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 and/or arguments submitted on 05/10/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-13 are pending:
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections based on Xiao (CN 213721526), Pascal (EP 2 520 201), Sladecek (US 10,842,316), Zhou (CN 213 129 206), and Popeil (US 11,045,047) have been fully considered.
Applicant “first” asserts, page 7-8, in piecemeal analysis of the rejection of record that Xiao fails to disclose a “ring-shaped light shade”, and that the light guide bracket 221 of Xiao cannot be a light shade due that “lighting function is secondary and serves only as a state indicator”.
The office respectfully notes that applicant’s assertions are merely a piecemeal analysis of the rejection of record. The rejection of record does not rely upon the light guide bracket 221 of Xiao for “ring-shaped lightshade”, but rather just the scope of “lightshade”. 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 office agrees that Xiao does not fully anticipate the claim language, which is why the rejection of record is under 35 USC 103 and in view of Pascal, as opposed an anticipation rejection by itself under 35 USC 102.
Further, the office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s conclusion about the purpose of the lightshade of Xiao. Even if the lighting feature of the ‘light guide bracket 221’ of Xiao is “secondary”, then Xiao would still fairly disclose the lighting feature. Additionally, the function is implicit to the name of “light guide bracket”.
Applicant “secondly” asserts, page 8-9, an additional piecemeal analysis regarding “LED light strip” by looking at the structure of Xiao and Pascal individually and as a full replacement.
The office respectfully disagrees, and notes that 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 office notes that the rejection of record is based upon modifying the LED light arrangement of Xiao to be formed in a strip arrangement as taught by Pascal. Applicant’s assertion regarding a full replacement is not commensurate in scope to the basis of the rejection of record.
Applicant “thirdly” asserts, page 9, an additional piecemeal analysis regarding the structural arrangement “wound around” by looking at only the structure of Xiao and ignoring the scope of the modified arrangement per the rejection of record as discussed in the ‘it would be obvious’ bullet point of claim 1.
The office respectfully disagrees, and notes that 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).
Applicant “fourthly” asserts, page 9-11, that modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal fails to disclose the new amended feature of the “ring-shaped upper housing” and the “light guiding columns” having an extension in a respective height direction.
The office respectfully disagrees. The components are three dimensional when practiced in the real world, and therefore inherently have a dimension/extension in any particularly given coordinate direction.
Applicant asserts, page 11-12, that the combination of Xiao and Pascal is hindsight due to each reference being separated into different “specific sub-fields and the technical considerations for lighting (indicator vs. atmospheric)”
The office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Further, lighting on a kitchen appliance designed for indication still has an impact on the “ambiance” of the device, and lighting on a kitchen appliance designed for ambiance still has an impact on indication (at least to the degree of ‘does the device have power provided?’). The two design mindsets are not mutually exclusive to the degree that cross-pollination of ideas and structure would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate.
Applicant asserts, page 12, that Sladecek is non-analogous art due to a lack of mention of “aesthetic or user-interface lighting features”.
The office respectfully disagrees. The rejection of record based upon the application of Sladecek is not reliant upon lighting features, but rather the teachings of Sladecek to improve a kitchen food appliance – which is analogous art to both applicant’s disclosure and the other art in the corresponding rejection of record.
Applicant asserts, page 13, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply Popeil to modify the external lighting of the rejection of record, as Popeil is directed towards an internal oven light.
The office notes that applicant’s assertion is not commensurate in scope to the basis of the rejection of record. The office agrees that Popeil is directed towards an internal oven light, which is why the rejection of record relies upon Popeil to teach the application of an internal oven light – not to modify an external light as asserted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 213721526) in view of Pascal (EP 2 520 201)
Claim 1
Xiao discloses:
“An air fryer with an atmosphere light assembly, characterized in that, comprising at least:
an upper housing assembly (cover plate 20/21, upper half of body 10), wherein the upper housing assembly comprises a ring-shaped upper housing (ring shaped upper chamber housing best seen in Fig2 and in cross-section in Fig7) provided along a height direction of the upper housing assembly (ring shaped upper chamber housing has a height that extends vertically), the upper housing encloses a first chamber (best seen Fig2/7, void of upper chamber), and the upper housing is made of transparent material (cover plate 21 is transparent); and
an atmosphere light assembly, wherein the atmosphere light assembly comprises
a … lightshade located within the first chamber (best seen Fig7, light guide bracket 221 encircles LEDs 2221),
an LED light … wound around a bottom of an outer perimeter of the lightshade (best seen Fig4, LEDs 2221 are at the bottom and on the perimeter of light guide bracket 221), and
a circuit board electrically connected to the LED light strip (best seen Fig4, circuit board 222); and
a plurality of light guiding columns (best seen Fig4/7, vertical columns of light guide 221), provided along a height direction of the lightshade (vertical columns of light guide 221 has a height that extends vertically), are provided on an upper ring of an outer side wall of the lightshade (best seen Fig4/7, vertical columns of light guide 221).”
Xiao is silent to the lightshade being ring-shaped and is silent to the LEDs being arranged as a strip.
Pascal teaches (best seen Fig4/5) that it is known to form LEDs as a strip and to arrange the LED strip along the perimeter of a cooking device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Xiao to form the LED arrangement of Xiao to be an LED strip and to locate the strip in a ring around the perimeter of the device of Xiao, as Pascal teaches that it is known in the art to form LEDs as a strip and to arrange the LED strip along the perimeter of a cooking device, and such a modification would provide the advantage of allowing a user to see the light from the LED side of the device as opposed to solely from a top view of the device, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Xiao with a working edge rimed LED lighting arrangement that is known in the art and has improved user visibility.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 1, characterized in that, wherein the upper housing assembly further comprises a ring-shaped connecting housing provided at a bottom of the upper housing; a mounting slot is provided on an internal of the connecting housing, and the LED light strip is mounted in the mounting slot (LED mounting slot as taught by Pascal Fig4/5 is located at the lower housing connection of Xiao cover 21 to main body 10).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 2, characterized in that, further comprises a lower housing assembly (Xiao: best seen Fig7, lower half of device), wherein the lower housing assembly comprises a lower housing provided at a bottom of the connecting housing and encloses a second chamber (Xiao: Fig7, chamber of pan body 11, annotated A), an inner housing provided within the second chamber (Xiao: Fig7, pan body 11), and a mounting bracket provided between the first chamber and the second chamber (Xiao: Fig7, annotated C); and the mounting bracket and the inner housing enclose a cooking chamber (best seen Fig7), and a heating assembly is provided at a top of the cooking chamber (Xiao: Fig7, heating assembly including at least heat coils, annotated B).”
PNG
media_image1.png
720
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 3, characterized in that, wherein the cooking chamber is provided with a heat insulating plate to separate an upper and a lower part of the cooking chamber into a heat dissipation chamber and a heating chamber (Xiao: Fig7, solid wall annotated D); and the heating assembly comprises a motor mounted on the mounting bracket (Xiao: Fig7, motor driving shaft in annotated E region), a first air blade (Xiao: Fig7, first fan annotated F) sleeved on an output shaft of the motor and located in the heat dissipation chamber (Xiao: Fig7, vertical shaft in annotated E region), a second air blade mounted on the output shaft of the motor and located in the heating chamber (Xiao: Fig7, second fan annotated G), and a heating pipe mounted on the heat insulating plate and located below the second air blade (Xiao: Fig7, heat pipe mounting location annotated H).”
PNG
media_image2.png
720
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 4, characterized in that, further comprises an exhaust base penetrating the upper housing and/or the connecting housing and the lightshade (Xiao: exhaust best seen Fig2/7), wherein the exhaust base is connected to the heat dissipation chamber (Xiao: best seen Fig7, exhaust on right side of heat dissipation chamber), and an exhaust window connected to an external area is provided on the exhaust base (Xiao: exhaust best seen Fig2/7).”
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 5, characterized in that, wherein the first air blade is a turbine air blade (Xiao: Fig7, first fan F), and the mounting bracket and the heat insulating plate enclose a turbine air duct (Xiao: Fig7 best shows arrangement of first fan F enclosed by mounting bracket, heat insulating plate, and main body).”
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 4, characterized in that, wherein the first air blade is a turbine air blade (Xiao: Fig7, first fan F), and the mounting bracket and the heat insulating plate enclose a turbine air duct (Xiao: Fig7 best shows arrangement of exhaust path enclosed by mounting bracket, heat insulating plate, and main body).”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 213721526) in view of Pascal (EP 2 520 201), and in further view of Sladecek (US 10,842,316)
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses the arrangement of Claim 4.
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal is silent to the application of a humidity assembly.
Sladecek teaches: “… a humidifying assembly, wherein the humidifying assembly comprises a water tank (best seen Fig1, reservoir 52, tank 53) mounted on the upper housing (schematic mounting best seen Fig1), a water pump (Fig1, pump 57) and a nozzle (Fig1, nozzle 51) mounted on the mounting bracket (Fig1, location schematical taught for the purpose of combination); and the water tank is connected to the water pump through an inlet tube (Fig1, fluid connection schematically shown), and the nozzle is connected to the water pump through an outlet tube (Fig1, fluid connection schematically shown) and is provided in the heating chamber (Fig1, nozzle 51 in heating chamber).”
Sladecek further teaches (abstract) that a humidity assembly provides the advantage of “results in superior quality food in terms of taste, texture, and aesthetics and increases the versatility of the air-based flyer.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal to add the humidity assembly as taught by Sladecek as mapped above, as such a combination would provide the modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal with the advantage of superior quality food in terms of taste, texture, and aesthetics and increases the versatility of the air-based flyer, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a working humidity assembly to the arrangement for improved usage of the resulting device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 213721526) in view of Pascal (EP 2 520 201), and in further view of Zhou (CN 213 129 206)
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal discloses: “The air fryer according to claim 4, characterized in that, further comprises a fryer (Xiao: Fig1/7, pan body 11), a first opening connected to the heating chamber is provided on a rear side of the inner housing (Xiao: Fig1/7, pan body 11 opening in main body 10), and the fryer is detachably provided in the heating chamber through the first opening (Xiao: Fig1/7, pan body 11 is detachably located in main body 10); wherein the fryer comprises a fryer body and a handle provided on the fryer body (Xiao: Fig1/7, pan body 11 body, pan body 11 handle); and an accommodating chamber for placing food is formed inside the fryer body (Xiao: Fig1/7, pan body 11 void for food placement), …”
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal is silent to “a second opening connected to the accommodating chamber is provided on a rear side of the fryer body, a viewing cover is provided at the second opening to seal the second opening, and the viewing cover is made of transparent material.”
Zhou teaches: “… (best seen embodiment of Fig4-6) a second opening connected to the accommodating chamber is provided on a rear side of the fryer body (viewing port 33), a viewing cover is provided at the second opening to seal the second opening (transparent window 34), and the viewing cover is made of transparent material (transparent window 34).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal to modify the cook basket of Xiao to add the viewing port/transparent window arrangement as taught by Zhou, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art basket for another, and such a modification provides the advantage of allowing a user to view the food during the cooking process without opening the device, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known working basket arrangement with improved usability to the arrangement for improved usage of the resulting device.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 213721526) in view of Pascal (EP 2 520 201) and Zhou (CN 213 129 206), and in further view of Popeil (US 11,045,047)
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal and Zhou discloses the arrangement of Claim 12.
The modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal and Zhou is silent to the application of an oven light.
Popeil teaches (Fig48, interior light 246, heat rods 248) that it is known to pass an interior cooking light assembly 246 through the heat insulating plate towards the interior cooking region of heat rods 248 in order to illuminate the interior cooking region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the modified arrangement of Xiao by the teachings of Pascal and Zhou to add an interior cooking light assembly as taught by Popeil and as mapped above, as such a modification would provides the advantage of improved illumination of the interior cooking region, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known working lighting arrangement for the resulting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular the limitations recited in claim 9 in combination with the intervening claims of which the instant claim depends.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable based on dependency.
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights