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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2598440 A (hereinafter “MENGWEI”) in view of US 1552854 A (hereinafter “JAMES”).
PNG
media_image1.png
950
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, MENGWEI discloses a pizza oven comprising: an oven body (1, 4) provided with a cooking chamber (interior of oven body 4; see also the figures); a baking tray (21) rotatably provided in the cooking chamber along an axis extending in an up- down direction; a burner assembly (3) comprising a burning portion (75) extendable into the cooking chamber for roasting ingredients on the baking tray; and a driving structure (25) comprising a driving portion (23) rotatably provided along the axis extending in the up-down direction, wherein at least part of the driving portion is configured to be extendable into the cooking chamber to connect to and drive the baking tray, and the baking tray is configured to rotate around the at least part of the driving portion extending into the cooking chamber.
Does not disclose a driving structure capable of being turned by hand comprising a rotatable handle rotatable around an axis extending in a horizontal direction, a driving portion rotatably provided along the axis extending in the up-down direction, and a transmission structure provided between the rotatable handle and the driving portion, wherein at least part of the driving portion is configured to be extendable into the cooking chamber to connect to and drive the baking tray, and the baking tray is configured to rotate around the at least part of the driving portion extending into the cooking chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
555
1396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JAMES teaches a baking oven comprising: a driving structure capable of being turned by hand comprising a rotatable handle (25) rotatable around an axis extending in a horizontal direction, a driving portion (9) rotatably provided along the axis extending in the up-down direction, and a transmission structure (24) provided between the rotatable handle and the driving portion, wherein at least part of the driving portion is configured to be extendable into the cooking chamber to connect to and drive the baking tray (7), and the baking tray is configured to rotate around the at least part of the driving portion extending into the cooking chamber (see Pg. 2, Lns. 25-30: “A crank handle 25 is formed on the outer end of the shaft 23, for rotating the same. The outer ends of the shafts are adapted to extend through the outer sides of the bake oven, so that access to the same may be easily had.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify MENGWEI to comprise a driving structure capable of being turned by hand comprising a rotatable handle rotatable around an axis extending in a horizontal direction, a driving portion rotatably provided along the axis extending in the up-down direction, and a transmission structure provided between the rotatable handle and the driving portion, wherein at least part of the driving portion is configured to be extendable into the cooking chamber to connect to and drive the baking tray, and the baking tray is configured to rotate around the at least part of the driving portion extending into the cooking chamber as taught and/or suggested by JAMES, since both references teach a driving structure for a rotatable oven baking tray, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one driving structure for the other to achieve the predictable result of rotating said oven baking tray. Furthermore, such a modification would allow said baking tray to be rotated manually foregoing the added cost and complexity of an electrically powered driving structure and would allow said baking tray to be rotated in the absence of an electrical power supply.
Regarding Claim 2, JAMES further teaches wherein the rotatable handle (25) is provided with a rotatable handle shaft (23) extending in the horizontal direction; the transmission structure comprises a second bevel gear (24) provided on the rotatable handle shaft and a first bevel gear (14) meshed with the second bevel gear; a connection shaft (9) is provided at a middle position of the first bevel gear; and the driving portion comprises the connection shaft.
Regarding Claim 5, MENGWEI further discloses wherein a protective shell (26) is detachably provided at a lower end of the oven body (1, 4); and the first bevel gear and the second bevel gear (as taught by JAMES) are provided in the protective shell.
Regarding Claim 6, MENGWEI further discloses wherein the oven body (1, 4) comprises a base (1) and an oven shell (4) covering the base, and the cooking chamber is defined between the base (1) and the oven shell (4).
Regarding Claim 7, MENGWEI further discloses wherein an opening is provided at an end of the cooking chamber away from the burning portion (75), and the baking tray (2) is provided adjacent to the opening (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 9, MENGWEI further discloses wherein the burning portion comprises a burning pipe (75), an accommodation chamber (defined by the burner assembly 3 housing) is defined in the oven body, the accommodation chamber is adjacent to the cooking chamber; the baking tray (2), the burning pipe (75), and the accommodation chamber (defined by the burner assembly 3 housing) are provided sequentially at intervals; a ventilation hole (see 77, 771) is formed on a sidewall of the oven body of the accommodation chamber; and the burner assembly (3) further comprises an air supply pipe (74) and a regulation valve (73) provided on the air supply pipe for adjustment of an amount of air supplied by the burning pipe, the air supply pipe is provided in the accommodation chamber, and the regulation valve is extended out from the top of the oven body corresponding to the accommodation chamber (see Figs. 9 and 10).
Regarding Claim 10, MENGWEI further discloses wherein the burning portion comprises a burning pipe (75) provided in the cooking chamber; and a bottom wall (1) of the cooking chamber is provided with an air inlet (12) corresponding to the burning pipe (75).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENGWEI in view of JAMES as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 215383365 U (hereinafter “SUN”).
Regarding Claim 3, MENGWEI further discloses comprising a connection frame (indicated in annotated Figs. 6 and 12 below) provided in the cooking chamber, and the connection frame comprises a plurality of clamping arms (see 22) extending towards a periphery thereof (see Figs. 6 and 12); and a part of the connection shaft (23) extending into the cooking chamber is connected to the connection frame for stopping rotation; and the baking tray (2) is provided in the plurality of the clamping arms (see Figs. 5, 9 and 11).
PNG
media_image3.png
803
1938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MENGWEI in view of JAMES does not disclose wherein a connection hole is provided in a middle of the connection frame, a part of the connection shaft extending into the cooking chamber is provided in the connection hole.
SUN teaches a pizza oven capable of being turned wherein a connection hole (see the connection hole receiving shaft 3 illustrated in Fig. 3) is provided in a middle of the connection frame (5), a part of the connection shaft (3) extending into the cooking chamber (11) is provided in the connection hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify MENGWEI in view of JAMES wherein a connection hole is provided in a middle of the connection frame, a part of the connection shaft extending into the cooking chamber is provided in the connection hole as taught and/or suggested by SUN, since both MENGWEI and SUN teach an arrangement comprising a connection shaft coupled to a connection frame, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one arrangement for the other to achieve the predictable result of coupling said connection shaft to said connection frame in order to transfer a rotational force or limit rotation of said connection frame and by extension rotation of said baking tray.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENGWEI in view of JAMES as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 114504254 A (hereinafter “FANG”).
Regarding Claim 8, MENGWEI further discloses wherein the burning portion comprises a burning pipe (75) provided in the cooking chamber; an upward deflector (not labeled with a reference numeral but shown in Fig. 11) is provided between the burning pipe (75) and the baking tray (2) to guide a heat flow of the burning pipe upward to a top of the shell (4).
MENGWEI in view of JAMES does not disclose a reflecting shell is provided in the cooking chamber, the reflecting shell is covered on the baking tray and the burning pipe for reflection, an upward deflector is provided between the burning pipe and the baking tray to guide a heat flow of the burning pipe upward to a top of the reflecting shell; and/or, a downward deflector is provided on a top wall of the reflecting shell to guide the heat flow downward to cover on the baking tray.
PNG
media_image4.png
552
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FANG teaches a pizza oven comprising: a reflecting shell (12) is provided in the cooking chamber, the reflecting shell is covered on the baking tray (15) and the burning pipe (32) for reflection, an upward deflector (31) is provided between the burning pipe (32) and the baking tray (15) to guide a heat flow of the burning pipe upward to a top of the reflecting shell (12); and/or, a downward deflector (14) is provided on a top wall of the reflecting shell (12) to guide the heat flow downward to cover on the baking tray (see the heat flow arrows in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify MENGWEI in view of JAMES wherein a reflecting shell is provided in the cooking chamber, the reflecting shell is covered on the baking tray and the burning pipe for reflection, an upward deflector is provided between the burning pipe and the baking tray to guide a heat flow of the burning pipe upward to a top of the reflecting shell; and/or, a downward deflector is provided on a top wall of the reflecting shell to guide the heat flow downward to cover on the baking tray as taught and/or suggested by FANG, since FANG states at the Abstract: “the furnace body is provided with a heat spoiler, so that the heat flow generated by the combustion device forms reflux in the furnace body, so that the temperature in the furnace body can rise quickly, at the same time, the arc surface of the thermal spoiler is set corresponding to the circular shape of pizza to perform heat radiation baking more uniformly, improving the baking efficiency of pizza in outdoor environment, the experiment proves that the shape of the thermal spoiler is increased and improved, the baking temperature is improved quickly and half of pizza baking time is saved.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated November 13th, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights