Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03 February, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 are amended. Claims 2-6, 11-15, and 19-20 are cancelled. Claims 1, 7-10, and 16-18 are pending and have been fully considered.
It is appreciated that as amended, the invention of claim 1 is now directed toward a cooking chamber which clearly positively recites all of a baffle cover plate, a circulation fan, heating elements, and a metal foil catalyst. Also, much of the previous claim language related to functions or effects associated with the claimed invention(s) has been removed and, in some instances, replaced with claim language setting forth clear structural and/or compositional limitations. Accordingly, most of the previously set forth statements with respect to the interpretation of certain functional claim language as being non-limiting or weakly limiting are moot.
The previously set forth objections to claim 9 and 18 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously set forth rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 6 and the amendments to claims 7-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive (see applicant’s response filed 03 February, 2026, at pages 6-10). Particularly, the reference relied upon in the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102— Robinson, JR. (US 2009/0050129 A1)—does not teach all elements of claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn. The claim amendments further necessitate the withdrawal of the rejections of claims 7-10 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103, said rejections being contingent upon the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102. Also, the prior art rejections of claims 2-6, 11-15, and 19-20 are withdrawn as being moot in view of the cancellation of the claims.
However, after further search and consideration of the amended scope of the claims, new grounds of rejection are set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combination of “Adamski” (US 2008/0190911 A1) and “Robinson” (US 2009/0050129 A1). The new grounds of rejection—set forth in greater detail below—finds that Adamski is the closest prior art with respect to the amended scope of the claims. With respect to independent claim 1, Adamski teaching all of a baffle cover plate (46), a circulating fan (42), a heating element (62), and a metal foil catalyst (58,60) (see Figs. 4-5), and thus substantially discloses all of the subject matter of claim 1 except that: the heating element (62) of Adamski has a shape different from the claimed heating element, the metal foil catalyst (58,60) of Adamski is not disclosed to have the claimed mass loading of the platinum group metal of 10-75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume, and the metal foil catalyst (58,60) of Adamski is not disclosed to have the claimed cell density of 20-50 cells per square inch.
To establish the obviousness of these differences, the new grounds of rejection first finds that it would be obvious to change the shape of the heating element (62) of Adamski to improve the heating of the catalysts and thus achieve a more effective treatment of circulating air. The new grounds of rejection further finds that Robinson teaches a metal foil catalyst having a cell density of 40-350 cells/in2 and comprising a platinum group metal present at a mass loading of 10-75 g/ft3, the metal foil catalyst of Robinson being effective for efficiently treating cooking emissions. Based on said teachings of Robinson, the new grounds of rejection concludes that it would be obvious to further modify the oven cooking chamber of Adamski such that the platinum metal mass loading and cell density of the metal foil catalyst are adjusted to be within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges and the ranges of Robinson for the benefit of configuring the catalyst to effectively and efficiently treat cooking emissions. The subject matter of dependent claims 7-9 and related method claims 10 and 16-18 are similarly rendered obvious by the combination of Adamski and Robinson. The new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 refers to a “cell density” of a foil bundle. Based on the state of the prior art (see WO 2019/194881 A1, which has the same applicant as the instant application), it is understood that the “density of cells of a corrugated pattern is the number of flow channels per unit area of a catalyst face” (WO 2019/194881 A1, page 5, lines 14-15). That is, the “cell density” of the claimed metal foil catalyst refers to a number of flow channels per unit area of a face of the metal foil catalyst.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and indicates that “emission containing the volatile organic compounds [are] recycled through the catalyst prior to being exhausted by the oven”. This functional limitation is understood to require that the cooking chamber must be structurally arranged such that it is at least capable of recycling a flow of air (emissions) containing volatile organic compounds through the metal foil catalyst more than once (i.e., recycling the emissions through the catalyst).
Claim 10 refers to treating “air frying emissions”. As substantially discussed in the previous office action, mailed 003 November, 2025, “air frying emissions” are interpreted as being identical or indistinguishable from emissions emanating from an oven operating in a convection cooking mode.
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.
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, 7-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamski (US 2008/0190911 A1, previously cited as relevant prior art) in view of Robinson, JR. (US 2009/0050129 A1), hereinafter “Robinson”.
Regarding claim 1, Adamski teaches an oven cooking chamber (14) (oven 10 having an oven cell 12 defining a heating cavity 14 accessible through a front opening 16—[0109]) including:
A baffle cover plate (46) located on a back wall (33) of the oven cooking chamber (14) (the back of the oven cell 12 has a rear baffle 30 defining the rear of the heating cavity 14, comprising a metal structure that mechanically supports a convection fan, heating elements, a transparent shield, a catalyst, and air directing elements—[0022]; back wall 33 of support structure 32—[0032]; a transparent shield 46 closes off the front of the rear baffle 30 and is secured to the baffle 30 by flaps 48 and 50 of the flanges 38 and 40…the transparent shield 46 has an air intake opening 52 at its center to permit air to be drawn into the rear baffle 30 from the heating cavity 14—[0026]);
A circulation fan (circulating fan 42) located behind the baffle cover plate (circulating fan 42 is mounted to the rear baffle 30 at a fan location 44—[0025]; fan 42 is located behind transparent shield 46 at opening 52—see [0026]—with a finger and/or splatter over opening 52—see [0027]);
Heating elements (54, 56, 62), in proximity to, and surrounding, the circulation fan (42) (arcuate heating element 62 partially or fully surrounds the circulating fan 42…the heating elements 54,56, and/or 62 may be similar to the heating wire used in countertop toasters—Fig. 5, [0030])
At least one metal foil catalyst (catalytic elements 58 and 60 may be ripple strips of iron coated with platinum –[0028]), the at least one metal foil catalyst located proximate the heating element (heating elements 54 and 56 on either side of circulating fan and irradiate the surface structures of catalytic elements 58 and 60—[0028]; catalytic elements 58 and 60 are situated between the heating elements 54 and 56…the proximity of the heating elements 54 and 56 to the catalytic elements 58 and 60 allows a high temperature heating to occur—[0029]; Fig. 5 also shows heater 62 reasonably proximate catalytic elements 58 and 60),
the at least one metal foil catalyst comprising at least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals (ripple strips of iron coated with platinum—[0028]).
See the above discussed features (baffle cover plate 46, metal foil catalysts 58/60, heating elements 52, 54, and 62, and circulation fan 42) in Figs. 1 and 3-5 of Adamski below.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
392
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
428
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Adamski does not teach: -the heating element defines heating element corners about the circulation fan, the metal foil catalyst located toward one of the heating element corners
-the at least one metal foil catalyst comprises the at least one precious metal at a mass loading in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume; and
-the at least one metal foil catalyst comprises a cell density in a range of 20 cells to 50 cells per square inch.
With respect the catalyst being positioned near corners of the heating element, it is first emphasized that Adamski teaches an embodiment of a heating elements (62) which clearly surrounds the circulating fan (42) (Fig. 5, [0030]) and is proximate to the catalysts (58,60) (Fig. 5); thus, the difference between the arrangement of Adamski and the claimed arrangement essentially amounts to a difference in shape of the heating element, the heating element (62) of Adamski being circular and thus not including well defined “corners” which the catalysts are positioned toward. However, Adamski further teaches a related embodiment of heating elements (54,56), and explicitly suggest positioning the catalysts (58,60) sufficiently proximate the heating elements (54,56) in order to heat the catalysts to a high temperature which is higher than a standard cooking temperature and which enables the combustion of airborne products at the catalyst ([0029]). Also, said embodiment of the heating elements (54, 56) are generally rectangular in shape (Fig. 3; heater used in this embodiment is generally rectangular in shape and positioned to efficiently heat the catalyst to temperatures sufficient for satisfactory operation—[0039]). Furthermore, Adamski indicates that the heating elements should be arranged so that air circulated by the fan passes over the heating elements ([0010], claim 15). Additionally, changes in shape or the rearrangement of parts are generally prima facie obvious absent evidence of significance; see MPEP 2144.04(IV.)(B.) and MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.), respectively.
In view of the above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the heating element (62) of Adamski to a rectangular shape with two opposing sides arranged parallel and proximate to the catalysts (58,60) for the benefit of improving the heating of the catalysts to a temperature sufficient for satisfactory operation by reducing the distance between the catalyst and heating element while also heating air circulated by the fan (see Fig. 5, [0029], [0039], and [0010] as discussed above). Thus modified, the catalysts (58, 60) are located near corners of the modified rectangular embodiment of the heating element (62) of Adamski (consider Fig. 5 if heater 62 was rectangular in shape).
With respect to the claimed mass loading and cell density, Robinson, JR. (US 2009/0050129 A1), in the analogous art of catalytic converter units for treating cooking emissions (tittle), teaches a catalyst unit comprised of a layered metallic substrate coated with a high surface area aluminum oxide coating impregnated with catalytically active elements ([0022]; [0039]), the catalytically active element comprising platinum group metals present at an amount of 10 to 75 g/ft3 of total substate volume ([0024]; [0042]). The number of flow channels per unit of face area of the catalyst unit is within the range of 40 to 350 channels/in2, based upon the volume of air flowing through the catalyst unit, the amount of cross sectional area available, and an amount of resistance to flow which can be tolerated without adversely affecting cooking performance ([0022]; [0039]). An exemplary embodiment of the catalyst unit of Robinson comprises platinum applied at a mass loading of 30 g/ft3 ([0053]). Robinson indicates that the disclosed catalyst unit is suitable for enhancing the efficiency of the treatment of emissions generated during a cooking event (catalyst element 18 may well function to control or treat cooking emissions passing therethrough—[0062]; also see [0002], [0057]-[0058], and [0065]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the catalyst of Adamski to include the platinum at a mass loading within the range of 10 to 75 g/ft3, as taught by Robinson, for the benefit of providing sufficient catalytically active material to efficiently treat cooking emissions (consider Robinson at [0039], [0042], [0053], and [0062]).
Furthermore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a cell density within the overlapping portion (40-50 cells/in2) of the claimed range (20-50 cells/in2) and the range of Robinson (40-350 channels/in2—[0022], [0039]) for the benefit of achieving desired air flow characteristics through the catalyst (Robinson at [0022] and [0039] indicates the number of channels per unit area will depend on the volume of air flowing from a cavity, the available amount of cross sectional area, and the resistance to flow the cavity can tolerate; therefore, e.g., a person having ordinary skill in the art may find that a cell density at the bottom of the disclosed range of Robinson is suitable for effectively treating cooking emissions when the catalyst is positioned across a relatively large cross sectional area, as is substantially the case in Adamski [see Fig. 5 of Adamski, wherein catalyst members 58, 60 define a relatively large cross sectional surface area]).
Regarding claim 7, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the cooking oven chamber of claim 1. Adamski indicates that the metal foil catalyst comprises ripple strips of iron coated with platinum that when stacked form a honeycomb like structure ([0028]); a “ripple” strip is understood to refer to a strip corrugated with a zig-zag pattern. Robinson similarly teaches a catalyst unit comprising layers of corrugated metal foil (catalyst comprised 22 layers of corrugated metal foil having a zigzag pattern—[0053]). A ripple or zig-zag pattern as disclosed by Adamski or Robinson is understood to be equivalent or otherwise patentably indistinguishable from the claimed herringbone cell; that is, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the metal foil catalyst comprising a cell pattern of herringbone.
Regarding claim 8, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the cooking oven chamber of claim 1. Adamski teaches two distinct catalysts (58,60), located at opposite sides of a heating element (62) (see Fig. 5 of Adamski). As modified with respect to claim 1, the heating element (62) of Adamski is modified to have a rectangular shape (see rejection of claim 1 above); accordingly, the modified oven chamber of Adamski comprises another metal foil catalyst located toward another of the heating element corners (i.e., with respect to Fig. 5, catalyst 58 defines a first metal foil catalyst at the corners of the left side of the heating element 62, and catalyst 60 defines “another” metal foil catalyst at the corners of the right side of the heating element 62, when the heating element 62 is modified to be rectangular).
Regarding claim 9, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the cooking oven chamber of claim 1. Adamski further teaches that emissions containing volatile organic compounds are recycled through the at least one metal foil catalyst (baffle positioned to circulate air in from the heating cavity, through the baffle, and back out to the heating cavity—[0008]-[0009]; wings 34 and 36 redirect air flowing through the support structure 32 of the rear baffle 30 back toward the heating cavity 14 of the oven 10—[0033]; re-circulating air supply in the oven provides thirteen “air changes” per minute—[0034]; Figs. 6 and7 show air entering baffle 30 and recirculating back to oven cavity 14; thus it is evident that the oven air is recycled through the catalysts 58,60 within the baffle 30 [see Fig. 5] multiple times).
Regarding claim 10, the method is directed toward a method of using the oven cooking chamber of claim 1. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding how Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the oven cooking chamber of claim 1. Adamski further teaches treating air frying emissions by passing the air frying emissions through the at least one metal foil catalyst (catalyst removes contaminants from re-circulating air—see [0008]-[0009], [0034], [0039], claims 1 and 9; it is evident from, e.g., Figs. 5-7 that air from oven heating cavity 14 passes into baffle 30, through catalyst 58,60 within baffle 50, and back out to heating cavity 14 such that cooking emission from the heating cavity are recycled through the catalysts); it is noted that the oven chamber of Adamski is essentially configured as a convection oven (see [0003]-[0005], [0022], [0030], Figs. 1 and 5-7), wherein convection cooking is patentably indistinguishable from air frying (as discussed in the claim interpretation section of the previous office action, mailed 03 November, 2025).
Regarding claim 16, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the method of claim 10. Adamski and Robinson further teach the at least one metal foil catalyst includes a cell pattern selected from the group consisting of skew and herringbone (see rejection of claim 7 above regarding how Adamski and Robinson teach a herringbone pattern).
Regarding claim 17, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the method of claim 10. Adamski further teaches another metal foil catalyst is located toward another one of the heating element corners (see rejection of claim 8 above regarding how modified Adamski includes a rectangular heating element 62 with catalysts 58,60 arranged at opposing sets of corner thereof).
Regarding claim 18, Adamski in view of Robinson teaches the method of claim 10. Adamski further teaches recycling emissions containing volatile organic compounds through the at least one metal foil catalyst (see rejection of claim 9 above regarding how Robinson teaches recirculating air from a heating cavity 14, through a baffle 30 which houses the metal foil catalysts 58,60, and back to the heating cavity).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights