DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered as follow.
The objection to the specification with respect to ¶ [0035] regarding the reference character 40 used to indicate both “illustrated control panel” and “user feedback architecture” is maintained, since the amendment to ¶ [0035] did not correct the duplicate use of reference character 40.
The objection to the specification with respect to ¶¶ [0042] and [0043] regarding the reference character 162 used to indicate both “waveguide” and “magnetron” is withdrawn in view of the amendment to ¶ [0043] correcting the reference character 162 to 160 for the magnetron.
The objection to the specification with respect to ¶¶ [0046] and [0047] regarding the reference characters 202 and 222 both indicating “base” is withdrawn in view of the amendment to ¶ [0046], which now distinguishes “base 222 of the tray 220” from “base 202 of the pan 200” throughout the relevant disclosure.
The objection to the drawings regarding the reference character 226 used to designate both the lip of the tray and the ledge of the raised pan in Fig. 8D is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Fig. 8D to replace the reference character 226 for the ledge of the pan 200 with reference character 206.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment removing the term “calrod” from each of the pending claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, applicant argues that Swayne’s post-heat stage S3-E (applied as the “first post-heat stage” of claim 1 and the “second stage” of claim 12) does not last for a “predetermined amount of time” because the stage runs indefinitely until manually deactivated or timed out. This argument is not persuasive. Swayne discloses that the post-heat stage continues “until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise time out, for example via a user-selected maximum air fry time.” Swayne, col. 8, lns. 3-6. A user selected maximum air fry time is established by the user in advance of, and prior to commencement of, the stage being carried out, and therefore constitutes an amount of time that is predetermined. This reading is consistent with applicant’s own specification, which recites “a first post-heat stage S3′-M after a predetermined period time not including the pre-heat stage S1-M time (e.g., 34 minutes) or until the expiration of the set cook time from step 52, whichever is earlier” (¶ [0094]), which confirms that a stage bounded by a user selected time is properly characterized as lasting a predetermined amount of time, notwithstanding that the stage may alternatively be cut short by an earlier occurring event. Accordingly, Swayne’s user selected “first predetermined amount of time” and “second predetermined amount of time” recited in claims 1 and 12, and the rejections of claims 1 and 12 are maintained, as set forth in further details below.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-17, applicant argues these claims are in condition for allowance based solely on their dependency from claims 1 and 12. As claims 1 and 12 remain properly rejected for the reason above, claims 2-11 and 13-17 remain rejected as set forth below.
Newly added claims 18 and 19 are rejected as set forth below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because:
While reference number 40 indicates “illustrated control panel”, it also has been used to indicate “user feedback architecture” in Paragraph 35.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20210392724) hereinafter Hu, in view of Swayne et al. (US 10561277) hereinafter Swayne.
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a microwave appliance (10, microwave oven; Fig. 4), comprising:
a cavity (14, cavity; Fig. 4);
a magnetron (16, magnetron; Fig. 4);
a broil heating element at a top of the cavity (56, radiant heating element; Fig. 4).
Hu does not explicitly teach
a convection heating element at a back or side of the cavity;
a convection fan; and
a controller configured to control operation of the broil heating element, the convection heating element, and the convection fan in a plurality of different stages according to an air-fry cooking method, wherein the plurality of stages comprises:
a pre-heat stage lasting a first predetermined amount of time, during which the controller operates the broil heating element, and
a first post-heat stage following the pre-heat stage and lasting a second predetermined amount of time, during which the controller operates the broil heating element, the convection heating element, and the convection fan.
However, Swayne teaches
a broil heating element (16, broil heating element; Fig. 1) at a top of the cavity (Fig. 1 shows the broil heating element is disposed at an upper portion of the oven cavity);
a convection heating element (20, convection heating element; Fig. 1) at a back or side of the cavity (col .4, lns. 16-17; Fig. 1; Swayne teaches the convection heating element is disposed at a back portion of the oven cavity);
a convection fan (24, fan; Fig. 1); and
a controller (30, control system; Fig. 1) configured to control operation of the broil heating element (16), the convection heating element (20), and the convection fan (24) (Fig. 2 and col. 4, lns. 44-49 teaches the control system 30 is controlling operation of the heating elements and the fan) in a plurality of different stages (56, step; Fig. 5 teach the plurality of pre-determined heating stages of the step) according to an air-fry cooking method (50, air fry method; Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of stages comprises:
a pre-heat stage (S1-E) lasting a first predetermined amount of time (col. 6, lns. 50-60: Swayne teaches stage S1-E is run, with the duty cycle continuing to be cycled, until the first of either 4.5 minutes elapse or the first target temperature is achieved, which the examiner interprets as a first predetermined amount of time, for example a time period set in advance bounding the stage), during which the controller (30) operates the broil heating element (16) (col. 6, lns. 50-60: Swayne teaches the broil heating element 16 is operated during stage S1-E), and
a first post-heat stage (S3-E) following the pre-heat stage and lasting a second predetermined amount of time (col. 8, lns. 3-6: Swayne teaches the post-heat stage continues until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out, for example via a user-selected maximum air-fry time, which the examiner interprets as a second predetermined amount of time, since the user-selected maximum air-fry time is established in advance of commencement of the stage), during which the controller (30) operates the broil heating element (16), the convection heating element (20), and the convection fan (24) (col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 3; Fig. 2; Swayne teaches the broil heating element 16, convection heating element 20, and fan 24 are each operated during stage S3-E).
Hu and Swayne are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking appliances. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave appliance taught by Hu to include the convention heating element, fan, and control system disclosed by Swayne, because such modification predictably provides supplemental radiant and convection heating, as well as staged operational control thereof according to the air-fry method, which would have yielded an expected results without changing the principle of operation of appliance, in order to enable additional air fry cooking modes beyond microwave-only heating.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Hu, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
430
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Swayne, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
414
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Swayne, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 1, wherein during the pre-heat stage (S1-E, pre-heat stage; Fig. 5; Swayne), the controller (Swayne: 30) is configured to operate both the broil heating element (Swayne: 16) and the convection fan (Swayne: 24) for an entirety of the first predetermined period of time (Swayne, Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 50-60), wherein the controller (Swayne: 30) is configured to operate the broil heating element (Swayne: 16) at its maximum power level (Swayne, col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 11: Swayne teaches the heating elements are operated per a stage-specific time duty cycle based on hysteresis or PID control, energized at rated/constant power level, which the examiner interprets as its maximum power level, and cycled off per the control algorithm), and
wherein during the first post-heat stage, the controller (Swayne: 30) is configured to operate the convection fan for an entirety of the second predetermined period of time (Fig. 5 of Swayne shows the fan is operated for the entire 60-second duty cycle), to operate the broil heating element (Swayne: 16) at its maximum power level for one half of a first duty cycle, and to operate the convection heating element (20) at its maximum power level for another half of the first duty cycle (Swayne, col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 11; Fig. 2).
Hu and Swayne do not explicitly teach operating the broil heating element for one half of the duty cycle and the convection heating element for another half of the duty cycle during the post-heat stage.
However, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Fig. 5 of Swayne, teaching certain operation time periods of the broil and convection heating elements during the pre-heat and post-heat stages), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 II(A). varying the time durations of the broil and convection heating elements is a result-effective variable, the optimization of which is the result of routine experimentation, in order to ensure the balance between radiant and convection heating and desired cooking conditions.
PNG
media_image4.png
549
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Swayne, annotated
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 2,
wherein the plurality of stages further comprises a second post-heat stage (Swayne, Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 43-46; Swayne teaches the pre-determined plurality of heating stages includes at least one initial pre-heat stage and at least one subsequent post-heat stage, which the examiner interprets that the post-heat stage is not limited to a single post-heat stage, and thus a second post-heat stage is a predictable extension of Swayne’s disclosed multi-stage air fry method) following the first post-heat stage (Fig. 5; Swayne), and
wherein during the second post-heat stage (col. 6, lns. 43-46; Swayne), the controller (30; Swayne) is configured to operate the convection fan (24; Swayne) for an entirety of the second post-heat stage (Fig. 5 of Swayne teaches the fan is operated for the entire 60 second duty cycle), to operate the broil heating element (16; Swayne) at its maximum power level (col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7 ln. 11; Swayne), and to operate the convection heating element (20; Swayne) at its maximum power level (col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7 ln. 11; Swayne).
Hu and Swayne does not teach:
wherein during the second post-heat stage, the controller is configured to operate the broil heating element for five-sixths of a second duty cycle, and to operate the convection heating element for the other one-sixth of the second duty cycle.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (See Fig. 5 where Swayne teaches certain operation time periods of the broil and convection heating elements during the post-heat stage), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. In this case, Swayne teaches the time periods for which the broil heating element and the convection heating element are operated during the 60 second duty cycle of post-heat stage. Varying the time durations of the broil and convection heating elements is recognized as a result-effective variable which is the result of a routine experimentation. Varying the time durations in order to ensure the balance between radiant and convection heating, and desired cooking conditions is known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 2, wherein the first duty cycle is sixty seconds (Swayne, Fig. 5, teaching the stage-specific duty cycle length for the pre-heat and first post-heat stages is 60 seconds).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 2, wherein the first predetermined period of time is at least four and a half minutes (Swayne, Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 50-60, teaching stage S1-E1 is run until the first of either 4.5 minutes elapse or the first target temperature is achieved).
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 2, wherein subsequent to the pre-heat stage and prior to the first post-heat stage, the controller (Swayne: 30) is configured to prompt a user to insert food into the cavity (Swayne, col. 7, lns. 33-37, teaching that upon completion of the initial pre-heat stage, the air fry algorithm causes a user prompt to be issued, via at least one of visual, audible, or tactile feedback, notifying the user that the food item(s) to be cooked should be inserted into the oven cavity).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 2, wherein the second predetermined period of time is a cook time of food in the cavity (14, cavity; Fig. 4; Hu), the cook time being received from a user or selected by the controller (30; Swayne) (Swayne, col. 7, ln. 65-col. 8, ln. 6; Swayne teaches the post-heat stage runs until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out, for example via a user-input maximum air-fry cooking time).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second predetermined period of time is thirty four minutes, and the second post-heat stage lasts until an expiration of a cook time of food in the cavity.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (Swayne, Fig. 5, col. 7, ln. 65-col. 8, ln. 6, teaching the duration of the post-heat stage(s) and the post-heat stage runs until manually deactivated or timed out via a user-input maximum air-fry cooking time), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. In this case, the duration of the second post-heat stage is a result-effective variable directly impacting the degree of cooking, browning, and moisture reduction of the food, since longer cooking times increase heat exposure and surface crisping, while shorter cooking times reduce heat exposure and prevent overcooking. Varying the operation time of the post-heat stages, and configuring the second post-heat stage to last until expiration of a cook time is the result of a routine experimentation, in order to allow controlled air-fry style cooking for defined durations in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches a microwave appliance (Hu, Fig. 4: 10, microwave oven), comprising: a cavity (Fig. 4: 14, “cavity”); and a magnetron (Fig. 4: 16, “magnetron”).
Hu does not explicitly teach a heating element at a top of the cavity; and a controller configured to control operation of the heating element in a plurality of different stages including: a first stage lasting a first predetermined amount of time, during which the controller operates the heating element at a maximum power level; and a second stage lasting a second predetermined amount of time, during which the controller operates the heating element at the maximum power level wherein the controller is configured to prompt a user to inert food into the cavity after the first predetermined amount of time, and begin the second stage after the food is inserted into the cavity.
However, Swayne teaches
a heating element (16, broil heating element; Fig. 1) Swayne, at a top of the cavity (Fig. 1 shows the broil heating element is disposed at an upper portion of the oven cavity); and
a controller (30, control system; Fig. 1) configured to control operation of the heating element (16) in a plurality of different stages (56, step; Fig. 5 teach the plurality of pre-determined heating stages of the step) including:
a first stage (S1-E) lasting a first predetermined amount of time (Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 50-60, teaching stage S1-E is run until the first of either 4.5 minutes elapse or the first target temperature is achieved), during which the controller (30) operates the heating element (16) at a maximum power level (col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 11); and
a second stage (S3-E) lasting a second predetermined amount of time, during which the controller (30) operates the heating element (16) at the maximum power level (col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 11)
wherein the controller (30) is configured to prompt a user to inert food into the cavity (14) after the first predetermined amount of time (col. 7, lns. 33-37), and begin the second stage after the food is inserted into the cavity (14) (col. 7, ln. 66-col. 8, ln. 6, teaching stage S3-E occurs after completion of the pre-heat stage and the user prompt, and runs until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out via a user-selected maximum air-fry time, which the examiner interprets as a second predetermined amount of time for the reasons discussed in the response to arguments above).
Hu and Swayne are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of cooking appliances. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the broil heating element, and the control system configured to control the operation of the heating element according to the staged air-fry method taught by Swayne into the microwave appliance of Hu, which would have been a predictable application of known heating element and heating control technique to a known microwave appliance platform. It would have yielded predictable results without changing the principle of operation of the appliance, in order to provide a multi-mode microwave appliance capable of controlled heating during air-fry style cooking.
Regarding claim 13, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 12, further comprising:
a fan (Swayne: 24),
wherein the controller (Swayne: 30) is further configured to operate the fan (Swayne: 24) while the heating element (Swayne: 16) is operated in the first stage and the second stage (Swayne, Fig. 2, teaching the control system 30 controls operation of the heating elements and the fan; Fig. 5 shows the fan 24 operated for the full 60-second duty cycle concurrently with the heating elements during both stage S1-E and stage S3-E).
Regarding claim 17, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first predetermined period of time is seven minutes.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (Swayne, Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 50-60, teaching the first predetermined period of time, for example the duration of stage S1-E, is 4.5 minutes), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. In this case, the duration of the pre-heat/first stage is recognized as a result-effective variable directly affecting cavity warm-up and desired cooking conditions, and varying that duration, including extending it to seven minutes, is the result of routine experimentation, in order to ensure sufficient cavity preheating prior to insertion of food.
Regarding claim 18, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 1, wherein during the pre-heat stage, the controller (Swayne: 30) operates the broil heating element (Swayne: 16) for an entirety of the first predetermined period of time (Swayne, Fig. 5; col. 6, lns. 50-60, teaching the broil heating element 16 is operated for the full duration of stage S1-E’s duty cycle).
Regarding claim 19, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of stages further includes a second post-heat stage (Swayne, col. 6, lns. 43-46, teaching the pre-determined plurality of heating stages includes at least one initial pre-heat stage and at least one subsequent post-heat stage, which the examiner interprets as indicating the post-heat stage is not limited to a single stage), during which the controller (Swayne: 30) operates the broil heating element (Swayne: 16), the convection heating element (Swayne: 20), and the convection fan (Swayne: 24) (Swayne, col. 6, ln. 61-col. 7, ln. 11; Fig. 2, teaching the broil heating element, convention heating element, and fan are each operated during a post-heat stage), wherein the second post-heat stage lasts until expiration of a cook time that is received from a user or selected by the controller (Swayne: 30) (Swayne, col. 7, ln. 65-col. 8, ln. 6, teaching the post-heat stage runs until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out via a user-input maximum air-fry cooking time).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20210392724) hereinafter Hu, in view of Swayne et al. (US 10561277) hereinafter Swayne, and further in view of Backus et al. (US 20050056633) hereinafter Backus.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 2, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the maximum power level of the broil heating element is 1,600 Watts.
However, Backus teaches the maximum power level of the broil heating element (30, heat coil; Fig. 28) is 1,600 Watts (Paragraph 257 teaches heat coil 30 is a conventional resistance type tubular heat element, which the examiner interprets as the broil heating element, and any suitable wattage between 800 W and 1600 W have been found suitable).
Hu, Swayne and Backus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the maximum power level of the broil heating element in the microwave appliance of Hu, as modified by Swayne, to be 1,600 Watts which is within the wattage range expressly taught by Backus, because such selection would have been a routine design choice, and yielded predictable results, in order to achieve sufficient heating performance, allowing effective air-fry style cooking in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
PNG
media_image5.png
295
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 28 of Backus, annotated
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 2, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the maximum power level of the convection heating element is 1,500 Watts.
However, Backus teaches the maximum power level of the convection heating element (30, heat coil; Fig. 28) is 1,500 Watts (Paragraph 257 teaches heat coil 30 is a conventional resistance type tubular heat element, which the examiner interprets as the broil heating element, and any suitable wattage between 800 W and 1600 W have been found suitable).
Hu, Swayne and Backus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the maximum power level of the broil heating element in the microwave appliance of Hu, as modified by Swayne, to be 1,500 Watts which is within the wattage range expressly taught by Backus, because such selection would have been a routine design choice, and yielded predictable results, in order to achieve sufficient heating performance, allowing effective air-fry style cooking in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20210392724) hereinafter Hu, in view of Swayne et al. (US 10561277) hereinafter Swayne, and further in view of Miyajima et al. (US 20180098391) hereinafter Miyajima.
Regarding claim 11, Hu and Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (Hu: 10) according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the microwave appliance further comprising:
a raised pan; and
a tray having perforations therein,
wherein the tray is configured to hold food being cooked in the cavity and to rest in the raised pan such that there is a gap between a base of the raised pan and a base of the tray, thereby permitting air flow under the food in the tray between the raised pan and the tray.
However, Miyajima teaches:
a raised pan (20, mount table; Fig. 4A); and
a tray (10D, accommodating body; Fig. 4A) having perforations (15, vent holes; Fig. 4A) therein,
wherein the tray (10D) is configured to hold food (F, food; Fig. 4A) being cooked in the cavity and to rest in the raised pan (20) such that there is a gap (62, opening; Annotated Fig. 4A) between a base (21, ceiling plate; Fig. 4A) of the raised pan (20) and a base (11, bottom surface portion; Fig. 4A) of the tray (10D), thereby permitting air flow (inherent/obvious as shown in Fig. 4A) under the food (F) in the tray (10D) between the raised pan (20) and the tray (10D).
PNG
media_image6.png
334
931
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Miyajima, annotated
Hu, Swayne and Miyajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances and cooking utensils used within cooking cavities. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the mount table and accommodating body arrangement taught by Miyajima into the microwave appliance of Hu, as modified by Swayne, which represents the predictable use of a known food-support structure to a known microwave appliance platform, in order to facilitate air circulation in an air-fry cooking environment, thereby improving heat distribution and cooking conditions in a multi-mode microwave appliance capable of air-fry style cooking.
Regarding claim 15, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach a raised pan in the cavity, wherein the food is inserted into the raised pan.
However, Miyajima teaches
a raised pan (20, mount table; Fig. 4A; Miyajima) in the cavity (14, cavity; Fig. 4; Hu),
wherein the food (19, single-serving food package; Fig. 4A; Miyajima) is inserted into the raised pan (20; Miyajima) (Miyajima; Fig. 4A teaches the single-serving food package is inserted into the mount table 20).
Hu, Swayne and Miyajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances and cooking utensils used within cooking cavities. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the mount table arrangement taught by Miyajima into the microwave appliance of Hu, as modified by Swayne, which represents the predictable use of a known food-support structure to a known microwave appliance platform, in order to elevate food within the cavity and improve exposure to radiant and convective heating during air-fry style cooking in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20210392724) hereinafter Hu, in view of Swayne et al. (US 10561277) hereinafter Swayne, Miyajima et al. (US 20180098391) hereinafter Miyajima, and further in view of Friedl et al. (US 20020174779) hereinafter Friedl.
Regarding claim 16, which is a dependent claim of Claim 15, Hu, Swayne and Miyajima does not explicitly teach said raised pan being configured to absorb thermal energy from the heating element and to act as a black-body radiator, thereby delivering thermal energy stored therein to food in the raised pan during said second predetermined period of time.
However, Friedl teaches said raised pan being configured to absorb thermal energy from a heating element (26, heating element; Fig. 4) and to act as a black-body radiator (30, blackbody radiator; Fig. 4), thereby delivering thermal energy stored therein to food (12, food item; Fig. 4) in the raised pan during said second predetermined period of time (¶ [0049], teaching the blackbody radiator 30 is generally a member that is heated by the heating element 26 to cook the food items 12. A blackbody is any material that once heated to specific temperatures, radiates energy in a highly effective spectrum. The blackbody surface, such as iron, stainless steel and any metal alloys, completely absorbs all radiant energy of any wavelength falling upon it with no reflection of energy).
Hu, Swayne, Miyajima and Friedl are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances and cooking utensils used in heated cooking cavities. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the raised pan taught by Hu in combination with Swayne and Miyajima to incorporate the blackbody radiator features taught by Friedl, which would have been a predictable application of known cookware material properties and thermal radiation principles to a known food-support structure positioned beneath a radiant heating element, in order to improve heat delivery and cooking performance during air-fry style cooking in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
PNG
media_image7.png
467
673
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Friedl, annotated
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 20210392724) hereinafter Hu, in view of Swayne et al. (US 10561277) hereinafter Swayne, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20160381741) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 14, which is a dependent claim of Claim 13, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the fan is configured to:
draw cooking fumes from a cook surface below the microwave appliance through a filter, and
cool the microwave appliance from heating by the heating element.
However, Lee teaches the fan (301 & 302, first and second fan; 26, cooking fan; Fig. 2) is configured to:
draw cooking fumes from a cook surface (cooktop surface; Annotated Fig. 2) below the microwave appliance (10) through a filter (200, filter unit; Fig. 2) (¶¶ [0036] & [0037] of Lee teaches, and also indicated in Fig. 2, the purification flow path A1-5 through which polluted air by gas and smoke generated through the use of the cooking device on the lower side of a microwave oven is exhausted. The examiner interprets polluted air as cooking fumes), and
cool the microwave appliance from heating by the heating element (16) (¶ [0036] and Fig. 2 of Lee teaches a cooling flow path B1-4 configured to cool the electrical components in the machine room 13 and to perform ventilation of the cooking chamber 11 through making an external air circulate through the inside of the machine room 13 and the inside of the cooking chamber 11. ¶¶ [0040] & [0041] also teaches the cooling fan 26 inhales the external air creating the suction flow and exhaust flow to cool the electrical components).
Hu, Swayne and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking appliances. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan of the microwave appliance taught by Hu, as modified by Swayne, to incorporate the fan configuration of Lee, which would have been a predictable application of known ventilation and cooling functions to a known microwave appliance platform, in order to prevent the malfunction of the microwave in the case the electronic equipment are overheated, thereby improving ventilation and cooling performance, and providing desired cooking conditions in a multi-mode microwave appliance capable of air-fry style cooking.
PNG
media_image8.png
674
974
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Lee, annotated
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights