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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Michalko does not teach thermal treatment necessary to dry out moisture on the catalyst, the examiner disagrees. This action cites the relevant sections of Michalko that address the claim limitations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, the applicant has pointed out that de Ruiter and Michalko do not teach catalyst washing within an oven. However, the examiner points out that de Ruiter and Michalko are relied upon to modify Welch which is an oven with a catalyst which would benefit from the regeneration steps taught by de Ruiter and Michalko.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch (US 3419428 A), hereinafter Welch, in view of de Ruiter (US 5807424 A), hereinafter de Ruiter, in view of Michalko (US 3117936 A), hereinafter Michalko, and further in view of Nagai (US 4954694 A), hereinafter Nagai.
Regarding claims 1-5, Welch discloses a combination oven comprising:
an insulated housing (“an electric range cabinet or body 10” column 2, line 63 and “Suitable thermal insulation such as fiberglass 20 or the like surrounds the oven liner to confine the heat developed by the heating unit in the oven cavity” column 3, line 1) including a door configured to close to define an interior cooking cavity and an opening to provide access to the cooking cavity (“an oven cavity 13… formed by a boxlike oven liner 14 cooperating with a front-opening drop door 15” column 2, line 65), the insulated housing supporting
a cooking cavity heater communicating with the cooking cavity to heat the cooking cavity according to a temperature signal (“the oven cavity is supplied with two standard heating elements; namely, a lower baking element 16 and an upper broiling element 17” column 2, line 68);
a steam generator configured to produce steam within the cooking cavity according to a steam production signal (“The vaporizer means is a self-contained unit 40 shown as built into the bottom wall of the oven liner 14” column 3, line 70);
a temperature sensor configured to sample a temperature of the cooking cavity to provide a temperature signal (“various circuit control elements such as switches, thermostats, clock-timers, thermometers, pilot lights, etc., which would enable the housewife to control the various heating elements of both the cooktop and oven” column 3, line 10);
a catalyst chamber holding a catalyst configured to eliminate smoke and fumes within the cooking cavity (“a catalytic oxidation unit 27 which is shown interposed in the ducting 25 between the oven vent 24 and the surface heating element 12 to prevent the return to the kitchen atmosphere of any smoke, odor, and noxious vapors that might be generated within the oven during one of the high temperature method steps” column 3, line 22); and
communicating with the cooking cavity heater, steam generator, and temperature sensor and executing a program to:
(iii) control the operation of the cooking cavity heater according to the temperature signal of the cooking cavity (“In the event of normal Loads of soil, the oven is first heated to approximately 600° F. or within a temperature range somewhere between about 550° F. and 650° F.” column 4, line 71).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Welch does not disclose a controller executing a program stored in memory during a cleaning mode to:
(i) control the circulation of an oven detergent material through the catalyst chamber;
(ii) following the circulation of the oven detergent material, control the circulation of a catalyst rinse agent through the catalyst chamber;
(iii) following the circulation of the catalyst rinse agent, control the operation of the cooking cavity heater according to the temperature signal of the cooking cavity;
wherein the rinse agent is an acetic acid solution;
wherein the acetic acid solution is in a tablet or liquid form;
wherein the acetic acid solution is 5% to 10% acetic acid solution;
wherein the detergent is a non-caustic detergent.
However, de Ruiter teaches executing a program during a cleaning mode to:
(i) control the circulation of a detergent material through the filter;
(ii) following the circulation of the detergent material, control the circulation of a rinse agent through the filter (“The adsorption filter bed used according to the invention for exhauster hoods is regenerated by washing. This is preferably accomplished by a washing operation that may be carried out in any known manual or mechanized manner. Preferably, the filter is washed in a commercially available dish washing machine. In this way, unwanted substances which still adhere to the filter material or cover or clog its pores, as well as substances adsorbed in the pores, are removed. These unwanted substances are usually fats or dust particles. The substances, for the most part, are completely removed in the washing process, while the adsorbent characteristics of the active material in the filter bed are maintained without loss. The actual washing process may also be followed by one or more rinsing steps” column 2, line 7);
wherein the rinse agent is an acetic acid solution;
wherein the acetic acid solution is in a tablet or liquid form;
wherein the acetic acid solution is 5% to 10% acetic acid solution (“the final rinsing bath, for example by using commercially available vinegar” column 4, line 5. The examiner notes that commercially available vinegar is 5% acetic acid solution);
wherein the detergent is a non-caustic detergent (“a commercially available dish washing machine” implies a commercially available dish washing detergent).
In view of de Ruiter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include cleaning and rinsing as is taught in de Ruiter, in the oven disclosed by Welch because washing and rinsing removes grease and dust thereby regenerating the substrate. Therefore, including the washing and rinsing steps of de Ruiter will regenerate the catalyst by removing grease and dust.
Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, does not disclose a controller executing a program stored in memory during a cleaning mode to:
control the circulation through the catalyst chamber;
(iii) following the circulation of the catalyst rinse agent, control the operation of the cooking cavity heater according to the temperature signal of the cooking cavity.
However Michalko teaches executing a program to:
control the circulation through the catalyst chamber (“The spent catalyst may be contacted with the solution for a period of from 10 minutes to 3 hours or more; the solid-liquid contacting may be accomplished batchwise in a treating vessel, or continuously in a cocurrent or countercurrent contacting tower or moving belt-type apparatus, or in situ by providing the converter with suitable flushing connections for passing the regenerating solution therethrough” column 6, line 50 emphasis added);
(iii) following the circulation of the catalyst rinse agent, control the operation of the heater according to the temperature signal (“After the catalyst is washed and filtered, it may be dried or calcined at a suitably high temperature, for example, at a temperature of from about 600° F. to about 800° F. or higher. Such drying may be accomplished by ordinary heating means such as a muffle furnace or the wet, freshly treated catalyst may be dried in situ by passage of hot exhaust gases” column 6, line 60).
In view of Michalko’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include executing a program to control the circulation through the catalyst chamber as is taught in Michalko, in the oven as presently modified because washing the catalyst in situ eliminates the steps of removing and repositioning the catalyst. Therefore, including the feature taught by Michalko will reduce the number of steps required by the oven as modified.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include as is taught in Michalko, in the oven as modified because Michalko states “The present invention relates to the regeneration or reactivation of catalytic contact masses which have become contaminated” (column 1, line 10). Therefore, including the features taught by Michalko will further improve decontamination of the catalyst of Welch.
Welch, as modified by de Ruiter and Michalko, does not disclose a controller executing the program stored in memory.
Nagai teaches a controller executing the program stored in memory (“The electric circuit 10 may be constructed by a known microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU), memories (ROM, RAM) and the associated units in order to realize the aforementioned operation. FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating the operation to be executed by the microcomputer” column 8, line 62).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
648
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Nagai’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a controller executing the program stored in memory as is taught in Nagai, in the oven disclosed by Welch because the court has held broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case, the device of Welch as modified is capable of performing the claimed program, but lacks an automatic controller for performing such. Nagai teaches an automatic controller for performing a cleaning step in an oven which replaces a manual activity.
Regarding claim 6, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, discloses the combination oven of claim 1 further comprising a steam generator heater independent of the cooking cavity heater (“A small flash boiler 45 is included in the container and it comprises a resistance heating element 46” column 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 8, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, discloses the combination oven of claim 1 wherein the controller executes a program stored in memory during a cooking mode, a cleaning mode, and a catalyst regeneration mode to:
control the operation of the cooking cavity heater according to a first temperature signal during the cooking mode (“normal cooking temperature range of between about 150° F. and 550° F” column 3, line 28), a second temperature signal during the cleaning mode (“In the event of normal Loads of soil, the oven is first heated to approximately 600° F. or within a temperature range somewhere between about 550° F. and 650° F.” column 4, line 71), and a third temperature signal during the catalyst regeneration mode (“Excellent results have been achieved with solutions containing from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight of detergent. The temperature of the solution may range from ambient up to about 200° F. or more. The spent catalyst may be contacted with the solution for a period of from 10 minutes to 3 hours or more” column 6, line 47 of Michalko and “The treated catalyst is then removed from the solution, washed with water, filtered, and dried for 2 hours at 900° F” column 8, line 10 of Michalko); and
control the operation of the steam generator according to a first steam production signal during the cooking mode (Steam is not disclosed as used in a cooking operation in Welch, so the first signal may be “off”), a second steam production signal during the cleaning mode (“thermostat 51 will cycle on and off at around 212° F. once the supply of solvent in the boiler is exhausted, thereby holding down the maximum temperature of the vaporizing unit within reasonable limits” column 4, line 44), and a third steam production signal during the catalyst regeneration mode (Steam is not explicitly stated as used in catalyst regeneration, however Michalko states that the detergent solution may be at 200° F. or more).
In view of Michalko’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include further features as is taught in Michalko, in the oven as modified because Michalko states “The present invention relates to the regeneration or reactivation of catalytic contact masses which have become contaminated” (column 1, line 10). Therefore, including the features taught by Michalko will further improve decontamination of the catalyst of Welch.
Regarding claim 9, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, discloses the combination oven of claim 8 wherein the third temperature signal raises the temperature of the oven to a temperature of at least 500 degrees Fahrenheit for at least one hour (“The treated catalyst is then removed from the solution, washed with water, filtered, and dried for 2 hours at 900° F” column 8, line 10 of Michalko).
Regarding claim 10, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, discloses the combination oven of claim 8 wherein the third temperature signal raises the temperature of the oven to a temperature that is greater than the oven temperature from the first and second temperature signals (“The treated catalyst is then removed from the solution, washed with water, filtered, and dried for 2 hours at 900° F” column 8, line 10 of Michalko).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch, in view of de Ruiter, in view of Michalko, in view of Nagai, and further in view of Raghavan (US 9683747 B2), hereinafter Raghavan.
Regarding claim 7, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, discloses the combination oven of claim 1.
Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, Michalko, and Nagai, does not disclose wherein the insulated housing supports a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater.
However, Raghavan teaches wherein the insulated housing supports a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater (“a convection fan 18” column 4, line 25).
PNG
media_image4.png
590
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Raghavan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater as is taught in Raghavan, in the oven disclosed by Welch because Raghavan states “This pressure difference results in bypass air 54 being drawn into the entrance aperture 44 to flow past the bypass heater 48 and through the catalyst units 46 having channels aligned with this flow” (column 5, line 31). Therefore, including a fan will improve flow to the catalyst of Welch. Additionally, a convection fan improves uniformity of the temperature of the oven cavity.
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch, in view of de Ruiter, and further in view of Michalko.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 17-19, Welch discloses a method of operating a cleaning mode of a combination oven comprising:
providing an oven having an insulated housing (“an electric range cabinet or body 10” column 2, line 63 and “Suitable thermal insulation such as fiberglass 20 or the like surrounds the oven liner to confine the heat developed by the heating unit in the oven cavity” column 3, line 1) including a door configured to close to define an interior cooking cavity and an opening to provide access to the cooking cavity (“an oven cavity 13… formed by a boxlike oven liner 14 cooperating with a front-opening drop door 15” column 2, line 65), the insulated housing supporting a cooking cavity heater communicating with the cooking cavity to heat the cooking cavity (“the oven cavity is supplied with two standard heating elements; namely, a lower baking element 16 and an upper broiling element 17” column 2, line 68), a steam generator for producing steam within the cooking cavity according to a steam production signal (“The vaporizer means is a self-contained unit 40 shown as built into the bottom wall of the oven liner 14” column 3, line 70), a temperature sensor for sampling a temperature of the cooking cavity to provide a temperature signal (“various circuit control elements such as switches, thermostats, clock-timers, thermometers, pilot lights, etc., which would enable the housewife to control the various heating elements of both the cooktop and oven” column 3, line 10), a catalyst chamber holding a catalyst for eliminating smoke within the cooking cavity (“a catalytic oxidation unit 27 which is shown interposed in the ducting 25 between the oven vent 24 and the surface heating element 12 to prevent the return to the kitchen atmosphere of any smoke, odor, and noxious vapors that might be generated within the oven during one of the high temperature method steps” column 3, line 22), and a controller communicating with the cooking cavity heater, steam generator, and temperature sensor (“various circuit control elements such as switches, thermostats, clock-timers, thermometers, pilot lights, etc., which would enable the housewife to control the various heating elements of both the cooktop and oven” column 3, line 10).
Welsh does not disclose a catalyst regeneration mode comprising:
circulating an oven detergent material through the catalyst chamber during at least one cleaning cycle;
following the at least one cleaning cycle, circulating a catalyst rinse agent through the catalyst chamber during a catalyst regeneration cycle;
following the catalyst regeneration cycle, operating the cooking cavity heater according to the temperature signal during the catalyst regeneration cycle;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater raises the temperature of the oven to a temperature of at least 500 degrees Fahrenheit;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater is for at least one hour;
wherein the catalyst rinse agent is an acetic acid solution;
wherein the acetic acid solution is in a tablet of liquid form;
wherein the acetic acid solution is 5% to 10% acetic acid solution.
However, de Ruiter teaches a regeneration mode comprising:
circulating a detergent material through the filter during at least one cleaning cycle;
following the at least one cleaning cycle, circulating a rinse agent through the filter during a regeneration cycle (“The adsorption filter bed used according to the invention for exhauster hoods is regenerated by washing. This is preferably accomplished by a washing operation that may be carried out in any known manual or mechanized manner. Preferably, the filter is washed in a commercially available dish washing machine. In this way, unwanted substances which still adhere to the filter material or cover or clog its pores, as well as substances adsorbed in the pores, are removed. These unwanted substances are usually fats or dust particles. The substances, for the most part, are completely removed in the washing process, while the adsorbent characteristics of the active material in the filter bed are maintained without loss. The actual washing process may also be followed by one or more rinsing steps” column 2, line 7);
wherein the rinse agent is an acetic acid solution;
wherein the acetic acid solution is in a tablet of liquid form;
wherein the acetic acid solution is 5% to 10% acetic acid solution (“the final rinsing bath, for example by using commercially available vinegar” column 4, line 5. The examiner notes that commercially available vinegar is 5% acetic acid solution).
In view of de Ruiter’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include cleaning and rinsing as is taught in de Ruiter, in the oven disclosed by Welch because washing and rinsing removes grease and dust thereby regenerating the substrate. Therefore, including the washing and rinsing steps of de Ruiter will regenerate the catalyst by removing grease and dust.
Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, does not disclose:
circulating the oven detergent material through the catalyst chamber;
circulating a rinse agent through the catalyst chamber;
following the catalyst regeneration cycle, operating the cooking cavity heater according to the temperature signal during a catalyst regeneration cycle;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater raises the temperature of the oven to a temperature of at least 500 degrees Fahrenheit;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater is for at least one hour.
However, Michalko teaches:
circulating a detergent material through the catalyst chamber;
circulating a rinse agent through the catalyst chamber (“The spent catalyst may be contacted with the solution for a period of from 10 minutes to 3 hours or more; the solid-liquid contacting may be accomplished batchwise in a treating vessel, or continuously in a cocurrent or countercurrent contacting tower or moving belt-type apparatus, or in situ by providing the converter with suitable flushing connections for passing the regenerating solution therethrough” column 6, line 50 emphasis added);
following the catalyst regeneration cycle, operating the heater according to the temperature signal during a catalyst regeneration cycle;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater raises the temperature of the oven to a temperature of at least 500 degrees Fahrenheit;
wherein the step of operating the cooking cavity heater is for at least one hour (“The treated catalyst is then removed from the solution, washed with water, filtered, and dried for 2 hours at 900° F” column 8, line 10).
In view of Michalko’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include executing a program to control the circulation through the catalyst chamber as is taught in Michalko, in the oven as presently modified because washing the catalyst in situ eliminates the steps of removing and repositioning the catalyst. Therefore, including the feature taught by Michalko will reduce the number of steps required by the oven as modified.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include as is taught in Michalko, in the oven as modified because Michalko states “The present invention relates to the regeneration or reactivation of catalytic contact masses which have become contaminated” (column 1, line 10). Therefore, including the features taught by Michalko will further improve decontamination of the catalyst of Welch.
Regarding claim 14, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, and Michalko, discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising circulating the oven detergent material through the cooking cavity heater and steam generator (“a mixture of ammonia gas and steam is admitted to the oven cavity” column 5, line 22).
Regarding claim 15, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter, and Michalko, discloses the method of claim 14 further comprising circulating the oven detergent material through a steam generator heater independent of the cooking cavity heater (“solvent in the container 41” column 4, line 17).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch, in view of de Ruiter, in view of Michalko, and further in view of Raghavan.
Regarding claim 16, Welch, as modified by de Ruiter and Michalko, discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising circulating the oven detergent material through to the cooking cavity heater (“a mixture of ammonia gas and steam is admitted to the oven cavity” column 5, line 22).
Welch, as modified by de Ruiter and Michalko, does not disclose a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater.
However, Raghavan teaches a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater (“a convection fan 18” column 4, line 25).
In view of Raghavan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fan for circulating air to the cooking cavity heater as is taught in Raghavan, in the oven disclosed by Welch because Raghavan states “This pressure difference results in bypass air 54 being drawn into the entrance aperture 44 to flow past the bypass heater 48 and through the catalyst units 46 having channels aligned with this flow” (column 5, line 31). Therefore, including a fan will improve flow to the catalyst of Welch. Additionally, a convection fan improves uniformity of the temperature of the oven cavity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukada (US 5094222 A)
PNG
media_image5.png
366
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bowles (US 4369352 A)
PNG
media_image6.png
728
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fu (US 6235249 B1) “To prevent fires, restaurant catalysts have to be cleaned periodically to remove the grease and other volatile organic compound build-up which will accumulate on the cold spots of the oxidizer. The normal cleaning routine, which is labor intensive and time consuming, involves removing the catalyst module from the duct, rinsing it with water and light detergent, drying it, and putting it back” column 3, line 53
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762