Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, the limitation “the plurality walls” should read “the plurality of walls”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 10, the limitation “the heating element rotatably mounted to a first side wall of the plurality of walls and a second side wall of the plurality of walls within the heated chamber” is unclear if the first side wall of the plurality of sidewalls and the second side wall of the plurality of walls is referring to the bottom wall of the plurality of sidewalls and the back wall of the plurality of sidewalls, or are other sidewalls of the plurality of sidewalls.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the same height" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9 and 11-16 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 20100009853).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a cooking appliance (10) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (as shown in Fig. 8-9), wherein the vertical direction, the lateral direction, and the transverse directional are mutually perpendicular (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the cooking appliance comprising: a cabinet (housing of cooking appliance 10); a heated chamber (S) positioned within the cabinet (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the heated chamber defined by a plurality of walls (as shown in Fig. 8-9); the heating chamber extending between a door (not shown in Fig. 8-9 but the embodiment of Fig. 1-3, 6 and 7 clearly shows that a door is part of the appliance) and a back wall of the plurality of walls along the transverse direction (as shown in Fig. 8-9) and between a bottom wall of the plurality of walls and a top wall of the plurality of walls along the vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 8-9); a heating element (130, 140) positioned within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the heating element rotatably mounted to a first side wall of the plurality of walls and a second side wall of the plurality of walls within the heated chamber by a hinge (131, 141; page 9, lines 12-16) (as shown in Fig. 8-9), whereby the heating element if rotatable between a first position approximately parallel to the transverse direction (the upper heater 130 is rotated about an upper hinge 131 from a top position close to a top wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber S, and the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16) and a second position approximately perpendicular to the transverse direction (the upper heater 130 is rotated about an upper hinge 131 from a top position close to a top wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber S, and the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16).
Yang fails to disclose whereby the heating element is rotatable about the lateral direction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to rotate the heating element also about the lateral direction (by providing another hinge parallel to the lateral direction) since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with just the transverse direction rotation of Yang.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide another hinge parallel to the lateral direction so that the heating element can be rotated about the lateral direction, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the heating element is adjacent the bottom wall of the plurality of walls in the first position and is spaced apart from the bottom wall of the plurality of walls in the second position (the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16).
Yang fails to disclose wherein the heating element is adjacent to the back wall in the second position.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to also provide the heating element adjacent to the back wall in the second position since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the heating element adjacent to the side wall in the second position as shown in Yang.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide another hinge parallel to the lateral direction so that the heating element is adjacent to the back wall in the second position, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches a cooking appliance (10), comprising: a cabinet (housing of cooking appliance 10); a door rotatably attached to the cabinet (a door is not shown in Fig. 8-9 but the embodiment of Fig. 1-3, 6 and 7 clearly shows that a door is part of the appliance); a heated chamber (S) positioned within the cabinet (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the heated chamber defined by a plurality of walls (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the plurality walls comprising a back wall and a bottom wall, the back wall opposite the door (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the bottom wall defining a lowermost extent of the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 8-9); a heating element (130, 140) positioned within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 8-9), the heating element movably mounted to a first side wall of the plurality of walls and a second side wall of the plurality of walls within the heated chamber (by a hinge 131, 141; page 9, lines 12-16; as shown in Fig. 8-9), whereby the heating element is movable between a first position adjacent the bottom wall of the plurality of walls and a second position (the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16), wherein the heating element is spaced apart from the bottom wall of the plurality of walls in the second position (the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16).
Yang fails to disclose wherein the heating element is adjacent to the back wall of the plurality of walls in the second position.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to also provide the heating element adjacent to the back wall in the second position since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the heating element adjacent to the side wall in the second position as shown in Yang.
Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide another hinge parallel to the lateral direction so that the heating element is adjacent to the back wall in the second position, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the heating element is rotatably mounted within the heated chamber by a hinge (131, 141).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the first position is about ninety degrees from the second position (the lower heater 140 is rotated about a lower hinge 141 from a bottom position close to a bottom wall and a side position close to a side wall of the heated chamber; page 9, lines 12-16).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of B. Altman (US 2,934,630).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Yang teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, further comprising a spacer mounted on the heating element, wherein the spacer is in direct contact with the bottom wall in the first position.
B. Altman teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a spacer (as shown in Fig. 1 below) mounted on the heating element (14), wherein the spacer is in direct contact with the bottom wall in the first position (as shown in Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (spacer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
189
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cooking appliance of Yang, with B. Altman, by providing a spacer mounted in the heating element and in direct contact with the bottom wall in the first position, to provide support for the heating element and avoid bending/warping of the heating element.
Claims 6-9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 6, Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8-9, teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, further comprising a heat shield within the heated chamber, wherein the heat shield is positioned on an opposite side of the heating element from the bottom wall of the plurality of walls when the heating element is in the first position.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 3-7), wherein the heat shield is positioned on an opposite side of the heating element from one wall of the plurality of walls when the heating element is in the first position (as shown in Fig. 2-7; page 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 6, wherein the heat shield is movably mounted within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 3-7), whereby the heat shield is movable between a third position and a fourth position (page 6, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the hinge by which the heating element is rotatably mounted within the heated chamber is a first hinge (131, 141).
Yang, in the embodiment of Fig. 8-9, fails to disclose further comprising a heat shield movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge, and wherein the first hinge is approximately parallel to the second hinge.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) movably mounted within a heated chamber (S) by a second hinge (112), and wherein the first hinge is approximately parallel to the second hinge (when view in combination with the embodiment of Fig. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield and second hinge as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the hinge by which the heating element is rotatably mounted within the heated chamber is a first hinge (131, 141).
Yang, in the embodiment of Fig. 8-9, fails to disclose further comprising a heat shield movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge, and wherein the first hinge is generally aligned with the second hinge along the vertical direction.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge (112), and wherein the first hinge is generally aligned with the second hinge along the vertical direction (when view in combination with the embodiment of Fig. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield and second hinge as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 14, Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8-9, teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, further comprising a heat shield within the heated chamber, wherein the heat shield is positioned on an opposite side of the heating element from the bottom wall of the plurality of walls when the heating element is in the first position.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 1-7), wherein the heat shield is positioned on an opposite side of the heating element from one wall of the plurality of walls when the heating element is in the first position (as shown in Fig. 2-7; page 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 14, wherein the heat shield is movably mounted within the heated chamber (as shown in Fig. 3-7), whereby the heat shield is movable between a third position and a fourth position (page 6, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 16, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the heating element is rotatably mounted within the heated chamber by a first hinge (131, 141).
Yang, in the embodiment of Fig. 8-9, fails to disclose further comprising a heat shield movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge, and wherein the first hinge is approximately parallel to the second hinge.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) movably mounted within a heated chamber (S) by a second hinge (112), and wherein the first hinge is approximately parallel to the second hinge (when view in combination with the embodiment of Fig. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield and second hinge as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the heating element is rotatably mounted within the heated chamber by a first hinge (131, 141).
Yang, in the embodiment of Fig. 8-9, fails to disclose further comprising a heat shield movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge, and wherein the first hinge and the second hinge are approximately the same height above the bottom wall of the plurality of walls.
Yang, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1-7, teaches a cooking appliance (10) comprising a heat shield (110) movably mounted within the heated chamber by a second hinge (112), and wherein the first hinge and the second hinge are approximately the same height above one wall of the plurality of walls (when view in combination with the embodiment of Fig. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 8-9 of the cooking appliance of Yang, with the embodiment of Fig. 1-7 of Yang, by providing a heat shield and second hinge as claimed, to protect the heating element, and for easier cleaning of the cooking appliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that “For example, Yang discloses bifurcated upper and lower heaters 130 and 140, where the halves of each of these heaters rotate outward, away from a center of the appliance, about a front-to-back direction, in order to place the heaters against the right side and left side of the cooking chamber "to perform thermal decomposition" in a self-cleaning mode of the electric oven. Yang, e.g., p. 9 of the machine translation provided with the Office Action, and FIGS. 8 and 9. See also, Yang, machine translation, p. 10, "contamination of the sides of the cooking chamber" is "particularly serious," and pp. 11-12, "by placing the heavily contaminated side of the cooking chamber close to the heater and performing thermal decomposition, the side of the cooking chamber is directly heated by the heater." As another example, Altman discloses that the heating element 14 is removable, and that the heating element 14 must move sidewise, i.e., laterally, for installation and removal. See, e.g., Altman, col. 4, 11. 44-49 and FIGS. 2 and 5-8. Accordingly, neither Yang nor Altman discloses a movable heating element which is mounted to first and second side walls within a heating chamber as claimed. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious at the time of the present invention to modify Yang such that the heating element is rotatable about the lateral direction (e.g., as in amended claim 1) or is adjacent the back wall in the second position (e.g., as in amended claim 10), because Yang explicitly teaches that contamination of the side walls is "particularly serious" and Yang requires moving the heaters about a front-to-back direction to position the heaters close to the side walls to perform thermal decomposition of such contamination. Additionally, it would not have been obvious at the time of the present invention to modify Altman such that the heating element is mounted to first and second side walls within a heating chamber because Altman requires the heating element to be able to move laterally, i.e., "sidewise" for installation and removal of the heating element.” On remarks page 7, lines 27-28 and page 8, lines 1-21. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Yang fails to disclose whereby the heating element is rotatable about the lateral direction. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to rotate the heating element also about the lateral direction (by providing another hinge parallel to the lateral direction) since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with just the transverse direction rotation of Yang. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide another hinge parallel to the lateral direction so that the heating element can be rotated about the lateral direction, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6-17, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/21/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights