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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2022 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
While reference number 162 indicates “waveguide” in Paragraph 42, it also has been used to indicate “magnetron” in Paragraph 43. The reference number of magnetron should be 160.
In Paragraph 46 and 47, two reference numbers 202 and 222 are indicating “base”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “226” has been used to designate both lip of the tray and ledge of the raised pan in Fig. 8D. The examiner suggests the reference number 226 near the legs should be changed to 206, which is the ledge of the raised pan.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 12, 14 and 16 contain the trademark/trade name “calrod”. 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 requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 broil heating element and convection heating element and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
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 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 calrod heating element at a top of the cavity (56, radiant heating element; Fig. 4);
Hu does not explicitly teach:
a convection calrod heating element at a back or side of the cavity;
a convection fan
a controller configured to control operation of the broil calrod heating element, the convection calrod heating element, and the convection fan in a plurality of different stages according to an air-fry cooking method.
However, Swayne teaches:
a broil calrod heating element (16, broil heating element; Fig. 1) at a top of the cavity (Paragraph 21 teaches the broil heating element is disposed at an upper portion of the oven cavity);
a convection calrod heating element (20, convection heating element; Fig. 1) at a back or side of the cavity (Col.4 Ln. 16-17; Swayne teaches the convection heating element is disposed at a back portion of the oven cavity);
a convection fan (24, fan; Fig. 1)
a controller (30, control system; Fig. 1) configured to control operation of the broil calrod heating element (16), the convection calrod heating element (20), and the convection fan (24) (Fig. 2 and Col. 4 Ln. 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).
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
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.
Regarding Claim 2, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of stages (56, step; Fig. 5; Swayne) comprises a pre-heat stage (S1-E, pre-heat stage; Fig. 5; Swayne) lasting a first period of time (Fig. 5 of Swayne teaches the time duration to achieve the first target temperature, which the examiner interprets as a first period of time), and a post-heat stage (S3-E, post-heat stage; Fig. 5; Swayne) following the pre-heat stage and lasting a second period of time (In Col. 8 Ln. 3-6, Swayne teaches the post-heat stage continues indefinitely as implemented by the air fry algorithm until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out, which the examiner interprets as a second period of time).
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 control method taught by Swayne into the microwave appliance of Hu to include a pre-heat stage and a post-heat stage with the heating elements and fan being operated as recited in Claim 2, because such modification is a routine control technique in cooking appliance, representing a predictable application of known staged heating control method taught by Swayne, which would have yielded predictable results without changing the principle of operation of the appliance, in order to enable controlled air-fry style cooking in a multi-mode microwave appliance.
PNG
media_image4.png
549
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Swayne, annotated
Regarding Claim 2, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Hu in view of Swayne teaches:
wherein during the pre-heat stage (S1-E, pre-heat stage; Fig. 5; Swayne), the controller (30, control system; Fig. 1; Swayne) is configured to operate the broil calrod heating element (16, broil heating element; Fig. 1; Swayne) at its maximum power level (From Col. 6 Ln. 61 to Col. 7 Ln. 3, Swayne teaches the heating elements are operated according to a stage-specific timed duty cycle based on either conventional hysteresis temperature control or a PID temperature control algorithm, which the examiner interprets the heating elements are energized at their rated output and turned off per the temperature control algorithm, and the rated output is the maximum power levels of the heating elements) and the convection fan (24, fan; Fig. 1; Swayne) (Fig. 2 of Swayne teaches the control system is configured to operate any one of the heating elements and the fan separately from one another or in conjunction with any one or more of the other of the heating elements and the fan), and
wherein during the post-heat stage (S3-E, post-heat stage; Fig. 5; Swayne), the controller (30; Swayne) is configured to operate the convection fan (24; Swayne) for an entirety (Fig. 5 of Swayne teach the fan is operated for the entire 60 second duty cycle) of the second period of time (In Col. 8 Ln. 3-6, Swayne teaches the post-heat stage continues indefinitely as implemented by the air fry algorithm until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out, which the examiner interprets as a second period of time), to operate the broil calrod heating element (16; Swayne) at its maximum power level (Swayne; Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3), and to operate the convection calrod heating element (20; Swayne) at its maximum power level (Swayne; Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3) (Fig. 2; Swayne).
Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach:
During the pre-heat stage, the controller is configured to operate the broil calrod heating element and the convection fan for an entirety of the first period of time
During the post-heat stage, the controller is configured to operate the broil calrod heating element for one half of a duty cycle, and the convection calrod heating element for another half of the 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 pre-heating stage and the post-heat stage), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.)
In this case, Swayne teaches the time periods for which the broil heating element and the convection are operated during the entire 60 second duty cycle of pre-heat stage. Swayne also 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 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 (Col. 6 Ln. 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 Ln. 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 to operate the broil calrod heating element (16; Swayne) at its maximum power level (Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3; Swayne), and to operate the convection calrod heating element (20; Swayne) at its maximum power level (Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3; Swayne).
Hu and Swayne does not teach:
wherein during the second post-heat stage, the controller is configured to operate the convection fan for five-sixths of a duty cycle, and to operate the convection calrod heating element for the other one-sixth of the 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. (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 (10; Hu) according to claim 2, wherein the duty cycle is sixty seconds (Fig. 5 of Swayne teaches the duty cycle is 60 seconds for pre-heat stage and post-heat stage).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 2, wherein the first period of time (Fig. 5; Swayne) is at least four and a half minutes (Swayne; Fig. 5 teaches the time duration to achieve the first target temperature is 4.5 min, which the examiner interprets as a first period of time is 4.5 minutes).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu in view of Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 2, wherein subsequent to the pre-heat stage and prior to the post-heat stage, the controller is configured to prompt a user to insert food into the cavity (Col. 7 Ln. 33-37; Swayne teaches, upon completion of the initial pre-heat stage, the air fry algorithm is configured to cause a user prompt to be issued, via at least one of visual, audible or tactile, intended to notify 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 (10; Hu) according to claim 2, wherein the second period of time (Col. 8 Ln. 3-6; Swayne) 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) (Col. 7 Ln. 65-Col. 8 Ln. 6; Swayne teaches the post-heat stage is run indefinitely as implemented by the air fry algorithm until manually deactivated by a user or otherwise timed out such as via a user-input maximum air-fry cooking time).
Regarding Claim 10, which is a dependent claim of Claim 3, Hu and Swayne teaches does not explicitly teach the second 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 (see Fig. 5 of Swayne as to the cooking time during the post-heat stages), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.).
In this case, Swayne teaches the post-heat stage of the pre-determined plurality of heating stages continues to run indefinitely as implemented by the air fry algorithm until manually deactivated by a user or otherwise timed out such as via a user-input maximum air-fry cooking time. The duration of the second post-heat stage directly impacts 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 durations of the post-heat stages is recognized as a result-effective variable, predictably affecting cooking outcome, which is the result of a routine experimentation. Varying the time durations in order to allow controlled air-fry style cooking for defined durations in a multi-mode microwave appliance is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, which is an independent claim, Hu teaches a microwave appliance (10, microwave oven; Fig. 4), comprising:
a cavity (14, cavity; Fig. 4);
a magnetron (16, magnetron; Fig. 4);
Hu does not explicitly teach:
a calrod heating element at a top of the cavity; and
a controller configured to control operation of the calrod heating element, the controller being configured to:
operate the heating element at a maximum power level for a first period of time;
after the first period of time, prompt a user to insert food into the cavity; and
after food is inserted into the cavity, continue operating the heating element at the maximum power level for a second period of time.
However, Swayne teaches:
a calrod heating element (16, broil heating element; Fig. 1) at a top of the cavity (Col. 4 Ln. 11-14; Swayne teaches 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 calrod heating element (16), the controller (30) being configured to:
operate the heating element (16) at a maximum power level (Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3) for a first period of time (Fig. 5);
after the first period of time, prompt a user to insert food into the cavity (Col. 7 Ln. 33-37; Swayne teaches upon completion of the initial pre-heat stage, the air fry algorithm is configured to cause a user prompt to be issued, via at least one of visual, audible or tactile, intended to notify the user that the food item(s) to be cooked should be inserted into the oven cavity); and
after food is inserted into the cavity, continue operating the heating element (16) at the maximum power level (Col. 6 Ln. 61-Col. 7 Ln. 3) for a second period of time (Col. 7 Ln. 66-Col. 8 Ln. 6; Swayne teaches, at a subsequent post-heat stage, occurring after completion of the pre-heat stage (as well as after any intermediate stage(s) if present) and after the user prompt, the food is cooked within the oven cavity. The post-heat stage continues indefinitely as implemented by the air fry algorithm until manually deactivated by the user or otherwise timed out, for example via a user-selected maximum air fry time).
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 and Swayne teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 12, further comprising:
a fan (24, fan; Fig. 1; Swayne),
wherein the controller (30, control system; Fig. 1; Swayne) is further configured to operate the fan (24; Swayne) while the heating element (16; Swayne) is operated (Swayne; Fig. 2 teaches the control system 30 is controlling operation of the heating elements and the fan).
Regarding Claim 17, which is a dependent claim of Claim 12, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the first period of time is seven minutes.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (See Fig. 5 where Swayne teaches a certain time period for the first period of time), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. (MPEP 2144.05 II.A.)
In this case, Swayne teaches the time period for the pre-heat stage is 4.5 minutes. Varying the time duration for the pre-heat stage is recognized as a result-effective variable which is the result of a routine experimentation. Varying the time duration in order to ensure the desired cooking condition and cavity warm-up characteristics is known in the art.
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, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the maximum power level of the broil calrod heating element is 1,600 Watts.
However, Backus teaches the maximum power level of the broil calrod 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 calrod 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, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach the maximum power level of the convection calrod heating element is 1,500 Watts.
However, Backus teaches the maximum power level of the convection calrod 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 calrod 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, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Hu and Swayne does not explicitly teach
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, Swayne and Miyajima teaches the microwave appliance (10; Hu) according to claim 12, further comprising:
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).
Claims 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 calrod 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 period of time.
However, Friedl teaches said raised pan being configured to absorb thermal energy from the calrod heating element (26, heating element; Fig. 4) and to act as a black-body radiator (30, blackbody radiator; Fig. 4; Friedl), thereby delivering thermal energy stored therein to food (12, food item; Fig. 4; Friedl) (Paragraph 49 of Friedl teaches 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) in the raised pan during said second period of time.
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 calrod 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; Lee) below the microwave appliance (10) through a filter (200, filter unit; Fig. 2) (Paragraph 36 & 37 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 calrod heating element (16) (Paragraph 36 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. Paragraph 40 & 41 also teaches the cooling fan 26 inhales the external air creating the suction flow and exhaust flow to cool the electrical components).
PNG
media_image8.png
674
974
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Lee, annotated
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.
Conclusion
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, 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 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
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761