DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junge (US 2018/0028012A1) in view of Bigott et al. (US 12478216).
Junge discloses:
A pressure cooker 10 (note no specific limitations are associated with the term “pressure cooker”) , comprising: a housing 24 including an outer chamber 14; a crock 16 supported within the outer chamber of the housing, the crock including at least one side wall and a bottom wall defining a cooking chamber 46; a lid 22 removably secured to the housing and configured to seal the cooking chamber; a cooling element coupled to the housing and positioned opposite the bottom wall of the crock to cool the cooking chamber; the cooling element comprising a vapor compression cooling system coupled to the housing and including a cooling coil to the bottom side wall of the crock by circulating fluid through the cooling coil.
Note that Junge discloses a coiled heating element around the crock and a compression cooling system in contact with the bottom of the crock, i.e. a reversed configuration with respect to the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bigott discloses a food holding (heating and cooling) apparatus including a crock 30 within a cavity 22, wherein the cavity has a heating element 34 coupled to the housing and positioned opposite the bottom wall of the crock 30 to heat the cooking chamber 22; and a vapor compression cooling system 60 coupled to the housing and including a cooling coil 26 circumscribing the at least one side wall of the crock to cool the at least one side wall of the crock by circulating fluid through the cooling coil.
PNG
media_image2.png
625
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to reverse the heating and cooling means of Junge to arrive at a system wherein a heating element is coupled to the housing and positioned opposite the bottom wall of the crock to heat the cooking chamber; and a vapor compression cooling system coupled to the housing and including a cooling coil circumscribing the at least one side wall of the crock to cool the at least one side wall of the crock by circulating fluid through the cooling coil, in order to give a greater surface area for cooling the crock.
2. The pressure cooker of claim 1, wherein the vapor compression cooling system includes a vapor compression circuit including a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion valve through which a refrigerant circulates.
Note that both Junge and Bigott teach the claimed cooling system.
3. The pressure cooker of claim 2, wherein the cooling coil comprises an evaporator of the vapor compression circuit, and the refrigerant is the fluid circulated through the cooling coil.
Note that both Junge and Bigott teach the claimed cooling system.
4. The pressure cooker of claim 2, wherein the vapor compression circuit further includes an evaporator through which the refrigerant circulates, and the vapor compression cooling system further comprises a liquid chiller loop including a pump configured to circulate a liquid chilled by the evaporator of the vapor compression circuit, wherein the cooling coil is disposed in the liquid chiller loop and the liquid is the fluid circulated through the cooling coil.
Note that both Junge and Bigott teach the claimed cooling system.
5. The pressure cooker of claim 2, wherein the compressor, condenser, and expansion valve are disposed within the housing.
Note that both Junge and Bigott teach the claimed cooling system.
6. The pressure cooker of claim 5, wherein the condenser is disposed on an outer housing wall of the housing. See Figure 8 of Bigott
7. The pressure cooker of claim 2, wherein at least a portion of the vapor compression circuit is disposed externally from the housing. See Figure 8 of Bigott
8. The pressure cooker of claim 7, wherein the at least a portion of the vapor compression circuit is removably coupled to the housing. See Figure 8 of Bigott showing support 72 allowing for at least a portioin of the refrigeration system to be removed.
9. The pressure cooker of claim 1, wherein the outer chamber is defined by an inner housing wall of the housing, and wherein the cooling coil is coupled to the inner housing wall. See Bigott figures 3 and 4.
10. The pressure cooker of claim 9, wherein the housing further includes an outer housing wall, and wherein the cooling coil is disposed between the inner housing wall and the outer housing wall. See Bigott figures 3 and 4.
11. The pressure cooker of claim 9, wherein the cooling coil is disposed between the inner housing wall and the crock. See Bigott figure 3.
12. The pressure cooker of claim 9, further comprising at least one heat pipe coupled to the inner housing wall of the housing wall. Note that the coil 26 of Bigott reads as a heat pipe in the broadest sense.
13. The pressure cooker of claim 1, wherein the cooling coil is wound helically about the at least one side wall of the crock. See Junge or Bigott teaching a coil helically wound.
15. The pressure cooker of claim 1, further comprising a controller coupled to the heating element and the vapor compression cooling system, wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate the heating element and the vapor compression cooling system during a pressure cooking operation. Note that the heating element of Junge is selectively activated for cooking and the cooling system is selectively not activated.
16. The pressure cooker of claim 15, wherein the pressure cooking operation is a delay pressure cooking operation, and the controller is configured to activate the vapor compression cooling system during a delay portion of the delay pressure cooking operation to refrigerate food in the crock during the delay portion of the delay pressure cooking operation.
Junge teaches Accordingly, it would be advantageous to provide a slow cooker appliance that addressed the above concerns. In particular, it would be advantageous to provide a slow cooker appliance that included one or more features enabling food to be refrigerated or otherwise stored within the slow cooking appliance before and/or after cooking operations take place.
18. The pressure cooker of claim 15, wherein the vapor compression cooling system is operable in a reverse heat pump mode, and the controller is configured to activate the vapor compression cooling system in the reverse heat pump mode to perform a warming operation in the crock.
Note that the use of a reversible compression cooling system, i.e. heat pump is well known in the art as being able to be reversed to provide either heating or cooling. The inclusion of a reversible compression cooling system would have been an obvious modification to the Junge device as modified by Bigott to provide additional heating and or cooling capabilities to the device.
19. The pressure cooker of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to activate the vapor compression cooling system to perform a cooler operation in the crock. Note Junge teaches cooling the crock.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc