to minimize heating the lower oven portion (“prevents heat from radiating downwards,” para 0011).
Partsch, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
736
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Partsch does not explicitly disclose an upper stone and a heat shield, the heat shield extending downward from the upper stone to partially surround a periphery of the lower stone, the heat shield positioned within the outer shell such that a gap is defined between the heat shield and the outer shell, the heat shield extending toward the shell floor; the outer shell including multiple vent holes defined therein and adjacent the lower end of the outer shell, the vent holes sized and configured to draw air into the gap defined between the heat shield and the outer shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Bahreinian teaches an upper stone (cooking stone 72, fig. 2A) and a heat shield (inner dome 108, fig. 5A; fig. 2B and para 0072), the heat shield extending downward from the upper stone to partially surround a periphery of the lower stone (the inner dome extends downwards from the stone 72 to partially surround the stones 62, figs. 2A-2C), the heat shield positioned within the outer shell (outer dome 106 and top of lower assembly 200, figs. 2B-2C; annotated below; para 0072) such that a gap (gap between the top of the inner and outer domes where the top air flow pathways 112 flow into, fig. 2B) is defined between the heat shield and the outer shell (between the inner dome and outer dome, fig. 2B; para 0072), the heat shield extending toward the shell floor (the inner dome extends to the top of the lower assembly 200, which is construed as the being the claimed “shell floor”); the outer shell including multiple vent holes (annotated in fig. 2C below; construed as being holes in the shell floor, which is construed as being part of the outer shell) defined therein and adjacent the lower end of the outer shell (the vent holes are construed as being near the bottom of the outer shell, annotated in fig. 2C), the vent holes sized and configured to draw air into the gap defined between the heat shield and the outer shell (the annotated vent holes permit air flow 112, figs. 2B-2C; para 0072).
Bahreinian, figs. 2B and 2C (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
1115
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
480
1000
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Partsch, in view of the teachings of Bahreinian, by using an inner dome 106 with a stone 72, as taught by Bahreinian, inside the hood 1, as taught by Partsch, and by creating holes, as taught by Bahreinian, at the edges of the center frame 2, as taught by Partsch, in order to create two airflows—one airflow that enters the cooking chamber and another airflow that terminates at the upper portion of the upper assembly and heats a cooking stone in the upper portion—for the advantage of using two airflow pathways that improve the circulation and efficiency of the heating in comparison to the traditional pizza oven where only one airflow pathway is used (Bahreinian paras 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Partsch in view of Bahreinian as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Bahreinian teaches wherein the heat shield (inner dome 108, fig. 5B) comprises an upper heat shield and a lower heat shield, the lower heat shield positioned below the lower stone with the upper heat shield extending upward directly from the lower heat shield (annotated in fig. 5B below).
Bahreinian, fig. 5B (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
568
1194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Partsch teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper oven portion comprises a cover, the cover positionable over the outer shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Bahreinian teaches wherein the upper oven portion (upper assembly 100 and top of lower assembly 200, figs. 2B-2C) comprises a cover (top panel 118), the cover positionable over the outer shell (the top panel is positioned over the outer dome, fig. 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Partsch, in view of the teachings of Bahreinian, by using an outer dome 106 with a top panel 118 and an inner dome 108, as taught by Bahreinian, instead of the hood 1, as taught by Partsch, in order to create two airflows through —one airflow that enters the cooking chamber within the inner dome and another airflow that terminates at the top panel of the outer dome and heats a cooking stone in the upper portion—for the advantage of using two airflow pathways that improve the circulation and efficiency of the heating in comparison to the traditional pizza oven where only one airflow pathway is used (Bahreinian paras 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Partsch in view of Bahreinian as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Bahreinian teaches wherein the upper oven portion (upper assembly 100 and top of lower assembly 200, figs. 2B-2C) comprises a cover (top panel 118), the cover including a dual wall (flanges 118K, 118L, 118M, 118N are construed as one wall; the other wall is construed as top surface 118E, fig. 3E) with a cover gap defined therebetween (space inside the top panel 118, fig. 3E), the cover extending above the outer shell and the upper stone (the top panel is positioned over the outer dome and the sone 72, fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Partsch in view of Bahreinian as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Bahreinian teaches wherein the burner (gas burner 206A, fig. 2A) is configured to burn fuel (“gas,” paras 0069-0070) so that heat flows upward against the lower stone (vertical arrows towards the stones 62, fig. 2A) and through a heat gap (bottom-left first airflow pathway, fig. 2A; construed such that there is another pathway on the right side) between the periphery of the lower stone and the heat shield to flow into the cooking chamber to heat the upper stone (airflow 110 flows around the periphery of the stones 62 and then between the stones 62 and the lower dome via vents to flow into the chamber to heat cooking stone 72, figs. 2A-2B; para 0073).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Partsch in view of Bahreinian as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Bahreinian teaches wherein the heat shield (“inner dome,” para 0086) comprises a stainless-steel material (“stainless steel,” para 0086).
Regarding claim 9, Partsch teaches wherein the upper oven portion (hood 1 and center frame 2, fig. 2) is suspended above the lower oven portion (lower part 3, fig. 2) with spacers (spacers 10, fig. 2) to define the spaced gap therebetween (gap between center frame 2 and lower part 3, fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partsch et al. (DE-102019004371-B3, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Bahreinian et al. (US-20230074532-A1, effective filing date of 8 Sep 2021) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Dahle et al. (US-20200077839-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Partsch/Bahreinian teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower heat shield is positioned on the shell floor and extends with a band configuration, the upper heat shield having a partial truncated cone shape positioned over the lower heat shield.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Dahle teaches wherein the lower heat shield (lower end 82 of heat shield 56, fig. 6) is positioned on the shell floor (side wall extensions 98, fig. 6) and extends with a band configuration, the upper heat shield (upper end 84 of heat shield 56, fig. 6a) having a partial truncated cone shape positioned over the lower heat shield (“partial cone configuration,” para 0037; figs. 2 and 6).
Dahle, fig. 6
PNG
media_image5.png
1198
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Partsch/Bahreinian, in view of the teachings of Dahle, by using a partial-cone cylindrical configuration, as taught by Dahle, instead of a rectangular configuration for the inner dome 108, as taught by Bahreinian, because this amounts to a simple substitution of a cylindrical shape for a pizza oven that is known in the art for a rectangular shape with predictable results (the change in shape will not change the operation of the heater, but will continue to allow heating of the pizza; Dahle teaches alternative pizza-oven embodiments of circular or square/rectangular cross-sections, para 0030).
Regarding claim 7, Partsch teaches wherein the lower stone is configured to rotate with a motor (motor 18, fig. 4) associated with the lower housing (“pluggable rotary device which is driven by means of a DC geared motor. This allows for both even heating of the pizza stone,” para 0008; the stone is construed as being rotated on the rotary device 15), the lower stone positioned on a tray (rotary device 15, fig. 4; a tray is not explicitly disclosed) with an axle (guide tube 23, fig. 4) extending between the motor (motor 18, fig. 4) and the tray (rotary device 15, fig. 4).
Partsch does not explicitly disclose the lower stone positioned on a tray.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Dahle teaches the lower stone (lower stone 58, fig. 6) positioned on a tray (flat panel 64, fig. 6; construed as being a tray, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Partsch, in view of the teachings of Dahle, by using a flat panel 64, as taught by Dahle, on top of the rotary device 15, as taught by Partsch, in order to confine the lower stone and prevent it from moving or sliding while it is being rotated (Dahle, para 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krolick et al. (US-20130276643-A1) teach perforations in a pizza oven.
Kahler et al. (US-20170159941-A1) teach a portable outdoor cooker.
Greer et al. (US-20220322877-A1) teach a modular pizza oven.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/5/2026