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 10/13/25 response to the Office Action dated 6/13/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections, except for the objection to claim 11, so those objections have been withdrawn accordingly, except for the objection to claim 11.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 10/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks that the clean-out door disclosed by Rose is an element of the magazines and therefore does not teach a clean-out door or rear door for cleaning an oven. However, this is not an issue, because the oven limitation is rejected by Higgins, not Rose. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the rear door of Rose would make it easier to clean out cookie debris (reference Col 8, lines 1-4 of Rose) and thereby decrease the risk of fires regardless of if the cookie debris is present in a magazine or oven. See Pg. 12 of the previous Office Action for more details. In addition, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01(a). Therefore, Rose is analogous art because Rose meets the requirements of (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem) because as noted on Pg. 12 of the previous Office Action, Rose discloses a cookie maker (Abstract) similar to the present invention. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose is maintained. Examiner notes a rear door for cleaning crumbs from a cookie chamber is well-known in the art, as reflected by the references cited in the Conclusion section. For the same or substantially the same reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 9 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose as evidenced by Mel’s Kitchen Cafe are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Applicant states Seddik is not for an oven and fails to provide a rear door on the cookie maker. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Seddik does not disclose an oven. As cited on Pg. 16 of the previous Office Action, Seddik discloses an oven in Par. 0020. Even if Seddik did not disclose an oven, this would not be an issue, because the oven limitation is rejected by Higgins, not Saddik. Similarly, the fact that Seddik does not disclose a rear door on the cookie maker is not an issue, because the rear door limitation is rejected by Rose, not Saddik. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 5 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose and further in view of Seddik is maintained. For the same or substantially the same reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 13 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose as evidenced by Mel’s Kitchen Café and further in view of Seddik are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 13 is maintained.
Applicant remarks that Tanguay is not for an oven or a baking device and fails to provide a rear door on the cookie maker. However, Tanguay not being an oven or a baking device is not an issue because, as explained on Pg. 18 of the previous Office Action, Tanguay discloses a solution to a problem of setting a range of times using a dial similar to the problem of selecting a duration of baking using a dial in the present invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01(a). Therefore, Tanguay is analogous art because Tanguay meets the requirements of (2), that a reference must be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Tanguay not disclosing a rear door on the cookie maker is also not an issue because the rear door limitation is rejected by Rose, not Tanguay. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 2 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose and further in view of Tanguay is maintained. For the same or substantially the same reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 10 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose as evidenced by Mel’s Kitchen Café and further in view of Tanguay are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
Applicant states Van Dyke fails to provide a rear door on the cookie maker. However, this is not an issue, because the rear door limitation is rejected by Rose, not Van Dyke. Reference MPEP 2145 IV, “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 7-8 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose and further in view of Van Dyke is maintained. For the same or substantially the same reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 15-16 of Higgins in view of Arnold, Bhogal, and Rose as evidenced by Mel’s Kitchen Café and further in view of Van Dyke are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 15-16 is maintained.
In order to overcome the prior art, Applicant is suggested to review the locations of the disclosed structures in relation to each other and add limitations that reflect those relationships to an amended claim set. Any claim amendments should have support in the Applicant’s as-filed specification to avoid a 112(a) new matter rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, line 2, “electric heater,” should be “electric heater.” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
The above changes are incorporated into the corresponding claims as recited below in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, line 1, Examiner interprets “instant cookie maker” as any cookie maker that makes at least one cookie in at least under 5 minutes.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 6: heat generating device. The nonce term “device” is modified by functional language “heat generating.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is an electric heater, as specified in claim 3 and Par. 0014, lines 3-4, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claim 11, line 1 for reciting “heat generating device”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 contains the trademark/trade name Teflon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a “coated tray” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The same rejection applies to claim 9 for reciting “a Teflon® coated tray”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1 and claims 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 9.
NOTE: For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner notes “Teflon” and its associated trademark must be removed from claims 1 and 9 in order to overcome the 112(b) rejection. If Applicant wishes to keep the polytetrafluoroethylene limitation after “Teflon” is removed, the parenthesis around polytetrafluoroethylene should be removed.
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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 5255595 A) in view of Arnold et al. (US 20170023257 A1), hereafter Arnold, Bhogal et al. (US 20170176019 A1), hereafter Bhogal, and Rose et al. (US 4329920 A), hereafter Rose.
Regarding Claim 1, Higgins teaches an instant cookie maker, configured to make one single hot and fresh cookie in 5 minutes or less by baking dough of a cookie (Col 1, In 5-7, “This invention relates generally to the field of cookie makers, and particularly to portable cookie makers for household use”; Col 1, In 65 - Col 2, In 1 “a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of baking cookies comprising the following steps: providing a portable cookie maker comprising ... a cookie pan ... placing at least one portion of cookie dough on the cookie pan; baking the at least one portion of cookie dough; ... and removing the at least one cookie from the portable cookie maker”; and Col 5, In 5-6, “the time required for baking cookies in the cookie maker 10 is approximately 4 to 10 minutes”. See Claim Interpretation section above for examiner’s interpretation of “instant cookie maker” for the purposes of substantiative examination.), the cookie maker comprising:
an enclosed cookie chamber (Col 1, In 55-63, “a portable cookie maker is provided including a housing having a lid and a base, a heat conducting element supported within the lid, a cookie pan disposed within the base, the cookie pan and the heat conducting element cooperating to define a baking cavity having a height in the range of 0.5 inches to 2 inches, and a heating element supported within the housing and operative to heat the cookie pan” In particular, the housing, lid, and base form an enclosed cookie chamber), the cookie chamber having a dimension that is sufficient for (sufficient for is equivalent to “capable of”) housing a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray to place a cookie dough on, configured to (capable of) slide in and out through a slot (Higgins’ cooking pan 34, equivalent to a tray, clearly has a dimension suitable for being housed in the enclosed cooking chamber as can be seen from the figures. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that this enclosed cooking chamber would be structurally capable of holding a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray of the same dimension as Higgins’ cooking pan 34; and that is also structurally capable of sliding in and out of a slot),
a heat generating device (Col 2, In 35-36, “the first heat conducting element 26 is supported within the lid 18 of the housing 14”; Col 3, ln 1-2, “The heating elements 38, 42 may be of any electric type”; and Col 4, In 12-14, the spacers and screws insulate the housing 14 from the heat generated by the heating elements 38, 42”. Examiner notes the corresponding structure for this limitation is an electric heater and its equivalents as described in the Claim Interpretation section above),
a power source (Col 3, In 60-62, “The pilot light may be wired such that it remains activated as long as the portable cookie maker 10 is plugged in”; and Col 5, In 47-52, “The power-density for each heat conducting element 26, 30 is, therefore, 4 to 5.5 Watts/in2. The combination of high-wattage heating elements with low power-density heat conducting elements 26, 30 furnishes the portable cookie maker 10 with uniform heating for baking”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cookie maker inherently discloses a power source).
NOTE: with regards to the mapping above of the limitation “the cooking chamber having a dimension that is sufficient for housing a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray to place a cookie dough on, configured to slide in and out through a slot” this limitation is entirely directed to an intended use of the Applicant’s claimed cookie chamber. The Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray and the slot are not positively claimed to be structural elements that the claimed cookie maker comprises, per se. If the Applicant’s intent was for the claimed cooking maker to structurally comprise a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray, the slot, and the intended use/functional language tied to the Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray/the slot, then the Applicant should make appropriate amendments in the next reply.
Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, Higgins does not disclose an enclosed cookie chamber with an LED light and a window for viewing the status of the baking,
a circulating fan for even distribution of heat,
a dial for selecting a duration of baking, and
a rear door for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber.
Arnold teaches a quick heating cookie maker (para [0002], “The present invention is generally directed to toy baking ovens, and more particularly to a toy baking oven with a quick heating oven chamber”; and para [0083], “This allows-the disclosed oven 20 to actually bake the ingredients to produce baked goods, such as cookies”) and Arnold further teaches it is known for an enclosed cookie chamber (para [0002], “The present invention is generally directed to toy baking ovens, and more particularly to a toy baking oven with a quick heating oven chamber”; and para [0058], “the oven assembly 118 has an oven chamber 120 that is structured to define a substantially enclosed interior 122”) to have an LED light (para [0009], “a toy baking oven has a housing assembly, an oven chamber positioned within the housing assembly and having an interior, a light source carried by the housing assembly”; and para [0057], “The light source 104 can be an LED type light source”) and a window (para [0013], “the toy baking oven can have a transparent window on the housing assembly arranged to permit viewing the interior of the oven chamber from an exterior of the housing assembly”) for viewing the status of the baking (Noting that “for viewing the status of the baking” has been carefully considered but is not deemed to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record, as the applied prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention and thus is deemed to be capable of such functionality. To elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transparent window could be used to view the status of the baking),
a dial for selecting a duration of baking (para [0044], “The operating elements can include one or more dials, switches, sliders, knobs, or the like. In the disclosed example, the operating element is a rotatable knob 34 provided to operate the oven 20”; and para [0074], “the knob 34 and control assembly 84 may need to be reset to a specific baking cycle and/or to set a timer to a specific setting or position”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that although the disclosed example is a knob, a dial is disclosed as being a synonymous structure and could be used in place of the knob),
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 instant cookie maker of Higgins with the LED light and window, slot, and dial as taught by Arnold in order to 1) make it easier to see the cooking cookies via the LED light and window and 2) integrate a timer via the dial and thereby 1) allow the user to cook to their preferences, such as taking the cookie out while it is still slightly doughy-looking to make a soft cookie or waiting to take out the cookie until the outer surface hardens to make a crispy cookie and 2) increase cooking efficiency and food quality by turning off the oven after the set time has elapsed and preventing the cookie maker from staying on longer than necessary or food from becoming unintentionally burned.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not disclose a circulating fan for even distribution of heat, and
a rear door for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber.
Bhogal teaches an oven (para [0032], “The connected oven 100 can include a cooking lumen defining a cavity (cooking chamber, cooking volume)”; para [0084], The method for connected oven operation can include…determining a set of foodstuff features based on the oven measurements S200; para [0022], FIG. 21 is an example of the method; and Fig. 21, which shows that the foodstuff can be a cookie. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand an oven which makes cookies is a cookie maker) similar to the present invention and Bhogal further discloses it is known to have a circulating fan (para (0045], “In operation, fans mounted to the back wall can draw air into the air gap through the fan, and exhaust the air through the channels back into the cooking cavity 200”; and para [0051], “the oven 100 can include a heating element proximal a convection element (e.g., fan), wherein the heating element can superheat the air circulated by the convection element”) for even distribution of heat (Noting that “for even distribution of heat” has been carefully considered but is not deemed to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record, as the applied prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention and thus is deemed to be capable of such functionality. To elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fan circulates heated air to distribute heat evenly).
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 instant cookie maker of Higgins, as modified above, with the Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coat and circulating fan as taught by Bhogal in order to circulate heat within the enclosed cookie chamber and increase the rate of heat transfer via the faster air velocity which makes cooking more efficient.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not disclose a rear door for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber.
Rose discloses a cookie maker (Abstract, “Automatic sandwiching machine for cookies and the like”) similar to the present invention and Rose further discloses it is known for a cookie chamber (Col 1, ln 11-14, “cookies are fed from an oven design side up and stacked one behind the other, conveyed to transfer chutes in which they are stacked in vertical magazines”) to have a rear door (Claim 6, ln 1-2, “a clean-out door”; Col 8, lines 1-4, “a hinged wall 111, which may be hinged outwardly to afford a means for cleaning out the chute 51, to maintain a clean chute for the flow of cookies downwardly therealong”; Col. 8, ln 36-37, “bottom of the right-angled leg 103 forming the rear wall of the chute 23” which discloses the bottom of right-angled leg 103 is at a rear wall; and Fig. 6 which shows hinged wall 111 is located along the rear wall because it is at the bottom of right-angled leg 103) for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber (Claim 6, “a clean-out door for said magazine, and hinge means supporting said door to move to open and closed positions and accommodating opening of said door to afford a means for cleaning cookies and crumbs from said magazine”).
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 instant cookie maker of Higgins, as modified above, with the door as disclosed by Rose in order to provide access to the space under the cookies and thereby make it easier to clean the cookie chamber, as suggested by Claim 6 of Rose, which decreases the risk of fires.
To the extent that the Applicant disagrees that Rose teaches a rear door, then the Examiner takes the position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the door a rear door, since it has been held that rearranging the position of a 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 (i.e. rear door, door in the position disclosed by Rose). One could have expected the door to perform substantially equally well, whether at the position disclosed by Rose or in its original position.
Regarding claim 3, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker of claim 1, wherein the heat generating device (From Higgins: Col 2, In 35-36; Col 3, ln 1-2; and Col 4, In 12-14; as explained in claim 1 above) comprises an electric heater (From Higgins: Col 3, In 1-3, “The heating elements 38, 42 may be of any electric type, including cal-rod and tubular sheath heating elements”).
Regarding claim 4, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker according to claim 1.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not teach wherein the dial comprises a touch screen.
Bhogal further teaches it is known for a dial (para [0076], “The user input 830 can include … a knob, or any other suitable user input”. Evidence that a knob and dial are synonymous is disclosed by Arnold, para [0044], “The operating elements can include one or more dials, switches, sliders, knobs, or the like.”) to comprise a touch screen (Para [0041], “The oven 100 can additionally be used with a user device 30 ... The user device can include user output (e.g., display, speakers, etc.), user input (e.g., touchscreen, microphone, etc.), communication module (e.g., wireless communication module), or any other suitable component”; and para [0076], “The user input 830 can include a touchscreen 831 overlaid over the display 810, the user device, a keypad (digital or physical), a knob, or any other suitable user input”).
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 dial of Higgins, as modified above, to include a touch screen, as disclosed by Bhogal in order to support more lists, as suggested by para [0077] of Bhogal: “In one example, knob rotation can move through a set of lists, while touchscreen interaction (e.g., swiping) can move through a set of content within a given list. Knob depression or touchscreen tapping can select an item within a list” and thereby allow the user to control a wider variety of oven functions and/or allow the oven to have more presets, as suggested by para [0121] of Bhogal: “…a list of identifiers for potential foodstuff classes is displayed on the user interface for the foodstuff currently within the cavity…Receiving the user classification can include: receiving a user selection of an identifier for a foodstuff class at the user interface (e.g., from the list), receiving a user confirmation or denial of the single presented identifier, receiving a cooking initiation selection from the user, or receiving any other suitable user input,” which makes the oven more accessible to users with a wider variety of abilities.
It’s understood that modified Higgins would result in the dial comprising a touch screen as claimed. To elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the touchscreen of Bhogal can be overlaid over the knob/dial of Arnold).
Regarding claim 6, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker according to claim 1.
Higgins, as modified above, does not teach the claimed dimension of height-width-depth of up to 8 inches x 8 inches x 8 inches. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Higgins discloses a portable cookie maker “carrying the portable cookie maker 10” (Col 3, ln 44-45) but does not specifically recite a dimension of height-width-depth of up to 8 inches x 8 inches x 8 inches. Achieving a dimension of height-width-depth of up to 8 inches x 8 inches x 8 inches is a results-effective variable because Higgins states “The cookie pan and the heat conducting element cooperate to define a baking cavity having a height in the range of 0.5 inches to 2 inches” (Abstract) and “minimize the weight and the cost of the portable cookie maker” (Col. 3, ln, 22-23). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claimed dimension of height-width-depth of up to 8 inches x 8 inches x 8 inches, because the selection of dimensions to achieve a lower weight and cost constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 5255595 A) in view of Arnold et al. (US 20170023257 A1), hereafter Arnold, Bhogal et al. (US 20170176019 A1), hereafter Bhogal, and Rose et al. (US 4329920 A), hereafter Rose, and further in view of Seddik (US 2016/0192446 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker according to claim 4.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not disclose the touch screen is configured to display a calorie count of the cookie.
Examiner notes Seddik teaches an oven for healing food items (para [0020], “Disclosed herein are systems and methods for allowing a user to selectively heat different food items or different areas of a food item to different temperatures inside an electromagnetic oven”) similar to the present invention. Seddik further teaches it is known that a touch screen (para (0020], “The oven may include a user interface and camera mounted inside the oven cavity that allow a user to select food items or areas of food items to be heated on a touch-screen display”) can be configured to display a calorie count (Para (0044], “As noted above, the system 12 may also provide calorie estimates for food inside the chamber. FIG. 7 illustrates a portion of a selective heating oven control panel according to an embodiment of the disclosed systems and methods, wherein calorie estimating features are included ... The touch screen display 24 may include a food type menu 80 or other input interface allowing the user to enter the type of food that is highlighted. Based on the selected food type (e.g., broccoli in the illustrated example), the estimated food volume, and stored calorie data (available in device 12 memory or via the internet), the oven may return the calorie count)”).
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 touch screen of Higgins, as modified above, with the same of Seddik in order to display a calorie count of a cookie and thereby make it easier for users to keep track of the calories in the cookies they’ve baked which makes it easier to diet and manage health conditions such as diabetes.
It’s understood that modified Higgins would result in the touch screen configured to display a calorie count of the cookie as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 5255595 A) in view of Arnold et al. (US 20170023257 A1), hereafter Arnold, Bhogal et al. (US 20170176019 A1), hereafter Bhogal, and Rose et al. (US 4329920 A), hereafter Rose, and further in view of Tanguay (US 6747375 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker of claim 1.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the dial is configured to allow a user to select a duration of baking from 30 seconds to 3 minutes.
Tanguay discloses a solution to the problem of setting a range of times using a dial (Abstract) similar to the problem of selecting a duration of baking using a dial in the present invention. Tanguay further discloses it is known for a dial (Fig. 2, time base dial 18) to be configured to allow a user to select a duration (Col. 3, lines 64-66, “The time base dial 18 allows the user to select between thirty-two individual settings that define the length of the time base for each cycle controlled by the time control unit 16.”) from 30 seconds to 3 minutes (Col. 4, lines 16-21, “Although the specific time range of 15 seconds to 24 hours is illustrated in the preferred embodiment of the invention, it should be understood that the selected minimum and maximum values for the time base settings can be modified, as will become apparent in the discussion below”).
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 dial of Higgins, as modified above, to include a range from 30 seconds to 3 minutes as disclosed by Tanguay in order to select a duration of baking appropriate for a single cookie and thereby decrease the likelihood that the cookie will become unintentionally burnt.
To the extent that the Applicant disagrees, Examiner notes it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Higgins, as modified above, discloses a dial that can be used to set a timer (From Arnold: para [0044] and para [0074], as explained above in claim 1) and “the time required for baking cookies in the cookie maker is approximately 4 to 10 minutes” (From Higgins: Col 5, In 5-6) but does not specifically recite a dial is configured to allow a user to select a duration of baking from 30 seconds to 3 minutes as claimed. Setting a baking duration from 30 seconds to 3 minutes is results-effective variable because Higgins states “Portable cookie makers allow small quantities of a variety of cookies to be made within a short time. Thus, within the time required for a conventional oven to bake one batch of cookies, a person may have made and enjoyed a small number of several different types of cookies.” (Col 1, ln 33-38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claimed duration of baking from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, because the selection of baking time to cook a wider variety of cookies in a shorter amount of time constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 7- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 5255595 A) in view of Arnold et al. (US 20170023257 A1), hereafter Arnold, Bhogal et al. (US 20170176019 A1), hereafter Bhogal, and Rose et al. (US 4329920 A), hereafter Rose, and further in view of Van Dyke et al. (US 2009/0114641 A1), hereafter Van Dyke.
Regarding claim 7, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker according to claim 1.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not teach wherein the power source is a battery.
Van Dyke teaches a portable cooking appliance (para [0003], “The present invention relates to portable cooking appliances, and particularly to a portable microwave oven”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a cooking appliance such as a microwave oven can be used to make cookies in less than 5 minutes baking time, as evidenced by Pg. 1 of Mel, “You are only a minute or so away from a decadent, delicious, chocolate chip mug cookie made start-to-finish in a mug and “baked” in the microwave!” and Pg. 10 of Mel, “For a 1,000 watt microwave, cook for one minute at 80% power. For a 1,200 or 1,500 watt microwave, cook for 45 seconds at 75% power.” Therefore, a microwave oven is an “instant cookie maker”) similar to the present invention and Van Dyke further discloses it is known for a power source to be a battery (para [0009], “the oven is provided with a rechargeable battery for powering the oven when an external power source is not available. The rechargeable battery is received within a battery port formed in at least one of the sidewalls of the oven. The rechargeable battery may be recharged when the oven is connected to an external power source, such as a conventional AC electrical supply, or the DC outlet of an automobile (such as that commonly associated with a cigarette lighter)”).
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 power source of Higgins, as modified above, to include a battery as disclosed by Van Dyke so the instant cookie maker can be powered without an external power source and thereby allow the user to operate the instant cookier maker in a wider variety of environments, such as while camping.
Regarding claim 8, Higgins, as modified above, teaches the instant cookie maker according to claim 7, wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery (From Van Dyke: para [0009], as recited in claim 7 above).
Claims 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins (US 5255595 A) in view of Arnold et al. (US 20170023257 A1), hereafter Arnold, Bhogal et al. (US 20170176019 A1), hereafter Bhogal, and Rose et al. (US 4329920 A), hereafter Rose. Evidenced by Mel’s Kitchen Cafe (see NPL in attached PTO-892, hereafter Mel), with a public availability date of Jan. 7, 2015, as indicated on Pg. 1 near the top of the page.
Regarding Claim 9, Higgins teaches a method of fabrication (Col. 5, ln 64-64, “The method of baking cookies comprises providing a portable cookie maker 10 as described above”), comprising providing a design of an instant cookie maker and forming the instant cookie maker (Col 1, In 5-7, “This invention relates generally to the field of cookie makers, and particularly to portable cookie makers for household use”; Col 1, In 65 - Col 2, In 1 “a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of baking cookies comprising the following steps: providing a portable cookie maker comprising ... a cookie pan ... placing at least one portion of cookie dough on the cookie pan; baking the at least one portion of cookie dough; ... and removing the at least one cookie from the portable cookie maker”; and Col 5, In 5-6, “the time required for baking cookies in the cookie maker 10 is approximately 4 to 10 minutes”. See Claim Interpretation section above for examiner’s interpretation of “instant cookie maker” for the purposes of substantiative examination. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a design and forming the instant cookie maker necessarily occurs before “providing a portable cookie maker” as disclosed), the instant cookie maker comprising:
an enclosed cookie chamber (Col 1, In 55-63, “a portable cookie maker is provided including a housing having a lid and a base, a heat conducting element supported within the lid, a cookie pan disposed within the base, the cookie pan and the heat conducting element cooperating to define a baking cavity having a height in the range of 0.5 inches to 2 inches, and a heating element supported within the housing and operative to heat the cookie pan” In particular, the housing, lid, and base form an enclosed cookie chamber), the cookie chamber having a dimension that is sufficient for (sufficient for is equivalent to “capable of”) housing a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray to place a cookie dough on, configured to (capable of) slide in and out through a slot (Higgins’ cooking pan 34, equivalent to a tray, clearly has a dimension suitable for being housed in the enclosed cooking chamber as can be seen from the figures. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that this enclosed cooking chamber would be structurally capable of holding a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray of the same dimension as Higgins’ cooking pan 34; and that is also structurally capable of sliding in and out of a slot),
an electric heating element (Col 2, In 35-36, “the first heat conducting element 26 is supported within the lid 18 of the housing 14”; Col 3, ln 1-2, “The heating elements 38, 42 may be of any electric type”; and Col 4, In 12-14, the spacers and screws insulate the housing 14 from the heat generated by the heating elements 38, 42”),
a power source (Col 3, In 60-62, “The pilot light may be wired such that it remains activated as long as the portable cookie maker 10 is plugged in”; and Col 5, In 47-52, “The power-density for each heat conducting element 26, 30 is, therefore, 4 to 5.5 Watts/in2. The combination of high-wattage heating elements with low power-density heat conducting elements 26, 30 furnishes the portable cookie maker 10 with uniform heating for baking”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cookie maker inherently discloses a power source).
NOTE: with regards to the mapping above of the limitation “the cooking chamber having a dimension that is sufficient for housing a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray to place a cookie dough on, configured to slide in and out through a slot” this limitation is entirely directed to an intended use of the Applicant’s claimed cookie chamber. The Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray and the slot are not positively claimed to be structural elements that the claimed cookie maker comprises, per se. If the Applicant’s intent was for the claimed cooking maker to structurally comprise a Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray, the slot, and the intended use/functional language tied to the Teflon® (polytetrafluoroethylene) coated tray/the slot, then the Applicant should make appropriate amendments in the next reply.
Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, Higgins does not disclose an enclosed cookie chamber with an LED light and a window for viewing the status of the baking,
a circulating fan for even distribution of heat,
a dial for selecting a duration of baking, and
a rear door for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber.
Arnold teaches a quick heating cookie maker (para [0002], “The present invention is generally directed to toy baking ovens, and more particularly to a toy baking oven with a quick heating oven chamber”; and para [0083], “This allows-the disclosed oven 20 to actually bake the ingredients to produce baked goods, such as cookies”) and Arnold further teaches it is known for an enclosed cookie chamber (para [0002], “The present invention is generally directed to toy baking ovens, and more particularly to a toy baking oven with a quick heating oven chamber”; and para [0058], “the oven assembly 118 has an oven chamber 120 that is structured to define a substantially enclosed interior 122”) to have an LED light (para [0009], “a toy baking oven has a housing assembly, an oven chamber positioned within the housing assembly and having an interior, a light source carried by the housing assembly”; and para [0057], “The light source 104 can be an LED type light source”) and a window (para [0013], “the toy baking oven can have a transparent window on the housing assembly arranged to permit viewing the interior of the oven chamber from an exterior of the housing assembly”) for viewing the status of the baking (Noting that “for viewing the status of the baking” has been carefully considered but is not deemed to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record, as the applied prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention and thus is deemed to be capable of such functionality. To elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transparent window could be used to view the status of the baking),
a dial for selecting a duration of baking (para [0044], “The operating elements can include one or more dials, switches, sliders, knobs, or the like. In the disclosed example, the operating element is a rotatable knob 34 provided to operate the oven 20”; and para [0074], “the knob 34 and control assembly 84 may need to be reset to a specific baking cycle and/or to set a timer to a specific setting or position”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that although the disclosed example is a knob, a dial is disclosed as being a synonymous structure and could be used in place of the knob),
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 instant cookie maker of Higgins with the LED light and window, slot, and dial as taught by Arnold in order to 1) make it easier to see the cooking cookies via the LED light and window and 2) integrate a timer via the dial and thereby 1) allow the user to cook to their preferences, such as taking the cookie out while it is still slightly doughy-looking to make a soft cookie or waiting to take out the cookie until the outer surface hardens to make a crispy cookie and 2) increase cooking efficiency and food quality by turning off the oven after the set time has elapsed and preventing the cookie maker from staying on longer than necessary or food from becoming unintentionally burned.
However, Higgins, as modified above, does not disclose a circulating fan for even distribution of heat, and
a rear door for cleaning crumbs from the cookie chamber.
Bhogal teaches an oven (para [0032], “The connected oven 100 can include a cooking lumen d