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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment of the drawings and specification, filed on 8/14/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 16 being independent.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “may can” in para. 0028.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one resistive heating element providing heat to the cooking surface… a direct current source selectively powering at least one resistive heating element” should be “…a direct current source selectively powering the at least one resistive heating element”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a control circuit that selectively activates the direct current source based upon readings taken from at least one temperature probe” should be “a control circuit that selectively activates the direct current source based upon readings taken from the at least one temperature probe” so as to refer to the at least one temperature probe of claim 4.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein at least one resistive heating element comprises…” should be “wherein the at least one resistive heating element comprises…” so as to refer to the at least one resistive heating element of claim 1.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “activating the direct current source to power at least one resistive heating element…” should be “activating the direct current source to power the at least one resistive heating element…” so as to refer to the at least one resistive heating element of claim 1.
Claim 14 is objected to because “wherein at least one resistive heating element is housed” should be “wherein the at least one resistive heating element is housed” so as to refer to the at least one resistive heating element of claim 1.
Claim 15 is objected to because “a controller controlling operation of the at least one resistive heating element and at least one damper” should be “a controller controlling operation of the at least one resistive heating element and the at least one damper” so as to refer to the at least one damper of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“selectively” is used by the claims to indicate the conventional practice of activating or deactivating a component [paras. 0009, 10, 13, 47], e.g., by controlling power supplied thereto [i.e., a user or programmable controller controlling/adjusting supplied power; para. 0068].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1 and 16:
“connection” in “an alternating current connection for powering the resistive heating element” is being interpreted as a conventional electrical power source including conventional electrical components for connecting to domestic grid power and supplying AC power, and equivalents thereof [alternating current power source connection (para. 0012), alternating current power connection (para. 0012), alternating current (AC) source 216 (figs. 1-6); paras. 0003, 39].
“source” in “a direct current source selectively powering at least one resistive heating element simultaneously with the alternating current connection” is being interpreted as a battery, a capacitor, a super capacitor, including conventional electrical components for controlling the flow of power therefrom, and equivalents thereof [paras. 0008, 18-19, 30, 37, 43].
Claim 13:
“source” in “further comprising at least one additional resistive heat source in the air duct” is being interpreted as a conventional resistive heating element, and equivalents thereof [paras. 0013, 35].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1:
“the resistive heating element” in line 4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, claim 1 will be interpreted as reciting “…an alternating current connection for powering the at least one resistive heating element…”
Claim 8:
“the control circuit” in line 1 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, claim 8 will be interpreted as referring to the control circuit of claim 5
“a temperature from at least one probe” in “wherein the control circuit determines whether a difference between a set point temperature and a temperature from at least one probe exceeds a boost threshold” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the “at least one temperature probe measuring a temperature associated with the cooking chamber” in claim 4. For the purposes of this office action, and in view of claim 5, claim 8 will be interpreted as “wherein the control circuit determines whether a difference between a set point temperature and [[a temperature from]]readings taken from the at least one temperature probe exceeds a boost threshold”
Claim 10:
“the resistive heating element” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, claim 10 will be interpreted as reciting “…an air duct providing fluid communication from the at least one resistive heating element to the cooking chamber”
Claim 16
“the alternating current power connection” in lines 11-12 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, claim 16 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the resistive heating element is powered by the alternating current power source connection and the direct current power source” so as to refer to line 5.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 are rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 17960444. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 merely further limits the AC source with a conventional semiconductor element, with a known connection to domestic grid supply, and a known arrangement of electrical elements (i.e., parallel/series) which would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-3, and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17960444 in view of Christopher (US 6037571 A) and Ferguson (US 20190035044 A1). In this case, Christopher and Ferguson teach the conventional structures and features recited in claims 2-3 and 9-10 of the system of copending claim 1.
Claims 4-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17960444 in view of Christopher (US 6037571 A) and Bhogal (US 20180292092 A1). In this case, Christopher and Bhogal teach the recited conventional structures and features of a temperature sensing subsystem for the system of copending claim 1.
Claims 11-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17960444 in view of Christopher (US 6037571 A) and Hanson (US 20220018548 A1). In this case, Christopher and Hanson teach the recited conventional structures and features of an airflow subsystem for the system of copending claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17960444 in view of Christopher (US 6037571 A) and Hanson (US 20220018548 A1). In this case, Christopher and Hanson teach the recited conventional structures and features of an airflow subsystem for the system of copending claim 1.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17960444 in view of Christopher (US 6037571 A), Hanson (US 20220018548 A1), and Bhogal (US 20180292092 A1). In this case, Christopher, Hanson, and Bhogal teach the recited conventional structures and features of a temperature sensing subsystem for the system of copending claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christopher (US 6037571 A).
Regarding claim 1,
Christopher teaches:
A cooking system [fig. 1; col. 2, lines 20-30: “FIG. 1 is a perspective cut-away view of the device as a cooking grill.”] comprising:
a cooking chamber having a cooking surface therein [cooking area formed by housing 18 and food racks 70 held by lip 72];
at least one resistive heating element providing heat to the cooking surface [DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110; fig. 2];
an alternating current connection for powering the resistive heating element [conventional power cord 60: providing DC power to the DC heating elements via AC to DC conversion by battery charger 30 charging battery 20; and providing AC power to the AC heating element; col. 2, line 21-col. 3, line 6; col. 3, lines 23-38]; and
a direct current source selectively powering at least one resistive heating element simultaneously with the alternating current connection [battery 20, battery charger 30, and conventional switch elements; fig. 2; col. 4, lines 28-33: “Switching the high current available from fully charged batteries is done using a contactor 23 comprised of heavy duty contacts 232 and a coil 231 which when activated by switch 25 and 29 being both closed, closes the high current contacts to energize the DC heating elements 120.”].
Regarding claim 2, Christopher teaches the system of claim 1.
Christopher further teaches:
wherein the direct current source comprises a chemical battery [i.e., lead acid battery 20; col. 4, lines 39-43].
Regarding claim 9, Christopher teaches the system of claim 1.
Christopher further teaches:
wherein the alternating current connection recharges the direct current source [i.e., via battery charger 30; col. 4, lines 39-43: “Battery(s) 20 are connected to a battery charger 30 as indicated. In the preferred embodiment, battery charger 30 provides a charging rate appropriate for the type of battery (lead-acid in this instance);”].
Regarding claim 10, Christopher teaches the system of claim 1.
Christopher further teaches:
further comprising an air duct providing fluid communication from the resistive heating element to the cooking chamber [see fig. 1, showing channels (i.e., ducts) in food racks 70 allowing heated air to rise, and flow therethrough, transferring heat to the cooking area, i.e., a conventional baking method].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US 6037571 A) in view of Ferguson (US 20190035044 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Christopher teaches the system of claim 1.
Although Christopher discloses a conventional semiconductor capacitor as a component in the battery charger [col. 3, lines 1-6], Christopher may not explicitly disclose a supercapacitor/capacitor for powering the at least one resistive heating element, specifically:
wherein the direct current source comprises a capacitor.
Ferguson, in the same field of endeavor [an autonomous vehicle configured to process/manufacture food; para. 0019], teaches that energy storage devices may be a combination of battery, capacitor, or supercapacitor [para. 0109].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Christopher by including a capacitor as a storage device for powering the at least one resistive heating element, since Ferguson teaches capacitors as equivalent to batteries, and a PHOSITA would have been motivated to include a supercapacitor/capacitor with a reasonable expectation of success, e.g., to increase storage capacity.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US 6037571 A) in view of Bhogal (US 20180292092 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Christopher teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Christopher does not disclose:
further comprising at least one temperature probe measuring a temperature associated with the cooking chamber.
Bhogal, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0031: “Conventionally, cooking results are oftentimes dependent on multiple operation parameters (e.g., time, temperature settings, humidity, heat direction or heating patterns, airflow, etc.)”], teaches the conventional use of temperature sensors connected to a controller to facilitate a cooking process, including a first temperature sensor [i.e., at least one temperature probe] for detecting a temperature of a cooking chamber, and a second temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of a food [para. 0039: “The oven 100 can additionally function to automatically adjust oven control parameters to achieve a target food parameter (e.g., in real- or near-real time), and is preferably in communication with a remote user device 30 and/or a remote computing system 20.”; para. 0041: “The sensor system 700 of the oven 100 functions to collect cooking parameter values 130 during execution of a cooking session 120 of a foodstuff (and/or before or after), which can be used to correlate user feedback with updated operation instructions. More specifically, the sensors can function to monitor oven parameters and/or foodstuff parameters as a function of time. As shown in FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, the sensor system 700 can include…temperature sensors 790… insertion temperature sensors (e.g., probes), cooking cavity 200 temperature sensors… The sensors of the sensor system can be directly or indirectly coupled to the cooking cavity 200. The sensors can be connected to and controlled by the processor 500, or be otherwise controlled. The sensors are preferably individually indexed and individually controlled, but can alternatively be controlled together with other like sensors.”].
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a location of a temperature sensor according to the requirements of a given application [e.g., corresponding to the placement of heating elements and a desired heating element temperature profile; para. 0087: “As shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 18, the operation instructions are preferably determined based on the food class of the foodstuff within the appliance cavity, and can optionally be determined based on the target output food condition, the target foodstuff parameters (e.g., temperature, weight, size, perimeter, etc.), or any other suitable variable. In an example, an initial set of operation instructions for food class: "chicken" with target output food conditions: "crispy skin" and "moist" can include a heating element temperature profile including a first time period of elevated temperature for all heating elements 300…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Christopher by further comprising at least one temperature probe measuring a temperature associated with the cooking chamber, since this would facilitate the cooking process of Christopher, as taught by Bhogal.
Regarding claim 5, Christopher in view of Bhogal discloses the system of claim 4.
Christopher as modified by Bhogal discloses:
further comprising a control circuit that selectively activates the direct current source based upon readings taken from at least one temperature probe.
In this case, since Christopher discloses the conventional method of automating a process using a controller [e.g., in order to control temperature in a cooking process by controlling heating elements; col. 4, lines 8-15] and Bhogal also discloses a controller for controlling temperature in a cooking process [para. 0165], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system by combining the controllers of Christopher and Bhogal such that a controller controls the operation of all the elements in the heating system according to readings from temperature sensors.
Regarding claim 6, Christopher in view of Bhogal discloses the system of claim 4.
Christopher as modified by Bhogal discloses:
wherein the at least one temperature probe comprises a cooking chamber temperature probe and a resistive heating element temperature probe.
In this case, since Bhogal discloses at least two temperature sensors, wherein the selection of their location or their type is an obvious matter of design choice, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., corresponding to the placement of heating elements and a desired heating element temperature profile [Bhogal para. 0087].
Regarding claim 7, Christopher in view of Bhogal discloses the system of claim 6.
Christopher discloses:
wherein at least one resistive heating element comprises at least a first resistive heating element powered by the alternating current connection [i.e., AC heating element 110] and at least a second resistive heating element powered by the direct current source [i.e., DC heating elements 120 (122-125)].
Regarding claim 8, Christopher in view of Bhogal discloses the system of claim 7.
Christopher as modified by Bhogal discloses:
wherein the control circuit determines whether a difference between a set point temperature and a temperature from at least one probe exceeds a boost threshold before activating the direct current source to power at least one resistive heating element.
In this case, since Christopher teaches the use of DC heating elements and AC heating elements in a dual power source high heat electrical grill [abstract], and Bhogal teaches the conventional use of controllers and temperature sensors for controlling the application of heat in a cooking process [abstract], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to establish an index of the cooking process (i.e., predetermined values/ranges, target values/ranges, etc., of, e.g. temperature of the food, temperature of heating elements), such that the control circuit determines whether a difference between a set point temperature and a temperature from at least one probe exceeds a boost threshold before activating the direct current source to power at least one resistive heating element, according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., types of heating elements and their known heating response, desired temperature to be applied to the food.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US 6037571 A) in view of Hanson (US 20220018548 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Christopher teaches the system of claim 10.
However, Christopher does not disclose:
wherein the air duct is provided with at least one damper to selectively inhibit air flow.
Hanson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controlled use of dampers and fans in an air duct to selectively inhibit air flow [para. 0063: “FIG. 7 is a diagrammatic view of a second embodiment of a system 90 of the invention, including dual, side-mounted return ducts with damper-controlled airflow. The system 90 utilizes a single, main recirculation fan 92 in an oven 94 with an interior processing chamber 96. The oven 90 utilizes conventional fixed-width supply air ducts 98 A and B. Significantly, at least two side-mounted return ducts 100 A and B that are disposed to the sides of a centerline 102 the ceiling 104 of the oven 94 instead of conventional single return duct located in the center 102 of the ceiling 104. These side-mounted return ducts 100 A/B are equipped with independently operable dampers 106 (connected to actuators 107 A and B) to control the airflow rate, location, and direction through each side of the oven 94. The oven 94 is shown to have supply air control members 108 A and B connected to independent actuators 109 A and B. Actuators 107 and 109 are communicatively connected to an electronic controller 111. The system 90 may include a housing 110.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Christopher, such that an air duct is provided with at least one damper to selectively inhibit air flow, as taught by Hanson, since this allows for controlling the airflow, and would speed cooking and reduce temperature and color variation in food [para. 0013].
Regarding claim 12, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the system of claim 11.
Christopher as modified by Hanson discloses:
further comprising at least one fan providing air flow within the air duct [Hanson discloses fan 92 providing further control of air flow].
Regarding claim 13, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the system of claim 12.
Christopher as modified by Hanson discloses:
further comprising at least one additional resistive heat source in the air duct.
In this case, since Christopher teaches multiple heating elements in the flow path of air heated by said heating elements [DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110; fig. 2], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange one of the multiple heating elements of Christopher as an additional resistive heat source, in the air flow path controlled by the fan according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that at least one additional resistive heat source was arranged in the air duct, e.g., in order to generate high heat by arrange as many heating elements as close to the food as possible [Christopher col. 3, lines 38-51].
Regarding claim 14, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the system of claim 13.
Christopher discloses:
further comprising an element box below the cooking surface wherein at least one resistive heating element is housed [i.e., the portion of the interior of housing 18, containing DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 15, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the system of claim 11.
Christopher as modified by Hanson discloses:
further comprising a controller controlling operation of the at least one resistive heating element and at least one damper.
In this case, since Christopher discloses the conventional method of automating a process using a controller [e.g., in order to control temperature in a cooking process by controlling heating elements; col. 4, lines 8-15] and Hanson also discloses a controller for controlling temperature in a cooking process [controller 111; fig. 7], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system by combining the controllers of Christopher and Hanson such that a controller controls the operation of all the elements in the heating and airflow subsystems.
Regarding claim 16,
Christopher discloses:
A cooking device [fig. 1; col. 2, lines 20-30: “FIG. 1 is a perspective cut-away view of the device as a cooking grill.”] comprising:
a cooking chamber having a cooking surface therein [cooking area formed by housing 18 and food racks 70 held by lip 72];
an element box below the cooking chamber [i.e., the portion of the interior of housing 18, containing DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110; fig. 2];
a resistive heating element in the element box [i.e., DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110];
an alternating current power source connection [conventional power cord 60 providing DC power to the DC heating elements via AC to DC conversion by battery charger 30 charging, and providing AC power to the AC heating element; col. 2, line 21-col. 3, line 6; col. 3, lines 23-38];
a direct current power source [battery 20; fig. 2; col. 4, lines 28-33: “Switching the high current available from fully charged batteries is done using a contactor 23 comprised of heavy duty contacts 232 and a coil 231 which when activated by switch 25 and 29 being both closed, closes the high current contacts to energize the DC heating elements 120.”];
an air duct providing fluid communication between the element box and the cooking chamber [see fig. 1, showing holes in food racks 70 allowing heated air to rise therethrough and transfer heat to the cooking area, i.e., a conventional heating method typically associated with an oven/grill, e.g., the use of a grill as a pizza oven]; and
wherein the resistive heating element is powered by the alternating current power connection and the direct current power source [i.e., by the battery to the DC heating element, the battery having been charged via the AC plug, and/or by the direct application of AC power to the AC heating element via the AC plug].
However, Christopher does not disclose:
a fan operable to move air through the air duct from the element box to the cooking chamber;
Hanson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the controlled use of dampers and fans in an air duct to selectively inhibit air flow [para. 0063: “FIG. 7 is a diagrammatic view of a second embodiment of a system 90 of the invention, including dual, side-mounted return ducts with damper-controlled airflow. The system 90 utilizes a single, main recirculation fan 92 in an oven 94 with an interior processing chamber 96. The oven 90 utilizes conventional fixed-width supply air ducts 98 A and B. Significantly, at least two side-mounted return ducts 100 A and B that are disposed to the sides of a centerline 102 the ceiling 104 of the oven 94 instead of conventional single return duct located in the center 102 of the ceiling 104. These side-mounted return ducts 100 A/B are equipped with independently operable dampers 106 (connected to actuators 107 A and B) to control the airflow rate, location, and direction through each side of the oven 94. The oven 94 is shown to have supply air control members 108 A and B connected to independent actuators 109 A and B. Actuators 107 and 109 are communicatively connected to an electronic controller 111. The system 90 may include a housing 110.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Christopher, by including a fan operable to move air through the air duct from the element box to the cooking chamber, as taught by Hanson, since this allows for controlling the airflow, and would speed cooking and reduce temperature and color variation in food [para. 0013].
Regarding claim 17, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the device of claim 16.
Christopher as modified by Hanson discloses:
further comprising:
a first booster heating element in the element box and powered by the direct current power source [i.e., Christopher DC heating elements 120 (122-125)];
a second booster heating element in the air duct; and
In this case, since Christopher teaches multiple heating elements in the flow path of air heated by said heating elements [DC heating elements 120 (122-125) and AC heating element 110; fig. 2], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange one of the multiple heating elements of Christopher as an additional resistive heat source, in the air flow path controlled by the fan according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that a second booster heating element is in the air duct, e.g., in order to generate high heat by arrange as many heating elements as close to the food as possible [Christopher col. 3, lines 38-51].
a plurality of dampers controlling air flow from the air duct into the cooking chamber [Hanson dampers 106].
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US 6037571 A) in view of Hanson (US 20220018548 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bhogal (US 20180292092 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Christopher in view of Hanson discloses the device of claim 17.
However, Christopher as modified by Hanson does not disclose a temperature sensor, specifically, Christopher as modified by Hanson does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a controller selectively operating the fan and opening the plurality of dampers based upon at least a temperature probe reading from the cooking chamber.
Bhogal, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0031: “Conventionally, cooking results are oftentimes dependent on multiple operation parameters (e.g., time, temperature settings, humidity, heat direction or heating patterns, airflow, etc.)”], teaches the conventional use of an airflow system [para. 0074: “Examples of operation instructions generated from target oven parameter values include: temperature schedules for the oven cavity; control instructions for a set of heating elements 300, such as the amount of power to supply to each individual heating element; control instructions for a set of fans, such as the rotation speed for each individual fan; or be any other suitable oven operation instruction at any given time during a cooking session. However, any other suitable cooking instruction can be generated.”] and temperature sensors connected to a controller to facilitate a cooking process, including a first temperature sensor [i.e., at least one temperature probe] for detecting a temperature of a cooking chamber, and a second temperature sensor for detecting a temperature of a food [paras. 0039, 41, 74].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Christopher and Hanson by further comprising a controller selectively operating the fan and opening the plurality of dampers based upon at least a temperature probe reading from the cooking chamber, since this would facilitate the cooking process, as taught by Bhogal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761