DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vaupot et al. (US 20220074600 A1).
Vaupot discloses in reference to claim:
1. (Currently Amended) A cooking apparatus (10) comprising:
a food chamber (12) having a base (40), a rear wall area (42), first and second opposing side wall areas,(46, 48) and a front wall area(44), wherein the rear wall area, the first and second side wall areas, and the front wall area extend around an opening (formed by the front, back and sidewalls) of the food chamber, wherein the opening opposes the base 40;
a cover (13) to close the food chamber, the cover being moveable to expose the opening;
a heating arrangement (16, 18) for heating to heat at least part of the cooking apparatus;
a circulation system (24, 26) for circulating to circulate air in the food chamber;
an extraction vent (50) in the rear wall area through which the air is drawn by the circulation system from inside the food chamber;
a delivery vent (52) at a top region of the rear wall between the extraction vent and the opening, wherein the circulation system delivering is configured to deliver the air to the food chamber through the delivery vent, and
wherein the delivery vent is arranged to permit directing of the air being delivered to the food chamber towards the front wall area, and the circulation system is further configured to, when the cover is moved to at least partially expose the opening, direct air from the delivery vent across the at least partially exposed opening in the direction of the front wall area.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim1 wherein the rear wall area (42) has a first height (A), and the front wall area (44) has a second height (B) which is shorter than the first height such that the opening declines from the rear wall area towards the front wall area.
PNG
media_image2.png
617
1172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 1 or claim2, wherein the delivery vent (52) comprises a slot extending widthwise across the rear wall area (42).
PNG
media_image3.png
513
957
media_image3.png
Greyscale
4. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim, wherein the base (40) defines the bottom of the food chamber (12) when the cooking apparatus is orientated for use, and wherein the cover (13) is in the form of a lid arranged to be lifted to expose the opening when the cooking apparatus is orientated for use. See Fig. 1. The food chamber has a viewing window 13 which may also be the openable lid of the apparatus.
7. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cover (13) is at least partly transparent. The food chamber has a viewing window 13 which may also be the openable lid of the apparatus.
8. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circulation system (24, 26) comprises a motor (26)and a fan (24), and wherein the heating arrangement (16, 18) comprises a heater (18) adjacent the fan, optionally wherein the heater is spaced apart from an outermost periphery of the fan. See Fig. 1
12. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a water reservoir (20), wherein the heating arrangement (16) is arranged to heat water from the water reservoir (20) to generate steam. See Fig. 1
13. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 1
further comprising a controller (28) adapted to control the heating arrangement (16) to heat the water from the water reservoir (20) to generate the steam. See Fig. 1
14. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 12, further comprising a water dosing system (22) to deliver the water to the heating arrangement (16). See Fig. 1
15. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the heating arrangement comprises a further heater 16 having a heated surface, and wherein the cooking apparatus further comprises a feed arrangement (23) for bringing to bring the water from the water reservoir (20) into contact with the heated surface to generate the steam. See Fig. 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (US 20220074600 A1) in view of Murbacher et al. (EP 3932271 A1)
Vaupot discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
5. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus as claimed in claim, comprising a housing and a hinge arrangement for pivotally mounting the cover (13) on the housing.
6. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 1 wherein the hinge arrangement is arranged proximal to the rear wall area (42) such that lifting of the cover (13) initially exposes a portion of the opening proximal to the front wall area (44) .
Vaupot does not explicitly disclose the use of a hinge for the cover 13, however it is implied. Murbacher discloses a similar device including a hinge 20 arranged proximal to a rear wall of the device, when lifted the cover 18—which rounds the front wall as in Vaupot, exposes a portion of the opening to the front wall area (44 in Vaupot).
PNG
media_image4.png
439
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of skill to provide the hinge 20 in the Vaupot device at least under KSR rationale B above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (US 20220074600 A1) in view of Matsuo et al. (US 2006/0207440A1)
Vaupot discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
10. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus (10) as claimed in claim 8, wherein the fan (24) has a fan diameter extending between opposing points of the outermost periphery—(read simply as diameter), and wherein the heater (18) comprises a circular heating element having a heating element diameter which is at least 30% greater than the fan diameter.
PNG
media_image5.png
716
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matsuo discloses a similar oven type heating device using a fan 27 surrounded by a circularly shaped heating element 26, wherein the circular heating element has a heating element diameter b which is at least 30% greater than the fan diameter a.
PNG
media_image6.png
823
670
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Since a change in size of a component is generally considered within the ordinary skill of an artisan, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the heating element as taught by Matsuo surrounding the fan of Vaupot such that the circular heating element has a heating element diameter which is at least 30% greater than the fan diameter.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (US 20220074600 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 11092343B2)
Vaupot discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
11. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the fan (24) and the heater (18) are contained in a housing portion having a height which is at most 30% greater than the heating element diameter, and wherein said rear wall area separating the housing portion from the food chamber.
Raghavan discloses a similar oven type device having a fan and heating element surrounding the fan provided on a rear wall of the chamber, wherein wherein the fan (34) and the heater (36) are contained in a housing portion 25 having a height (A) which is at most 30% greater than the heating element diameter (B), and wherein said rear wall area separating the housing portion from the food chamber (18).
PNG
media_image7.png
968
1025
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Since a change in size of a component is generally considered within the ordinary skill of an artisan, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the heating element and fan as taught by Raghavan surrounding the fan of Vaupot such that the fan and the heater are contained in a housing portion having a height (A) which is at most 30% greater than the heating element diameter B , and wherein said rear wall area separating the housing portion from the food chamber. Additionally, at least under KSR rationale B, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute the known elements of Raghavan into the Vaupot device with predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (US 20220074600 A1) in view of Faraldi et al. (US 2018/0299138A1)
)
Vaupot discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
16. (Currently Amended) The cooking apparatus [[(10) ]]as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circulation system (24, 26) is configured to control a pressure difference between at the delivery vent (52) and at the extraction vent (50) such that, when the cover (13) is moved to at least partially expose the opening, the air is directed from the delivery vent across the at least partially exposed opening in the direction of the front wall area wherein the cooking apparatus further comprises:
one or more pressure sensors arranged to sense said pressure difference, and
a controller adapted to control rotational speed of the fan based on a sensory input from said one or more pressure sensors to maintain said pressure difference upon the cover being moved to expose the opening.
Vaupot discloses wherein the circulation system (24, 26) is configured to control a pressure difference between at the delivery vent (52) and at the extraction vent (50) such that, when the cover (13) is moved to at least partially expose the opening, the air is directed from the delivery vent across the at least partially exposed opening in the direction of the front wall area.
Faraldi discloses a similar oven type device including
one or more pressure sensors arranged to sense a pressure difference, and
a controller adapted to control rotational speed of the fan based on a sensory input from said one or more pressure sensors to maintain said pressure difference upon the cover being moved to expose the opening.
PNG
media_image8.png
650
707
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the Vaupot device to include the pressure sensors and fan control as claimed at least under KSR rationale B by substituting known elements with predictable results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc