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 .
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment filed June 23, 2026, amended claims 1, 6-7 11 and 17 are acknowledged. The following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Interpretation
A set forth in the office action mailed March 25, 2026, the claims are interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 8, 13 and 17-20 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.
Claims 8 and 13 recite the limitations with regard to “wherein the inner support structure includes a heating element and a fan configured to blow heated air into the vessel” which leads confusion with respect to the newly added limitations to independent claim 1. Claim 1 was amended to include “a central housing unit housing at least one heating element and at least one fan, wherein the at least one fan circulates air heated by the at least one heating element to air fry foodstuffs in the vessel”. As such, it is unclear if the Appclaint is attempting to claim a single set of heating elements and fans, or two separate and distinct heating elements and fans. The claims currently read on the internal support structure having two heating elements and two fans, which does not appear to be supported by paras 0040-0041, which Applicant cited as support or the newly added limitations. Likewise, claim 17 recites a grill module comprising an inner support structure including “a central housing unit housing at least one heating element and at least one fan” (see line 8 of the claim) and “a heating element supported by at least one of the inner support structure and the outer support wall” (see lines 14-15 of the claim) and “a fan supported by at least one of the inner support structure and the outer support wall” (See claim 20). Again, it is unclear how many heating elements and fans the Applicant intends the module to support, one or two. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,201,217 to Moon et al.
In regard to claim 1, Moon et al. disclose a module 20 for use with a cooking appliance having a vessel and a lid, the module comprising: an outer support wall 114, the outer support wall including: a downwardly projecting lip member 72 that is configured to sit on a flange 74 of the vessel; and a receiving flange portion that is sized and shaped to receive the lid (see Figs. 2-3); an inner support structure 66/114 including at least one arm member extending therefrom and coupled to the outer support wall; and a central housing unit 86/94 housing at least one heating element 84 and at least one fan 80, wherein the at least one fan circulates air heated by the at least one heating element (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 29-38); and at least one opening 112 defined by the outer support wall and the at least one arm member (See Fig. 5).
With regard to the module being “for use with a cooking appliance having a vessel and a lid” and the fan circulating air “to air fry foodstuffs in the vessel”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 2, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, the module further comprising one or more cooking accessories 84 configured to be received within one or more housings 86 associated with the inner support structure (see Fig. 5 and Col. 5, Lines 42-67).
In regard to claim 3, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the one or more housings are coupled to the inner support structure (see Figs. 3 and 5).
In regard to claim 4, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the inner support structure includes two arm members (See Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 5, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the module includes two openings defined by the two arm members and the outer support wall (See Fig. 5).
In regard to claim 6, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the module includes at least two housings 62, 86 coupled to the inner support structure (See Figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 8, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the inner support structure includes a heating element 84 and a fan member 80 configured to blow heated air into the vessel (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 29-38).
In regard to claim 9, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, wherein the one or more cooking accessories and the one or more housings are in electronic communication with one another (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 5, Lines 42-67).
In regard to claims 10 and 14, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance, further comprising a reflector 14 positioned and located on a floor of the vessel (See Figs. 2-3 and Col. 4, Line 55 – Col. 5, Line 10).
In regard to claim 11, Moon et al. disclose a cooking system, the cooking system comprising: a vessel 21; a lid 62 engageable with the vessel; and a cooking expansion module 66 configured to be positioned and located between the vessel and the lid, the cooking expansion module including an inner support structure 86/94 including a central housing unit 86/94 housing at least one heating element 84 and at least one fan 80, wherein the at least one fan circulates air heated by the at least one heating element (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 29-38); wherein the inner support structure is coupled to an outer support wall 114 of the cooking expansion module (See Figs. 3 and 5).
As stated above, with regard to the fan circulating air “to air fry foodstuffs in the vessel”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 12, Moon et al. disclose a cooking system, further comprising at least one opening (i.e. grid) defined by the inner support structure and the outer support wall (See Figs. 5 and 9a-d).
In regard to claim 13, Moon et al. disclose a cooking system, further comprising a heating element 84 and fan member 80 supported by at least one of the inner support structure and the outer support wall (See Figs. 3 and 5).
In regard to claim 15, Moon et al. disclose a cooking system, wherein inner support structure is configured for receiving one or more cooking accessories 84, 80 (see Col. 5, Lines 41-67).
In regard to claim 16, Moon et al. disclose a cooking system, further comprising a grill rack 16 positioned and located within the vessel (See Figs. 1-3).
In regard to claim 17, Moon et al. disclose a grill module for use with a cooking appliance having a vessel and a lid, the grill module comprising: an outer support wall , the outer support wall including: a downwardly projecting lip member 72 that is configured to sit on a flange 74 of the vessel; and a receiving flange portion that is sized and shaped to receive the lid; an inner support structure 66/114 including: a central housing unit 86/94 housing at least one heating element 84 and at least one fan 80, wherein the at least one fan circulates air heated by the at least one heating element (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 29-38); and at least one arm member extending therefrom and coupled to the outer support wall; at least one opening 112 defined by the outer support wall and the at least one arm member; a heating element 84 supported by at least one of the inner support structure and the outer support wall; and a grill rack 16 resting on a floor of the vessel (see Figs 2-3, 5 and Col. 5, Line 21 – Col. 6, Line 44).
As stated above, with regard to the fan circulating air “to air fry foodstuffs in the vessel”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 18, Moon et al. disclose a grill module, further comprising a reflector 14 positioned and located between the grill rack and the floor of the vessel (See Figs. 2-3).
In regard to claim 19, Moon et al. disclose a grill module, the grill rack including slots through which oils and fats of a food item being cooked on the grill rack may drip (See Figs. 2-3).
In regard to claim 20, Moon et al. disclose a grill module, the grill module further comprising a fan member 80 supported by at least one of the inner support structure and the outer support wall (See Figs. 3 and 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,201,217 to Moon et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,943,888 to Barnes et al.
In regard to claim 7, Moon et al. disclose a module for use with a cooking appliance having a vessel and a lid (See rejections above), and discloses of the desirability to provide a transparent over housing 18 thereto (See Col. 4, Lines 15-23 and Col. 5, Lines 35-40) but are silent with rescpt to a portion of the lid being transparent. Barnes et al. teach of analogous cooking module wherein lid 56 is preferably comprised of glass or some other transparent or translucent material in order to permit the contents of the covered container to be viewed during cooking (See Col. 5, Lines 1-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lid of Moon et al. to include a transparent portion, thus allowing food within the vessel to be viewed during the cooking process as taught by Barnes et al. and is extremely well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed June 23, 2026, have been fully considered and will be addressed as follows with respect to the previously presented claim interpretations and rejections:
GROUND 1 (112a rejections):
In view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, the rejection of claim 7 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn.
GROUND 2 (112b rejections):
In view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, the rejection of claim 7 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn.
It is noted, in view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, new grounds of rejection are set forth (see GROUND 1 above) wherein claims 8, 13 and 17-20 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 3 (102 rejections in view of Aboujassoum et al.):
In view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, the rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 11-12 and 15 as being anticipated by Aboujassoum et al. is withdrawn.
GROUND 4 (102 rejections in view of Moon et al.):
Applicant’s remarks and arguments against Moon et al., appear to rely on the intended use of the instant invention, in particular stating:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claims have not been amended to positively recite any components of an “air fryer” other than “a heating element” and a “fan”. As such, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As rejected above (see GROUND 2), Moon et al. clearly disclose and illustrate a central housing unit 86/94 housing at least one heating element 84 and at least one fan 80, wherein the at least one fan circulates air heated by the at least one heating element (see Figs. 3 and 5 and Col. 6, Lines 29-38). The rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-20 are maintained.
GROUND 5 (103 rejection in view of Aboujassoum et al. and Goutheire):
In view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, the rejection of claims 10 and 14 as being unpatentable in view Aboujassoum et al. and Goutheire is withdrawn.
It is noted, in view of the amendments filed June 23, 2026, new GROUND 3 is applied to claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights