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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are no figures 22A and 22B, figures 12A, 12B, 17-20, and 22 all do not follow 11.13(a) because the drawings are not in black lines and strokes, figure 16 does not follow 11.13(a) because the drawing does not have uniformly thick and well-defined lines, figures 6,8, 10,11, 14, 15, and 20 all do not follow 11.13 (b) because the cross-sections are not indicated by oblique hatching, and figures 13 and 24 do not follow 11.13 (e) because the letters are not simple and clear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: positionable is spelled with “tion” not with “toin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The heating element in claims 1,7, 9-15, and 19-21 with the function being to heat the feature. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification, however heating elements are well known in the art of cooking to be an element that transfers thermal energy to the food being cooked.
The moveable component in claims 5-7 with the function being to be moved. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a drawer [0126], a lid [0127], the cooking container [0129] or equivalents thereof.
The biasing mechanism in claim 13 with the function being to force the heating element into contact with the feature. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a coil spring [0159].
The flow control mechanism in claim 22 with the function being to control a flow of fluid to the feature. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a valve.
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
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 16-18 are indefinite because there is no way of determining what the scope of the claims should be. Claim 1 does not claim a controller or any other part capable of identifying and directing an adjustment within the cooking system. Claims 16-18 additionally do not add any of the necessary controllers or sensors. As such examiner with consider the scope of claim 16 to be that “any amount/rate/time that a cooking system was originally designed to operate” meets the predetermined time/rate requirement and the scope of claims 17 and 18 to be “fluid being deliverable from the fluid source and a user or the system being capable of adjusting fluid delivery for any reason”
Claim 20 recites the limitation " said feature of said cooking container" in claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as in claim 1 there is no indication that the feature has to be of the cooking container, only that it has to be proximate the upper end of the container.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gill et al. (US Publication 20190045973) hereafter referred to as Gill.
Regarding claim 1, Gill teaches a device for cooking food comprising a housing (22 and 32) which define a hollow interior (Figure 7), a cooking container or the inner walls of the interior (24) where the cooking happens receivable inside the hollow interior where the cooking container has an upper end, a heating element (84) operable to heat a feature proximate said upper end (the edge of the heating element 84), which examiner is considering to be Feature A, and a pair of heating elements (84, 82) which can heat the upper rim of the insert (52), which examiner will consider to be Feature B, and heat the inner surface (78) of the cooking container (24), which examiner will consider to be feature C and a fluid source (91) arranged to deliver air, a fluid, to Features A, B, and C.
Regarding claim 2, air as a gas is capable of expanding to fill the volume it contains so any open volume of the edge of the heating element (84), Feature A. the upper rim of the insert (52), Feature B, the upper rim of the cooking container (24), Feature C, holds air.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Gill teaches a lid (32) or moveable component, where the upper end of the cooking container has a flange as shown in the below figure, the feature A or the edge of the heating element (84) and therefore the heating element (84) is formed in a portion of the lid (32), and the flange is positionable overlapping arrangement with the heating element (84) (Figure 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure A
Regarding claim 9, Gill teaches the heating element (84) is mounted within the housing on the lid (32).
Regarding claim 10, Gill teaches the housing and lid (22 and 32) which combing define a hollow interior where the interior wall is a sidewall or a wall for the side and the heating element (84) is mounted in a cavity formed in the sidewall.
Regarding claim 11, Gill teaches there is a cooking container (24) within the hollow interior and the feature A or the edge of the heating element (84) is adjacent the heating element which is within the cavity.
Regarding claim 12, Gill teaches that Feature A, or the edge of the heating element (84), is in direct contact with the heating element (84).
Regarding claim 14, Gill teaches that at least one heating element (84) is mounted to the cooking container through the inside of the lid (32) and it is adjacent Feature A or the edge of the heating element (84).
Regarding claim 15, Gill teaches that the at least one heating element (84) includes a first contact and a second contact is mounted within the housing of the inside of the lid (32) (Figure 3A) as otherwise the heating element (84) would not be attached to the lid (32) and that the first contact is operably coupled to said second contact to deliver power to the heating element (84) or else the heating element would not receive power.
Regarding claim 16, Gill teaches (Fig. 12) a control system (100) for controlling the air movement device (86) which includes the motor (88) and the fan (90) for performing stored sequences of heating operation [0055] which are at least one of a predetermined time interval and a predetermined rate.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Gill teaches (Fig. 12) a control system (100) that in an exemplary embodiment, one or more sensors S for monitoring one or more parameters (such as temperature, pressure, lid configuration, etc.) associated with the operation of the lid (32), where the air movement device (86) is located (Fig. 7) may be arraigned communication with the processor (102).
Regarding claim 19, Gill teaches air is delivered to Feature A, the edge of the heating element (84), when the heating element is powered because hot air rises and new air replaces the now empty space. Air is also delivered to Features B and C as the movement of air follows the arrows shown in FIG. 7.
Regarding claim 20, Gill teaches a first heating element (84) and a second heating element (82) where the first and second heating elements heat a flow of air circulating within said hollow interior (Fig. 7) and by doing so warm the Feature B, the upper rim of the cooking container (24), as the movement of air follows the arrows shown in FIG. 7.
Regarding claim 21, Gill teaches (Fig. 12) a control system (100) for the cooking system (20) that controls the operation of the heating elements (82, 84) [0055] which includes whether or not the heating elements (82, 84) are energized.
Claims 1-3, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Culzoni et al. (US Patent 5530223) hereafter referred to as Culzoni.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Culzoni teaches a cooking system or oven (Figure 1) comprising a housing or oven (10) having a hollow interior or oven chamber (12), a cooking container or shelves (16) that have an upper end with a radially extending flange (Figure 1) that guide them over the sliding rails (14) and the feature is the radially extending flange, and is the shelves themselves which heat the food and the feature through conduction.
Regarding claim 2, air as a gas is capable of expanding to fill the volume it contains so any open volume of the feature of the radially extending flange holds air.
Regarding claim 5, Culzoni teaches the shelves (16) are a moveable component and the feature is part of the shelves (16) and the flange as part of the moveable component overlaps itself.
Regarding claim 19, air is delivered to the radial extending when the heating element is powered because hot air raises and new air replaces the now empty space.
Regarding claim 20, Culzoni teaches a first heating element or heating coils (38) which heat a flow of air circulating within the hollow container (12) and therefore indirectly heat the feature of the cooking container and second heating element or the shelves (16) operable to heat said feature through conduction of said cooking container or shelves (16).
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De’Longhi et al. (US Publication 20180325313) hereafter referred to as De’Longhi.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, De’Longhi teaches a device for cooking food that includes a housing (11) having a hollow interior, a cooking container (35) with an upper end, a feature being the sides of the housing (11) which is proximate to the upper end of the cooking container (35), and a fluid source which is a container means to introduce water inside the cooking chamber (16) in the lid (15) [0072].
Regarding claim 2, De’Longhi teaches that the hollow interior of the housing includes a volume for holding water [0065].
Regarding claims 16-18, De’Longhi teaches that the water from the container means to introduce water inside the cooking container can happen either at the start of cooking or during cooking [0072], and at the start of cooking is a predetermined time interval which is a parameter of the cooking system that can be sensed.
Claims 1, 2, 16-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reay (US Publication 20060249136)
Regarding claim 1, Reay teaches a steam oven with a housing (10) with a cavity (26), a cooking container or the oven racks in Figure 1 that have an upper end, a feature or top of the oven rack proximate to the upper end, a heating element or broiler (44), and a water supply chamber (66) arranged to deliver steam to the feature through a steam system (100).
Regarding claim 2, steam as a gas is capable of expanding to fill the volume it contains so any open volume of the feature of the top of the oven rack holds steam.
Regarding claim 16, Reay teaches a steam system (100) that delivers steam to the feature in the cavity (26).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Reay teaches a controller (36) instructs the steam system (100) to activate or deactivate the evaporation element (118) [0026].
Regarding claim 22, Reay teaches a flow control mechanism or valve (110) that is within the fluid flow path from the water supply chamber (66) to the feature in the cavity (26).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culzoni in view of Menendez (US Patent 4694961).
Regarding claim 4, Culzoni teaches the limitations of claims 3, but does not teach there is a depression formed in the flange.
Regarding claim 6, Culzoni teaches the limitations of claims 5, but does not teach that there is an opening in the flange.
Regarding both claims 4 and 6, Menendez teaches a baking tray (Figure 3, Part 17) with a depression in the flange on the outside of the upstanding edge (13) where the grasping tab (20) is and an opening (20a) formed in the flange which overlaps with the moveable component because the baking tray is the moveable component and an object overlaps itself in order to more easily grasp the tray.
Culzoni does not disclose the specifics of the shelves. Menendez teaches it is known for shelves or baking trays to have a depression in the flange and an opening in the flange. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the grasping tab (20), upstanding edge (13), and opening (20a) disclosed in Menendez in the shelves of Culzoni in order to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Menendez the motivation for the combination would be to improve the ability to grasp the shelves.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill in view of Frock et al. (US Publication 20110049123) hereafter referred to as Frock as evidenced by TotalTempTech (https://web.archive.org/web/20180825021016/https://www.totaltemptech.com/conduction-v-convection-for-thermal-testing/).
Regarding claim 13 Gill teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not teach a spring coupled to the heating element where the force of the spring biases the heating element into contact with the feature.
Frock teaches a steam oven (Fig. 1) with a heating element or heater plate (24) that has a spring-loaded mount (26) which that biases the heater plate (24) upward into contact with the bottom wall structure of the cavity.
TotalTempTech teaches that heat transfer via conduction is generally faster and more efficient and that the formula for conduction shows that the conduction is less effective the thicker the barrier.
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a spring-loaded mount to the lower heater element (82) of the cooking system of Gill. As disclosed in TotalTempTech, the motivation for this combination is to improve the thermal heat transfer by reducing the gap between the heater element (82) and the cooking container (24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jovanovic (US Patent 4810856) teaches a steam cooking apparatus for poultry. It does not teach the use of a valve as a flow control mechanism and instead controls the heating element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights