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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7 August 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections and 35 USC 112b rejection. The Claim objection and 35 USC 112b rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As a result of the amendments in the recent claim submission, the previous modifying reference is now the primary reference, and the previous primary reference is now the modifying reference. The grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 7 August 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended. Claims 10-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahreinian et al. (US-20230074532-A1, effective filing date of 8 Sep 2021) in view of Partsch et al. (DE-102019004371-B3, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Bahreinian teaches an outdoor oven (oven 10, fig. 1D) with temperature control (para 0091; “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 (annotated in figs. 1D and 2A below) with an outer shell (housing of the construed “upper portion,” annotated in fig. 2A below) extending to surround a cooking chamber (chamber 102, fig. 2A), the cooking chamber defined by an upper stone (stone 72, fig. 2A), a lower stone (stones 62, fig. 2A) and a heat shield (annotated in fig. 2B below), the heat shield extending downward from the upper stone to partially surround a periphery of the lower stone (the construed heat shield surrounds the outer periphery of the stones 62, fig. 2A), the heat shield positioned within the outer shell such that a gap (annotated in fig. 2B below) is defined between the heat shield and the outer shell, the outer shell including a shell floor (annotated in fig. 2A below) extending between opposing sides of a lower end of the outer shell, the shell floor including a burner opening (annotated in fig. 2A below) defined in the shell floor, and the heat shield extending toward the shell floor (the construed heat shield extends downward toward the construed shell floor, fig. 2A annotated), the outer shell extending to define a front opening (opening located at doors 12A and 12B, fig. 1D) sized to access the cooking chamber (access to the chamber is enabled with the doors are in the “open position,” para 0083), the outer shell including multiple vent holes (upper vents 304B and 306B, fig. 7B; annotated in fig. 1D below) defined in the outer shell and adjacent the lower end of the outer shell (the construed vent holes are located at the bottom of the housing of the upper portion, annotated in fig. 1D), the vent holes sized and configured to draw external air (airflow pathway 112, fig. 2A) directly from outside of the upper oven portion (fig. 2A) and into the gap (fig. 2B) defined between the heat shield and the outer shell to facilitate minimizing the temperature of the outer shell of the upper oven (“to allow heated air to escape the oven 10,” para 0072; the pathway 112 vents heated air out of the oven, which is construed as the claimed “minimizing the temperature”); and
a lower oven portion (annotated in figs. 1D and 2A below), the burner knob (burner knob assemblies 20B, fig. 1A) coupled to a burner (burner 206A, fig. 2A) such that the burner is positioned at least partially below the burner opening (annotated in fig. 2A below) defined in the shell floor of the upper oven portion.
Bahreinian, figs. 1D, 2A, and 2B (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
577
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1066
1963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
1115
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bahreinian does not explicitly disclose a lower oven portion including a burner knob coupled to the lower oven portion, the lower oven portion positioned below the upper oven portion with a spaced gap between the lower oven portion and the upper oven portion such that the spaced gap facilitates air flow through the spaced gap to minimize heating the lower oven portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Partsch teaches a lower oven portion (lower part 3, fig. 2) including a burner knob (gas valve control 8, fig. 2) coupled to the lower oven portion, the lower oven portion positioned below the upper oven portion (hood 1 and center frame 2, fig. 2) with a spaced gap between the lower oven portion and the upper oven portion (space provided by the spacers 10 between center frame 2 and the lower part 3, fig. 2) such that the spaced gap facilitates air flow through the spaced gap to minimize heating the lower oven portion (“prevents heat from radiating downwards,” para 0011).
Partsch, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
736
566
media_image4.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 Bahreinian, in view of the teachings of Partsch, by partitioning the lower assembly 200, as taught by Bahreinian, into a center frame 2 and lower part 3 with spacers 10 in between, as taught by Partsch, and by lowering the burner knob assemblies 20B, as taught by Bahreinian, such that the knobs were located on the lower part 3, as taught by Partsch, in order to use a center frame that is insulated, which prevents the heat from radiating downwards such that the heat remains in the oven chamber (Partsch, paras 0011 and 0014).
Regarding claim 2, 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_image5.png
568
1194
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bahreinian teaches wherein the upper oven portion (annotated in fig. 2A above) comprises a cover (top panel 118, fig. 2A), the cover positionable over the outer shell (the top panel is positioned over the housing of the construed “outer shell,” annotated fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Bahreinian teaches wherein the upper oven portion (annotated in fig. 2A above) comprises a cover (top panel 118, fig. 2A), the cover including dual walls (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 between the dual walls (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, 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, Bahreinian teaches wherein the heat shield (“inner dome,” para 0086) comprises a stainless-steel material (“stainless steel,” para 0086).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bahreinian in view of Partsch as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, 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 between the lower oven portion and the upper oven portion (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 Bahreinian et al. (US-20230074532-A1, effective filing date of 8 Sep 2021) in view of Partsch et al. (DE-102019004371-B3, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Dahle et al. (US-20200077839-A1).
Regarding claim 3, 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_image6.png
1198
833
media_image6.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 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, Bahreinian teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower stone is configured to rotate with a motor associated with the lower housing, the lower stone positioned on a tray with an axle extending between the motor and the tray.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pizza ovens, Dahle teaches wherein the lower stone (stone 58, fig. 6) is configured to rotate (para 0026) with a motor (motor 112, fig. 6) associated with the lower housing (lower part of oven 10 below the heat element 44, fig. 6), the lower stone positioned on a tray (flat panel 64, fig. 6; construed as being a tray, fig. 2) with an axle (shaft 66, fig. 6) extending between the motor and the tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Bahreinian, in view of the teachings of Dahle, by using a rotating member 54, a circular lower stone 58, and a motor 112, as taught by Dahle, instead of using the rectangular stones 62, as taught by Bahreinian, in order to rotate the pizza during baking so that the pizza can be heated at high temperatures without burning portions before the pizza is fully baked (Dahle, para 0004).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 7 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103
Page 7 of the arguments references Bahreinian (US-20230074532-A1) and states that “Bahreinian only teaches vent holes along an inner structure from the outer shell, not in the outer shell itself.” The examiner partially disagrees with this statement. Although the Applicant is correct that Bahreinian taches vent holes along an inner structure in figs. 2A and 2C, Bahreinian also teaches in fig. 7B vents 304B and 306B that “allow external ambient air to enter the internal cavity 202 of the lower assembly 200” (paragraph 0095). These external vents are also shown in fig. 1D of Bahreinian.
Page 8 of the arguments states that because the airflow pathway taught by Bahreinian originates from the location where the heating element is, then Bahreinian cannot teach the limitation “minimizing the temperature of the outer shell of the upper oven.” This argument was not found to be persuasive because the pathway 112 taught by Bahreinian resembles the claimed air flow 133 that is disclosed in the Instant Application:
PNG
media_image7.png
1029
1500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
543
907
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Similar to what Bahreinian teaches, fig. 5A of the Instant Application shows the air flow 133 as originating at a position near where the burner 60 is located.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 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 9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights