DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Application No. 18/159,557, filed 25 January, 2023, with priority to Provisional Applications Nos. 63/302,850 and 63/381,053, filed 25 January, 2022, and 26 October, 2022, respectively. All claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claim 1, the claim is directed toward a catalyst, with the preamble of the claim indicating that the catalyst is for “use in [a] cooking chamber of an oven having an air frying mode and including a circulation fan and heating elements and a baffle cover plate in proximity to the circulation fan”. This limitation is an intended use of the catalyst. Accordingly, the recited structures of “an oven having an air frying mode”, “a circulation fan”, “heating elements”, and “a baffle cover plate” are not positively recited structures (i.e., required components) of the claimed catalyst. A catalyst need only be capable of operating with the recited oven to meet the claim limitations of the preamble; generally, a catalyst adapted for use with any home oven would meet this criteria.
The preamble of claim 1 continues by stating that the catalyst is “adapted for connection to at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan”. As similarly discussed above, this functional limitation does not positively recite (i.e., require) a circulation fan; instead, a catalyst need only be capable of connecting to a suction or discharge side of a circulation fan. Also, it is noted that “a suction side [or] a discharge side of a circulation fan” would include any position along a path that is upstream or downstream of a fan that drives a fluid to move along the path.
Claim 1 includes further limitations stating that “wherein, without the catalyst installed the oven emits a first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking a predetermined food in air fry mode under predetermined conditions; wherein, with the catalyst installed the oven emits a second amount of volatile organic compounds at least 95% lower than the first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking the predetermined food in the air fry mode under the predetermined conditions”. In other words, these limitations state that the catalyst functions to remove at least 95% of volatile organic compounds generated inside an oven during a cooking procedure. This function does not imply a further structural limitation on the catalyst. Accordingly, it is presumed that any catalyst [which is capable of use with an oven and] which comprises “at least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals, a mass loading of the at least one precious metal is in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume” inherently possesses the property of being capable of removing 95% of volatile organic compounds emitted by an oven. See MPEP 2114(I.) regarding the inherency of functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Claims 5 and 14 recite a “30-mesh woven wire cloth”. This is understood to refer to a material comprising woven wires that define a mesh, wherein the mesh has 30 openings per square inch of material (i.e., “30-mesh” refers to a mesh number of 30, and a mesh number is defined in the art as openings per square inch).
Claims 6, 15, and 19 refer to a “cell density” of a foil bundle. The instant application does not clearly define what is meant by “cell density”. However, based on prior art (see WO 2019/194881 A1, which has the same applicant as the instant application), it is understood that the “[d]ensity 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).
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 limitation is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed catalyst, and does not clearly require any further limitation of the actual structure or composition of the claimed catalyst.
Regarding claim 10, the method claim is “for treating emissions of an oven when air frying, the oven including a circulation fan and heating elements and a baffle cover plate in proximity to the circulation fan”, wherein the recited active step of the claim includes “treating air frying emissions by passing the air frying emission through a catalyst adapted for connection to at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan”. The language of the claim is interpreted as fairly requiring that the “air frying emissions” treated by the catalyst are emissions from “the oven including a circulation fan and heating elements and a baffle cover plate”. Accordingly, the method is understood to require an oven having all of a circulation fan, heating elements, and a baffle cover plate. The language of claim 10 could be improved to clarify this aspect of the claim by adjusting line 1 of the claim to read “a method for treating air frying emissions of an oven when air frying”, and adjusting line 4 of the claim to read “treating the air frying emissions”.
It is noted that the instant application does not establish a clear basis for distinction between an oven having an “air fry mode” and an oven having a convection mode. Both “air frying” and convection cooking are characterized by the use of a fan (or equivalent thereof) to drive heated air over a food item to be heated and cooked. While the term “air fryer” can sometimes imply a smaller, tabletop device having a particular fan arrangement, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a clear basis for distinguishing between an “oven having an air frying mode” and an oven having a convection cooking mode. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, an air frying mode and a convection cooking mode have been interpreted as synonymous.
Claim 10 includes the further limitations “wherein, without the catalyst installed the oven emits a first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking a predetermined food in air fry mode under predetermined conditions; wherein, with the catalyst installed the oven emits a second amount of volatile organic compounds at least 95% lower than the first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking the predetermined food in the air fry mode under the predetermined conditions.” These limitations are not clearly recited as active steps of the method. The limitations are instead understood to describe a property of the catalyst, particularly the ability of the catalyst to remove 95% of volatile organic compounds emitted by the oven. This property/function is understood to be an inherent effect of the step of treating the air frying emissions with the claimed catalyst [which has platinum group metals mass loaded in a range of 10 to 75 g per cubic foot]; accordingly, the limitations do not meaningfully impose any additional steps or structural requirements to the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed toward a conversion kit. The preamble of claim 19 indicates the conversion kit is “for an oven including an air fry mode and having a circulation fan and heating elements and a baffle cover plate in proximity to the circulation fan”. As similarly discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the recited oven, circulation fan, heating elements, and baffle cover plate are not positively recited structures of the kit, and instead describe structures the kit is capable of use with or on.
Claim 19 further includes a limitation for “a set of instructions for installing the catalyst in the oven”. MPEP 2112.01(III.) indicates that nonfunctional printed matter does not distinguish a claimed product form an otherwise identical prior art product. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate"). Including instructions as part of a kit is conventional, such that providing the claimed instructions alone would not offer a new and non-obvious functional relationship between the instructions and the rest of the kit.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because they both recite the limitation “emissions containing the volatile organic compounds is recycled” (lines 1-2 of each claim), which should be adjusted to read “emissions containing the volatile organic compounds are
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 1, which is interpreted as set forth in the claim interpretation section above. The positively recited structure of claim 1 is a catalyst comprising platinum, palladium or a mixture of platinum group metals provided at a mass loading of 10-75 g/ft3. The catalyst of claim 1 is capable for use with an oven having a cooking chamber, circulation fan, heating elements, baffle cover plate, and an air frying mode, but these structures are not part of the claimed catalyst. Also, the composition of the catalyst is understood to enable 95% reduction of volatile organic compounds within an oven performing an air frying operations.
Claim 6 attempts to further limit the catalyst of claim 1 based on the position of a foil bundle of the catalyst in a corner of the heating elements. This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim is directed toward either: 1) a system comprising an oven and a catalyst, wherein the catalyst is positioned at a corner of the heating elements of the oven; or 2) a catalyst capable of being placed at the corners of heating elements of an oven. In other words, it is not clear the extent to which the heating elements are a positively recited feature of the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as being directed toward a catalyst capable of placement at the corner of heating elements; this interpretation is adopted because the claim is not clearly written as a system claim that positively recites the heating elements as a required component of the system, and the interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. Claim 6 should be adjusted to clarify the required structural components of the claimed catalyst (or system comprising the catalyst).
Claims 7-8 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency on claim 6. It is noted that claim 8 attempts to further limit the catalyst based on the positioning of the catalyst at corners of the heating elements, and has been interpreted similarly to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It is noted that one of the references relied upon in the below rejections—Robinson, JR. (US 2009/0050129 A1)—has a common assignee (Catalytic Combustion Corporation) with the applicant of the instant application. Although invoking 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) this would except the reference as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the reference is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and it cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) because it was published more than one year before the earliest priority date of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson, JR. (US 2009/0050129 A1), hereinafter “Robinson”.
Regarding claim 1, first see the claim interpretation section above regarding the positively recited structures of the claimed catalyst. Robinson teaches a catalyst (catalytic conversion unit 10 comprising catalytic element 18—[0058]), comprising: at least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals (catalyst unit comprises a layered metallic substrate coated with a high surface area aluminum oxide coating that has subsequently been impregnated with catalytically active elements—[0038]; the catalytically active elements are most commonly elements from the platinum group metal series either singly or in combination with each other—[0024], [0041]), a mass loading of the at least one precious metal is in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume (for the platinum group metals elements the total amount on each catalyst can range from 10 to 75 g/ft3—[0024], [0042]; exemplary catalyst comprises platinum applied at 30 g/ft3—see [0053]).
The catalyst of Robinson is adapted to be positioned along an exhaust path (21) which includes a fan (impelling means may be outfitted upon or otherwise cooperably associated with the exhaust path 21 so as to impart an airflow and an exhausting motion—[0059]; it is evident that any such impelling means would essentially constitute a fan positioned along the exhaust path), the exhaust path guiding air/gasses out from the cooking chamber (11) of an oven (12) (Figs. 3-4 and 7; catalytic conversion unit 10 communicates the cooking chamber 11 with the exhaust path 21, with the unit inlet 15 coupled to the chamber outlet 20 and the unit outlet 19 coupled to the path inlet 22—[0060]; chamber emanating emissions travel out of cooking chamber 11 through chamber outlet 20 into unit inlet 15, through catalyst element 18, out unit outlet 19 and into exhaust path inlet 22, and through exhaust path 20 to exhaust path outlet 23—[0062]). The catalyst is thus adapted for connection to at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan (catalyst is positioned along an exhaust path that includes impelling means—see [0059]-[0062]—such that the catalyst is either upstream of downstream of the impelling means, such impelling means being synonymous with a fan).
Accordingly, the catalyst of Robinson is structurally indistinguishable from the claimed catalyst, and is presumed to be capable of removing 95% of volatile organic compounds from emissions emanating from an oven. That is, it is presumed that the catalyst of Robinson is capable of performing such that without the catalyst installed the oven emits a first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking a predetermined food in air fry mode under predetermined conditions; and with the catalyst installed the oven emits a second amount of volatile organic compounds at least 95% lower than the first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking the predetermined food in the air fry mode under the predetermined conditions. Also, although Robinson does not explicitly discuss the catalyst being used with an oven having a baffle cover plate and an air frying mode, the catalyst of Robinson is reasonably capable of use with such an oven (i.e., there is no clear distinguishing structural feature between the claimed catalyst and the catalyst of Robinson that would inhibit such use of the catalyst of Robinson).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson teaches the catalyst of claim 1. As stated in the claim interpretation above, the further limitations of claim 9 recite an intended use of the claimed catalyst which does not impose further requirements on the actual structure or composition of the claimed catalyst. Accordingly, the catalyst of Robinson is inherently capable of use such that emission containing the volatile organic compounds are recycled though the catalyst prior to being exhausted by the oven.
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 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inaba et al. (GB 2029720 A).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches the catalyst of claim 1. Robinson recognize metal screens as suitable catalyst supports (Robinson: use of other substrate forms such as wire mesh is within the scope of the invention--[0042]), and thus teaches a screen coated with the catalyst.
Robinson does not particularly suggest that the screen includes a corrugated pattern and that the catalyst coating covers at least half of the screen.
However, in the analogous art of catalysts comprising platinum group elements (useful catalytically active components to be deposited on the carrier are…Pt, Rh, Rd—page 2, lines 20-21; claim 7), Inaba teaches a catalyst unit (plate-shaped catalyst, page 1, lines 32-33) formed by first depositing and firing a dried and pulverized alumina sol onto a metal net in order to form a porous carrier, and subsequently depositing a catalytically active component on the carrier (page 1, lines 34-39; claim 1). Inaba indicates that the metal net may be formed of stainless steel (metal nets made of carbon steel, stainless steel, copper, brass, etc.—page 2, lines 5-6), that the metal net has a mesh size between 8 and 100 (satisfactory results can be achieved with openings of 8 to about 100 mesh size—page 2, lines 8-9), and that the metal net is corrugated in certain embodiments (net may be formed of wavelike, zigzag, pleated, or otherwise shaped net formed by bending or folding a planar net—page 2, lines 9-10; honeycomb structure can be fabricated form the combination of a catalyst formed from a bent or folded metal net and another catalyst formed form a planar metal net—page 2, lines 12-14). Fig. 1 of Inaba shows the metal nets having a woven structure (Fig. 1 depicts metal net comprising a grid of wires, wherein each wire alternatively passes over and under each perpendicular wire, defining a woven pattern). In the disclosed embodiments of Inaba, catalyst is applied by immersing the metal net [which has previously been treated with silica or alumina powder] into a solution which incorporates the catalyst onto the metal net structure (page 2, lines 50-52); such immersion would reasonably be expected to apply the catalyst to all surfaces of the screen (metal net), such that almost all of the screen is coated. Inaba indicates that the catalyst units formed from the metal nets offer various advantages, including small thickness, high strength, large surface area (page 1, lines 32-33), enhanced catalyst activity (page 2, lines 32-33), and allowing the formation of desired catalyst size and shapes (page 2, lines 28-29) (page 4, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Robinson such that the catalyst is formed using the techniques of Inaba so as to include a catalyst substrate comprising a corrugated (Inaba: wavelike, zigzag, pleated, or otherwise shaped by bending or folding—page 2, lines 9-10) woven (see Fig. 1) metal (page 2, lines 5-6) screen having a mesh size between 8 and 100 (page 2, line 9) that is substantially fully coated (by application of a carrier followed by immersion in catalyst solution—see page 2, lines 46-54); application of these techniques provides the benefit of a high catalyst surface area, high catalyst wear resistance (strength), enhanced activity and efficiency, and customization of catalyst size and shape (see Inaba at page 4, lines 16-20; page 1, lines 32-33; and page 2, lines 28-36). Such modification yields a catalyst comprising a screen including a corrugated pattern and coated with the catalyst on at least half of the screen.
Regarding claim 3, Robinson in view of Inaba teaches the catalyst of claim 2. As modified with respect to claim 2, the catalyst of Robinson is formed based on the techniques of Inaba, such that the 75% to 100% of the screen is coated as a result of immersing the screen in a catalyst depositing solution (see Inaba at page 2, lines 46-54, and the rejection of claim 2 above discussing how such a deposition method would reasonably be expected to coat substantially the entire screen surface).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson in view of Inaba teaches the catalyst of claim 2. As modified with respect to claim 2 above, the screen of Robinson has a mesh size between 8 and 100, which Inaba recognized as an appropriate range for satisfactory catalyst performance (Inaba at page 2, lines 8-9; see rejection of claim 1 above). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a mesh size of 30, which lays within the range of Inaba, for the benefit of selecting a mesh size that promotes satisfactory catalyst performance (Inaba at page 2, lines 8-9). Such a screen defines a 30-mesh woven wire cloth (note that the term “cloth” does not impart a distinguishing structural characteristic between the claimed screen and screen of the prior art, and that Fig. 1 of Inaba clearly shows the metal nets having a woven configuration).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1) in view of Inaba et al. (GB 2029720 A), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Suter (US 2,658,742 A).
Regarding claim 4, Robinson in view of Inaba teaches the catalyst of claim 2. Robinson and Inaba do not clearly teach a rim surrounding the screen, the rim including locations for attachment to the at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan.
However, in the analogous art of platinum metal group catalysts with screen supports (base metal in the form of wire or screen is cleaned and immersion plated or electroplated with metallic palladium, platinum, or a mixture thereof—column 3, line 61, through column 4, line 4), Suter teaches a catalyst supported by mesh screens and surrounded by a rim (walls 1-4) to define a panel (P) (panel P comprising walls 1-4 with inwardly extending flanges and metallic screens 5 attached to the upper and lower flanges, with wires 7,8 positioned between the screens—Figs. 1-3, column 5, lines 54-75; wires 7,8 formed of metal core coated with palladium or platinum—column 6, lines 37-44), the rim serving to maintain the structural arrangement of the catalyst panel (maintain the various elements in assembled relationship—column 6, lines 64-69) in the desired shape (the particular form or geometrical shape of the panel P will, of course, depend upon the shape of the duct into which it is to be installed—column 6, lines 56-60). In one embodiment, the catalyst panel (P) is positioned adjacent the suction side of recirculating fan (20) within a drying oven, with locations at the rim facilitating attachment of the panel to the walls of the oven (see Fig. 5, column 6, line 70, through column 7, line 30). It is thus evident that a rim surrounding a catalyst screen structure serves to maintain the structural arrangement of the catalyst screen(s) and facilitates attachment of the screen to locations proximate a circulation fan within a heating device.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the catalyst of Robinson (as modified in view of Inaba with respect to claim 2) in view of Suter by providing the screen of modified Robinson with a rim surrounding the screen and including locations for attachment to the suction side of a circulation fan for the benefit of maintaining the structural arrangement of the screen and facilitating the attachment of the screen near a circulation fan.
Claims 6-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2013/0152913 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson teaches the catalyst of claim 1. Robinson further teaches the catalyst comprising a foil bundle having a cell pattern (preferred form of the catalyst substrate is a metal foil—[0049]; catalyst comprised of 22 layers of metal foil having a zigzag pattern…metal foil substrate with cell pattern—[0053]). The foil bundle of Robinson is of a relatively small size (3.5”×1.5”×1” –[0053], see Figs. 2, 4-7) and is thus reasonably capable of being located at any desired position within an oven, such as a corner of the heating elements (see rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above regarding interpretation of claim 6).
Robinson does not teach a cell density in a range of 20 cells to 50 cells per square inch.
However, in the analogous art of ovens with catalytic converters for processing cooking fumes (title, abstract), Raghavan teaches such an oven which is equipped for convection heating ([0007], [0039], [0041]-[0042], [0058]) and further includes catalyst units (46) positioned within a bypass chamber (27) ([0050]) and configured to treat heated air passing through the chamber ([0051]-[0052]). The catalyst unit (46) is a metallic substrate coated with a catalytic material such as palladium or platinum/palladium based materials, and the substrate layers are processed so that they form a series of channels at a density from 40 to 350 channels per square inch ([0053]). Raghavan further recognized that the number of channels per unit of face area (i.e., cell density; see claim interpretation section above) should be selected based upon the desired volume of air flowing through the catalyst, and the amount of cross sectional area of the catalyst unit, and the resistance to flow, wherein the flow of air through the catalyst should be sufficient to continually treat a portion of the air in the oven ([0053]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Robinson by selecting a cell density within the overlapping portion (40-50 cpsi) of the claimed range (20-50 cpsi) and range of Raghavan (40-350 cpsi) for the benefit of arriving at a cell density which allows for a desired air flow through the catalyst after accounting for the size and pressure drop of the catalyst, so that the air within the oven is treated at an effective rate (consider Raghavan at [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson in view of Raghavan teaches the catalyst of claim 6. Robinson further teaches a cell pattern selected from the group consisting of skew and herringbone (catalyst comprised 22 layers of corrugated metal foil having a zigzag pattern—[0053]; a zigzag pattern is substantially equivalent or otherwise patentably indistinguishable from a herringbone pattern as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson in view of Raghavan teaches the catalyst of claim 6. Claim 8 recites the catalyst further comprising another foil bundle located in another corner of the heating elements; as interpreted (see rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), this requires a second foil bundle capable of being placed in a corner of a heating element. As discussed with respect to claim 6 above, the foil bundle of modified Robinson is capable of being placed in a corner of a heating element. Furthermore, the duplication of parts is prima facie obvious absent evidence of a new and unexpected result; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) as cited in MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(B.). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Robinson (as modified with respect to claim 6) to include an additional foil bundle for the benefit of improving the coverage and/or performance of the catalyst product within a space.
Regarding claim 19, Robinson teaches at least a catalyst adapted for connection to at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan, the catalyst comprising: at least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals, a mass loading of the at least one precious metal is in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume (see rejection of claim 1 above and Robinson at [0024], [0038], [0041]-[0042], [0053], and [0058]).
Robinson further teaches the catalyst further including at least one of a screen and a foil bundle (preferred form of the catalyst substrate is a metal foil—[0049]; catalyst comprised of 22 layers of metal foil having a zigzag pattern—[0053]; other substrate forms such as wire mesh, expanded metal, metal foam, or ceramics is within the scope of the invention—[0042]), the foil bundle including a cell pattern (metal foil substrate with cell pattern—[0053]) selected from the group consisting of a skew pattern and a herringbone pattern (corrugated metal foil having a zigzag pattern—[0053]; a zigzag pattern is substantially equivalent or otherwise patentably indistinguishable from a herringbone pattern as claimed).
The catalyst of Robinson is further reasonably capable of use with an oven including an air fry mode and having a circulation fan and heating elements and a baffle cover plate in proximity to the circulation fan (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the claim interpretation section above), wherein the foil bundle is sized for location in a corner of the heating elements (the small size of the foil bundle of Robinson enables placement of the bundle in substantially any preferred position, such as the corner of a heating element).
Robinson does not particularly teach the foil bundle having a cell density in a range of 20 cells to 50 cells per square inch (cpsi), or [alternatively] that the screen is sized for connection to the circulation fan and including a corrugated pattern and coated with the catalyst on at least half of the screen.
Robinson also does not teach a set of instructions for installing the catalyst in the oven.
With respect to the cell density of the foil bundle, Raghavan, in the analogous art of ovens with catalytic converters for processing cooking fumes (title, abstract), teaches such an oven which is equipped for convection heating ([0007], [0039], [0041]-[0042], [0058]) and further includes catalyst units (46) positioned within a bypass chamber (27) ([0050]) and configured to treat heated air passing through the chamber ([0051]-[0052]). The catalyst unit (46) is a metallic substrate coated with a catalytic material such as palladium or platinum/palladium based materials, and the substrate layers are processed so that they form a series of channels at a density from 40 to 350 channels per square inch ([0053]). Raghavan further recognized that the number of channels per unit of face area should be selected based upon the desired volume of air flowing through the catalyst, and the amount of cross sectional area of the catalyst unit, and the resistance to flow, wherein the flow of air through the catalyst should be sufficient to continually treat a portion of the air in the oven ([0053]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Robinson and arrive at a cell density within the overlapping portion (40-50 cpsi) of the claimed range (20-50 cpsi) and range of Raghavan (40-350 cpsi) for the benefit of arriving at a cell density which allows for a desired air flow through the catalyst after accounting for the size and pressure drop of the catalyst, so that the air within the oven is treated at an effective rate (consider Raghavan at [0053]).
With respect to the instructions, it is first noted that it is extremely common for a consumer product to be packaged along with instructions for use of the product. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide installation instructions with the catalyst unit of Robinson for the evident benefit of guiding a user to properly install the catalyst for effective operation. See the discussion of MPEP 2112.01(III.) in the claim interpretation section above regarding the obviousness of nonfunctional printed matter.
Regarding claim 20, Robinson in view of Raghavan teaches the conversion kit of claim 19. As previously discussed, Robinson teaches a precious metal mass loading within the range of 10 to 75 g/ft3 ([0024],[0042), and further teaches an exemplary embodiment having a mass loading of 30 g/ft3 (amount of platinum applied was at the rate of 30 g/ft3—[0053]), which lays within the clanged range of 20 g to 50 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190120500 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches an oven having convection cooking and contaminant removal abilities (electric oven capable of reducing contaminants—title, abstract; convection assembly 20 heats and circulates air inside cavity 10 of oven main body 3 to heat the inside of the cavity to a predetermined temperature—[0048]-[0049]; also see [0138]). The oven of Kim (electric oven 1) has a main body (3) forming a cooking cavity (10) and a convection assembly (20) disposed within the cavity (10) ([0047]). The convection assembly includes a baffle (cover case 30), circulation fan (convection fan 40), and heating elements (convection heater 50) ([0053]). Furthermore, the convection assembly is configured such that the fan (40) draws air through an inlet port (32) in the baffle (30), the fan subsequently discharges the sucked air past the heater (50), and the air then leaves the baffle (30) and is returned to the oven cavity (10) via outlet ports (34) of the baffle (see Fig. 4, [0061], [0054]-[0055], and [0059]-[0060]). The convection assembly thus functions to heat and circulate air inside the cavity (10) ([0049]) as part of a cooking operation ([0138]) which is consistent with air frying (as interpreted, “air frying” is characterized by the forced convection of heated air to increase the temperature and thus cook a food item).
Kim further teaches that an inlet side of the circulation fan (40) is equipped with a catalyst (35) (a porous member 35 provided at the inlet port 32 of the cover case 30—[0065]) comprising a metal mesh ([0066]) coated with a platinum or palladium catalyst ([0068]); the outlets (34) of the convection unit may similarly be provided with a platinum or palladium catalyst member (36) ([0103]-[0106]). During use of the oven for cooking, the convection assembly is operated to heat and remove contaminants from the air circulating within the oven (controller performs an operation of removing contaminants during the cooking mode to minimize contamination inside the cavity—[0136]—cooking mode includes passing air through inlet port 32 having catalyst 35—see [0136]-[0138]).
Accordingly, Kim teaches a method for treating emission of an oven when air frying, the oven (1) including a circulation fan (40) and heating elements (50) and a baffle cover plate (30) in proximity to the circulation fan (40) ([0047], [0053]), the method comprising:
Treating air frying emissions by passing the air frying emissions through a catalyst (35) adapted for connection to at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan (during cooking operation, cooking emissions are passed through the porous member 35 including a catalyst—see [0065]-[0066], [0068], and [0136]-[0138]; cooking operation of Kim fairly constitutes air frying, as discussed above), the catalyst comprising:
At least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals (catalyst provided on porous member 35 or 36 includes platinum or palladium—[0068], [0106]).
Kim does not teach that the mass loading of the precious metal is in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume. Since Kim does not teach this feature of the catalyst, it cannot be presumed that the method of Kim has the effect of removing 95% of volatile organic compounds from the oven when performing an air frying operation (i.e., it is not presumed that: without the catalyst installed the oven emits a first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking a predetermined food in air fry mode under predetermined conditions, and that with the catalyst installed the oven emits a second amount of volatile organic compounds at least 95% lower than the first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking the predetermined food in the air frying mode under the predetermined conditions).
However, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Robinson teaches a catalyst comprising at least one precious metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, palladium, and a mixture of platinum group metals, wherein a mass loading of the at least one precious metal is in a range of 10 g to 75 g per cubic foot of catalyst volume (see rejection of claim 1 above and Robinson at [0024], [0038], [0041]-[0042], [0053], and [0058]). The catalyst of Robinson effectively treats cooking emissions passing therethrough to remove unpleasant odors ([0062]) and breakdown organic compounds ([0019], [0026], [0037], [0044]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Robinson and Kim such that the catalyst of Robinson (which comprises platinum or palladium at a mass loading of 10-75 g/ft3—see [0042]) is installed in place of the catalyst of Kim (35 and/or 36) for the benefit of reducing contaminants in cooking emissions (Kim indicates that platinum or palladium catalyst effectively removes contaminants—[0068]—generated while cooking food inside of an oven cavity—see [0049]; Robinson indicates that the catalyst breaks down organic molecules released during the cooking of foods to reduce odors emanating from the oven—[0019], [0026],[0037],[0044], [0062]). See MPEP 2143(I.)(B.) regarding the obviousness of the substitution of one known element (catalyst of Kim) for another (catalyst of Robinson) to obtain predictable results (removal of contaminants generated during cooking).
Thus modified, the material steps of operating the device of Kim are indistinguishable from the steps of method claim 10, and the modified method of Kim is thus presumed to have the effect of removing 95% of volatile organic compounds emanating from the oven (i.e., it is presumed that: without the catalyst installed the oven emits a first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking a predetermined food in air fry mode under predetermined conditions, and that with the catalyst installed the oven emits a second amount of volatile organic compounds at least 95% lower than the first amount of volatile organic compounds when cooking the predetermined food in the air frying mode under the predetermined conditions).
Claims 11-12, 14 and 18 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190120500 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Inaba et al. (GB 2029720 A).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Robinson teaches the method of claim 10. Both Kim and Robinson recognize metal screens as suitable catalyst supports (Kim: porous member may be in the form of a metal mesh—[0064], [0066], [0103]; Robinson: use of other substrate forms such as wire mesh is within the scope of the invention--[0042]). Accordingly, the method of Kim modified with respect to claim 10 incorporates the catalyst of Robinson, which includes embodiments wherein the catalyst substate is a screen coated with the catalyst (Robinson at [0042]: catalytically active material applied to substrate, wherein substrate may include a wire mesh).
Kim and Robinson do not particularly indicate that the screen has a corrugated pattern and that the catalyst necessarily coats at least half of the screen.
However, in the analogous art of catalysts comprising platinum group elements (useful catalytically active components to be deposited on the carrier are…Pt, Rh, Rd—page 2, lines 20-21; claim 7), Inaba teaches a catalyst unit (plate-shaped catalyst, page 1, lines 32-33) formed by first depositing and firing a dried and pulverized alumina sol onto a metal net to form a porous carrier, and subsequently depositing a catalytically active component on the porous carrier (page 1, lines 34-39; claim 1). Inaba indicates that the metal net may be formed of stainless steel (metal nets made of carbon steel, stainless steel, copper, brass, etc.—page 2, lines 5-6), that the metal net has a mesh size between 8 and 100 (satisfactory results can be achieved with openings of 8 to about 100 mesh size—page 2, lines 8-9), and that the metal net is corrugated in certain embodiments (net may be formed of wavelike, zigzag, pleated, or otherwise shaped net formed by bending or folding a planar net—page 2, lines 9-10; honeycomb structure can be fabricated form the combination of a catalyst formed from a bent or folded metal net and another catalyst formed form a planar metal net—page 2, lines 12-14). Fig. 1 of Inaba shows the metal nets having a woven structure (Fig. 1 depicts metal net comprising a grid of wires, wherein each wire alternatively passes over and under each perpendicular wire, defining a woven pattern). In the disclosed embodiments of Inaba, the catalyst is applied by immersing the metal net—which as previously been treated with a carrier powder—into a solution which incorporates the catalyst onto the pre-treated metal net (page 2, lines 50-52); such immersion would reasonably be expected to apply the catalyst to all surfaces of the screen (i.e., the metal net), such that almost all of the screen is coated. Inaba indicates that the catalysts formed from the metal nets offer various advantages, including small thickness, high strength, large surface area (page 1, lines 32-33), enhanced catalyst activity (page 2, lines 32-33), and facilitating the formation of desired catalyst size and shapes (page 2, lines 28-29) (page 4, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Kim by applying the techniques of Inaba discussed above such that the catalyst substrate comprises a corrugated (Inaba: wavelike, zigzag, pleated, or otherwise shaped by bending or folding—page 2, lines 9-10) woven (see Fig. 1) metal (page 2, lines 5-6) screen having a mesh size between 8 and 100 (page 2, line 9) that is substantially fully coated with catalyst (by immersion in catalyst depositing solution—see page 2, lines 46-54); incorporation of these techniques provides the benefit of a catalyst having a high surface area, high wear resistance (strength), enhanced activity and efficiency, and customizable size and shape (see Inaba at page 4, lines 16-20; page 1, lines 32-33; and page 2, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Robinson and Inaba teaches the method of claim 11. As modified with respect to claim 11 above, the method of Kim uses a catalyst formed using the techniques of Inaba, wherein said techniques yield a screen that is 75% to 100% coated (Inaba at page 1, lines 34-39, and page 2, lines 50-52, teaches forming a catalyst by first coating a metal net with a silica or alumina based carrier material and then immersing the coated net into a solution that incorporates the catalyst onto the coated net; such immersion would reasonably be expected to apply the catalyst to all surfaces of the screen, such that nearly 100% of the screen is coated).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Robinson and Inaba teaches the method of claim 11. As modified with respect to claim 11 above, the method of claim 11 incorporates the techniques of Inaba such that the screen is configured as a woven metal wire screen having a mesh size between 8 and 100 (satisfactory results can be achieved with openings of 8 to about 100 mesh size—page 2, lines 8-9; Fig. 1 shows woven screen comprising woven wires). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kim by selecting a mesh size of 30 for the benefit of satisfactory catalyst performance (a mesh size of 30 lays within the range of 8 to 100 suggested by Inaba for satisfactory results—see page 2, lines 8-9). The prior art screen thus modified defines a 30-mesh woven wire cloth (note that the term “cloth” does not impart a distinguishing structural characteristic between the claimed screen and screen of the prior art).
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Robinson and Inaba teaches the method of claim 12, Kim further teaches emissions containing the volatile organic compounds are recycled through the catalyst prior to being exhausted by the oven (the convection assembly 20 of Kim passes air from the oven cavity 10 through catalysts 35 and 36 positioned at the inlet 32 and outlet 34, respectively, of the convection assembly cover 30 and returns the air to the oven cavity—see Figs. 4, 11, 15, [0059], [0065]-[0068], and [0103]-[0106]—such that the air in the oven is recycled and not exhausted until, e.g., the door is opened by a user—see door discussed at [0046] and [0048]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190120500 A1) in view of Robinson (US 2009/0050129 A1) and Inaba et al. (GB 2029720 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suter et al. (US 2,658,742 A).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Robinson and Inaba teaches the method of claim 11. Fig. 6 of Kim implies some structure facilitating the attachment of the catalyst (porous member 35) to the inlet (32) of the baffle cover (30) above the suction side of the circulation fan (40), with Figs. 4, 11, and 15 generally showing the front surface (31) of the cover including a raised lip portion surrounding the inlet (32). While the raised lip portion of the front surface of Kim appears similar to the claimed rim, Kim is not explicitly clear in teaching a rim surrounding the screen, the rim including locations for attachment to the at least one of a suction side and a discharge side of the circulation fan. Robinson and Inaba also do not clearly teach the claimed rim.
However, in the analogous art of platinum metal group catalysts with screen supports (base metal in the form of wire or screen is cleaned and immersion plated or electroplated with metallic palladium, platinum, or a mixture thereof—column 3, line 61, through column 4, line 4), Suter teaches a catalyst supported by mesh screens and surrounded by a rim (walls 1-4) to define a panel (P) (panel P comprising walls 1-4 with inwardly extending flanges and metallic screens 5 attached to the upper and lower flanges, with wires 7,8 positioned between the screens—Figs. 1-3, column 5, lines 54-75; wires 7,8 formed of metal core coated with palladium or platinum—column 6, lines 37-44). The rim (walls 1 through 4) serves to maintain the structural arrangement of the catalyst panel (maintain the various elements in assembled relationship—column 6, lines 64-69) in a desired shape (the particular form or geometrical shape of the panel P will, of course, depend upon the shape of the duct into which it is to be installed—column 6, lines 56-60). In one embodiment, the catalyst panel (P) is positioned adjacent a the suction side of recirculating fan (20) within a drying oven, with locations of the rim being attached to the walls of the oven (see Fig. 5, column 6, line 70, through column 7, line 30). It is thus evident that a rim surrounding a screen supported catalyst serves to maintain the structural arrangement of the catalyst components and facilitates attachment of the screen to locations proximate a circulation fan within a heating device.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Kim in view of Suter by providing the screen of modified Kim with a rim surrounding the screen and including locations for