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 Objections
Claim 3:
the claim is objected to because of the following informalities: “a left side of the track” in line 3. In order to avoid any 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as reciting “[[a]]the left side of the track” so as to correspond to “a left side of the rack” recited in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4:
the claim is objected to because of the following informalities: “a right side of the track” in line 3. In order to avoid any 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as reciting “[[a]]the right side of the track” so as to correspond to “a right side of the rack” recited in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17:
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, both claims 1 and 17 recite a rack moving mechanism configured to adjust a vertical height of a rack, wherein a controller connected to the rack moving mechanism is configured to operate the rack moving mechanism to move the rack vertically, and since claim 17 seems to only add that the rack moving mechanism is connected to the rack (line 5), wherein a connection between the two elements is already implied by the recitation that the rack moving mechanism moves the rack vertically. Thus, it seems claim 17 is a substantial duplicate of claim 1
Claim 18:
In view of the warning above of claim 17, should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 18 will similarly be objected to for being a substantial duplicate of claim 5.
Claim 20:
In view of the warning above of claim 17, should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 20 will similarly be objected to for being a substantial duplicate of claim 13.
Claim Interpretation
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, e.g., mechanism) 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1 and 17:
the limitation “moving mechanism” configured to adjust a vertical height, is being interpreted as a supporting member [i.e., rack supporting member 385 including a mount 380], a shaft [shaft 360], and a motor [driver 370, e.g., a stepper motor], and equivalents thereof [i.e., a linear actuator, e.g., a leadscrew/spindle type linear actuator; fig. 2: moving mechanism 300; fig. 3; paras. 0008-11, 17-18].
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the sensor” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 16 as referring to the sensor of claim 15.
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 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 5429043 A) in view of Seidler (DE 102004026882 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Becker discloses:
A kitchen appliance [fig. 1: oven 13; col. 1, lines 5-10; “The present invention relates to a power operated system for raising and lowering an oven rack, and in particular for raising and lowering an oven rack without opening the oven door.”], comprising:
a housing [see fig. 1];
a cooking chamber located in the housing [fig. 2: cavity 22];
a rack moving mechanism [see fig. 1, showing support nut 28, end 48, pintle 50 as a supporting member including a mount, support bars 18/18’as shafts, and motor 30] configured to adjust a vertical height of a rack [rack 12; col. 2, lines 40-65: “Therefore it is an object of the present invention to provide a power operated system for raising and lowering an oven rack without opening the oven door in order to eliminate the cook's hands and forearms.”] located in the cooking chamber [col. 4, line 25-col. 5, line 45]; and
a controller [fig. 1: switch 40] connected to the rack moving mechanism and configured to operate the rack moving mechanism to move the rack vertically [col. 4, lines 50-60: “The electric motor 30 is activated by a conventional bipolar DC switch 40 that directs the motor 30 to rotate in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, depending on whether the user wishes to raise or lower the oven racks 12, 12'”],
However, although Becker discloses that a cook may operate the switch to vary the rack height during cooking [e.g., a lowest, a middle, and highest height as first, second, and third vertical heights; col. 2, lines 40-50: “Therefore, it is an object of this invention to provide the cook with the means to vary the oven rack height in the oven cavity itself before and during the cooking operation.”], such that the cook may select different heights for the rack that are appropriate to prepare various foods [i.e., according to difference recipes, e.g., in order to cook a souffle; col. 1, lines 10-40: “It is left to the cook to determine the appropriate levels of the oven racks when preparing various foods...having to relocate the racks relative to each other after the oven has been brought to an operating temperature. It is extremely discomforting to the cook to have to go through this process during a baking operation where the food itself is subject to negative consequences when moved during the cooking operation as in a souffle.”], Becker does not disclose any such automatic functionality of the controller, specifically, Becker does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller has:
a plurality of heating programs, and the controller operates the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a second vertical height from a first vertical height, the second vertical height being based on a selected one of the heating programs.
Seidler, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0043: “On the other hand, an automated cooking process is also possible here, in which the cooking process is controlled/regulated depending on a cooking program and/or depending on sensors.”], teaches:
a controller including a control unit 26 [fig. 1]
that operates a moving mechanism [i.e., 28ab as supporting members, 20ab as shafts, and 24ab as motors] for a rack [i.e., cooking tray 34],
to move the rack to various vertical heights [e.g., from a current height to any other height within the range of the moving mechanism; para. 0034: “As an alternative to this direct control, an automatic operation is also possible, in which the height of the cooking tray 34 is controlled automatically.”]
is automated through a selected heating program [para. 0038: “In addition, automated control, for example via a cooking program, is of course also possible with this embodiment.”]
from a plurality of heating programs [i.e., a cooking program for each cooking process with different time constants (e.g., to achieve different levels of browning); paras. 0019-20: “Such a method for consistently uniform heating or... Cooking food by adjusting its position can, for example, be implemented in the control system of the cooking appliance...Cooking processes typically involve time constants, which, given the relatively small temperature differences in a cooking appliance, such as an oven, may necessitate readjustment or repositioning. For example, certain cooking programs can be carried out in which the food is cooked relatively far away from a heating device. Towards the end of the cooking time, it can be moved closer to a heating element located above to achieve a stronger browning on the top, especially with the formation of a kind of crust.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the kitchen appliance of Becker by including a plurality of heating programs, wherein the controller operates the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a second vertical height from a first vertical height, the second vertical height being based on a selected one of the heating programs, since Seidler teaches this allows for a controlled cooking process that is uniform [para. 0012: “If this is done several times during the cooking process, especially if controlled, a cooking process that is uniform for the food as a whole can be achieved.”].
Regarding claim 2, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack moving mechanism comprises a left side moving mechanism configured to support a left side of the rack [see fig. 1, showing a left most assembly including two support bars 18 on the left side of rack 12], and a right side moving mechanism configured to support a right side of the rack [see fig. 1, showing a right most assembly including two support bars 18 on the right side of rack 12].
Regarding claim 3, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 2.
Becker discloses:
wherein the left side moving mechanism comprises two left side mechanisms, each of the left side mechanisms configured to support the rack at a different location on a left side of the rack [see fig. 1, showing the left most assembly including two support bars 18 on the left side of rack 12, each supporting the rack at a different location].
Regarding claim 4, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 3.
Becker discloses:
wherein the right side moving mechanism comprises two right side mechanisms, each of the right side mechanisms configured to support the rack at a different location on a right side of the rack [see fig. 1, showing the right most assembly including two support bars 18 on the right side of rack 12, each supporting the rack at a different location].
Regarding claim 5, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack moving mechanism comprises
a rack supporting member that is configured to support the rack [i.e., support nut 28, end 48, pintle 50],
a shaft attached to the rack supporting member [i.e., bars 18/18’], and
a motor attached to the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft [i.e., motor 30], and
wherein the rotation of the shaft causes the rack supporting member to move vertically [col. 4, lines 50-60].
Regarding claim 6, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 5.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack supporting member is configured to move the rack vertically in response to the rack supporting member moving vertically [i.e., as the support nut is moved vertically, pintle 50 which holds the rack moves the rack vertically].
Regarding claim 7, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 5.
Becker as modified by Seidler, specifically Seidler discloses:
wherein the motor is controlled by the controller based on the selected one of the heating programs [para. 30: “The two electric motors of the electric motor/gearbox units 24a , 24b are connected to a control unit 26, which is also connected to the operating device 14.”].
Regarding claim 8, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 5.
Becker discloses:
further comprising a recess in an inner wall of the cooking chamber, wherein the shaft is located in the recess [see fig. 1, showing support bars 18 in a recess formed by an inner wall (forming the cavity 22) and an outer wall of the housing, wherein slot shaped openings therebetween allow for the vertical movement of end 48].
Regarding claim 9, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 8.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack supporting member extends from the recess [i.e., end 48 extends from the recess into the cooking chamber].
Regarding claim 10, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 8.
Becker discloses:
wherein the motor is located outside of the recess [i.e., in a lowermost section of the oven, connected to the support bars by conventional mechanisms (e.g., gears, sprockets); fig. 1; col. 3, lines 35-36].
Regarding claim 11, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 4.
Becker discloses:
wherein each of the left side mechanisms and each of the right side mechanisms comprises:
a rack supporting member that is configured to support the rack [i.e., support nut 28, end 48, pintle 50],
a shaft attached to the rack supporting member [i.e., bars 18/18’], and
a motor attached to the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft [i.e., motor 30], and
wherein the rotation of the shaft causes the rack supporting member to move vertically [col. 4, lines 50-60].
Regarding claim 12, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 11.
Becker discloses:
wherein the shaft comprises an external thread, the rack supporting member comprises an internal thread, and the external thread of the shaft engages the internal thread of the rack supporting member [col. 3, lines 35-45: “The electric motor is activated by a switch that is located on the external panel of the oven. A continuous loop chain gear translates the electrical motor rotation into the threaded support bars which in turn through rotation move the oven racks in the desired vertical. Each support bar has a threaded support nut that moves up and down on the threaded support rod thereby imparting the desired vertical linear motion to the oven racks.”].
Regarding claim 13, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
Becker as modified by Seidler discloses:
wherein the selected one of the heating programs directs the controller to operate the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a third vertical height from the second vertical height during a heating process.
In this case, since both Becker and Seidler acknowledge different procedures for a cooking process that would require different vertical heights, and in view of Seidler teaching that the position can also be changed automatically in response to a sensor [paras. 0016-18], at least Becker in view of Seidler discloses a third vertical height (e.g., a height moved to in response to a sensor indicating a degree of browning being reached).
Regarding claim 14, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
Becker discloses:
further comprising a recess in an inner wall of the cooking chamber, wherein at least a portion of the rack moving mechanism is located in the recess [see fig. 1, showing at least support bars 18 in a recess formed by an inner wall (forming the cavity 22) and an outer wall of the housing, wherein slot shaped openings therebetween allow for the vertical movement of end 48].
Regarding claim 17,
Becker discloses:
A kitchen appliance [fig. 1: oven 13; col. 1, lines 5-10; “The present invention relates to a power operated system for raising and lowering an oven rack, and in particular for raising and lowering an oven rack without opening the oven door.”], comprising:
a housing [see fig. 1];
a cooking chamber located in the housing [fig. 2: cavity 22];
a rack located in the cooking chamber [fig. 2: rack 12];
a rack moving mechanism connected to the rack [see fig. 1, showing support nut 28, end 48, pintle 50 as a supporting member including a mount, support bars 18/18’as shafts, and motor 30] and configured to adjust a vertical height of the rack [col. 2, lines 40-65: “Therefore it is an object of the present invention to provide a power operated system for raising and lowering an oven rack without opening the oven door in order to eliminate the cook's hands and forearms.”; col. 4, line 25-col. 5, line 45]; and
a controller [fig. 1: switch 40] connected to the rack moving mechanism and configured to operate the rack moving mechanism to move the rack vertically [col. 4, lines 50-60: “The electric motor 30 is activated by a conventional bipolar DC switch 40 that directs the motor 30 to rotate in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, depending on whether the ·user wishes to raise or lower the oven racks 12, 12'”],
However, although Becker discloses that a cook may operate the switch to vary the rack height during cooking [e.g., a lowest, a middle, and highest height as first, second, and third vertical heights; col. 2, lines 40-50: “Therefore, it is an object of this invention to provide the cook with the means to vary the oven rack height in the oven cavity itself before and during the cooking operation.”], such that the cook may select different heights for the rack that are appropriate to prepare various foods [i.e., according to difference recipes, e.g., in order to cook a souffle; col. 1, lines 10-40: “It is left to the cook to determine the appropriate levels of the oven racks when preparing various foods...having to relocate the racks relative to each other after the oven has been brought to an operating temperature. It is extremely discomforting to the cook to have to go through this process during a baking operation where the food itself is subject to negative consequences when moved during the cooking operation as in a souffle.”], Becker does not disclose any such automatic functionality of the controller, specifically, Becker does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller has:
a plurality of heating programs, and
the controller operates the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a second vertical height from a first vertical height, the second vertical height being based on a selected one of the heating programs.
Seidler, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0043: “On the other hand, an automated cooking process is also possible here, in which the cooking process is controlled/regulated depending on a cooking program and/or depending on sensors.”], teaches:
a controller including a control unit 26 [fig. 1]
that operates a moving mechanism [i.e., 28ab as supporting members, 20ab as shafts, and 24ab as motors] for a rack [i.e., cooking tray 34],
to move the rack to various vertical heights [e.g., from a current height to any other height within the range of the moving mechanism; para. 0034: “As an alternative to this direct control, an automatic operation is also possible, in which the height of the cooking tray 34 is controlled automatically.”]
is automated through a selected heating program [para. 0038: “In addition, automated control, for example via a cooking program, is of course also possible with this embodiment.”]
from a plurality of heating programs [i.e., a cooking program for each cooking process with different time constants (e.g., to achieve different levels of browning); paras. 0019-20: “Such a method for consistently uniform heating or... Cooking food by adjusting its position can, for example, be implemented in the control system of the cooking appliance...Cooking processes typically involve time constants, which, given the relatively small temperature differences in a cooking appliance, such as an oven, may necessitate readjustment or repositioning. For example, certain cooking programs can be carried out in which the food is cooked relatively far away from a heating device. Towards the end of the cooking time, it can be moved closer to a heating element located above to achieve a stronger browning on the top, especially with the formation of a kind of crust.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the kitchen appliance of Becker by including a plurality of heating programs, wherein the controller operates the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a second vertical height from a first vertical height, the second vertical height being based on a selected one of the heating programs, since Seidler teaches this allows for a controlled cooking process that is uniform [para. 0012: “If this is done several times during the cooking process, especially if controlled, a cooking process that is uniform for the food as a whole can be achieved.”].
Regarding claim 18, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 17.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack moving mechanism comprises
a rack supporting member that attaches to and supports the rack [i.e., support nut 28, end 48, pintle 50],
a shaft attached to the rack supporting member [i.e., bars 18/18’], and
a motor attached to the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft [i.e., motor 30], and
wherein the rotation of the shaft causes the rack supporting member to move vertically [col. 4, lines 50-60].
Regarding claim 19, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 18.
Becker discloses:
wherein the rack comprises a receiving portion that receives the rack supporting member [see fig. 1, showing an outer edge of the rack as a receiving portion that receives the pintle 50].
Regarding claim 20, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 17.
Becker as modified by Seidler discloses:
wherein the selected one of the heating programs directs the controller to operate the rack moving mechanism to move the rack to a third vertical height from the second vertical height during a heating process.
In this case, since both Becker and Seidler acknowledge different procedures for a cooking process that would require different vertical heights, and in view of Seidler teaching that the position can also be changed automatically in response to a sensor [paras. 0016-18], at least Becker in view of Seidler discloses a third vertical height (e.g., a height moved to in response to a sensor indicating a degree of browning being reached).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 5429043 A) in view of Seidler (DE 102004026882 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braden (US 20200408017 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
However, although Becker discloses the cook actively controlling the rack height during cooking (i.e., by switching the motor on or off, e.g., when moving a souffle), and Seidler similarly teaching the accurate positioning possible [para. 0006], Becker in view of Seidler does not disclose ???:
further comprising a sensor that senses the vertical height of the rack.
Braden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that when using a linear actuator comprising a shaft [fig. 8: leadscrew 83], a motor controller as a sensor can be used to determine a height of the supporting member (i.e., a height of a carriage 82 that corresponds to a hinge 60 of a door 32; figs. 1, 8; para. 0057), or facilitate the movement of the supporting member to a specific height [para. 0064: “Motor 84 may include a motor controller. The motor controller may be configured to count rotations of motor 84 and/or leadscrew 83. The motor controller may be configured to transition door 32 between a variety of predetermined heights. The heights may correspond to the position of rack receivers 46 within cavity 20.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the kitchen appliance of Becker or Seidler by including a sensor that senses the vertical height of the rack since this would allow for verification of heights (i.e., verification to the cook or the controller that a particular desired height was achieved), as taught by Braden [para. 0057: “The motor controller may be configured to count screw revolutions to determine door height and/or achieve specific heights.”].
Regarding claim 16, Becker in view of Seidler discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 1.
However, although Becker discloses a rotating shaft [i.e., bars 18/18’] and that the cook actively controlling the rack height during cooking (i.e., by switching the motor on or off, e.g., when moving a souffle), and Seidler similarly teaching the accurate positioning possible [para. 0006], Becker in view of Seidler does not disclose ???:
the sensor senses a number of times the shaft rotates.
Braden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that when using a linear actuator comprising a shaft [fig. 8: leadscrew 83], a motor controller as a sensor can be used to determine a height of the supporting member (i.e., a height of a carriage 82 that corresponds to a hinge 60 of a door 32; figs. 1, 8; para. 0057), or facilitate the movement of the supporting member to a specific height [para. 0064: “Motor 84 may include a motor controller. The motor controller may be configured to count rotations of motor 84 and/or leadscrew 83. The motor controller may be configured to transition door 32 between a variety of predetermined heights. The heights may correspond to the position of rack receivers 46 within cavity 20.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the kitchen appliance of Becker or Seidler by including a sensor that senses a number of times the shaft rotates such that the vertical height of the rack is determined since this would allow for verification of heights (i.e., verification to the cook or the controller that a particular desired height was achieved), as taught by Braden [para. 0057: “The motor controller may be configured to count screw revolutions to determine door height and/or achieve specific heights.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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 F 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761