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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features as listed below must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
“first food item” and “second food item” in claim 1,
“capture tray” in claim 3,
“top plate” in claim 5; for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets a “top plate” as a “lid plate”, and
“steam generator” in claims 1 and 6.
“heating arrangement” in claim 1; for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets a “heating arrangement” as a “second heater.”
No new matter should be entered.
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.
At least Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. At least Figure 2 is identical to a figure found in WO2020/148187, which is utilized in the art rejections below. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“adjacent the cooking chamber” should read “adjacent to the cooking chamber.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“adjacent the cooking chamber” on page 2, line 14 and page 6, line 34 should read “adjacent to the cooking chamber.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“adjacent” in line 5 should read “adjacent to.”
“(86)” in line 15 should be deleted.
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: “a steam generator” and “a heating arrangement” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “steam generator,” the recited function is generating steam to be provided to the cooking chamber (paragraph 34). The specification describes the corresponding structure as including a water reservoir and a steam heater (paragraph 34). The specification further describes the steam heater is a first heater (paragraph 96). Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a steam generator comprising a water reservoir and a first heater configured to generate steam to be provided to the cooking chamber.”
Regarding the term “heating arrangement,” the recited function is heating air laden with the steam (paragraph 75). The specification describes the corresponding structure as including a second heater (paragraph 75). For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “a second heater located within the heating chamber to heat air laden with the steam.”
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 limitations to avoid 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 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “A food support for use as the food support of the steam cooking apparatus of claim 1.” The claim is indefinite since the limitation language defines the food support in terms of itself, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear whether the recited food support is the same food support in line 11 of claim 1 or includes an additional food support.
Claim 15 recites “a basket” in line 4. The claim is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation “a basket” refers to the limitation “a basket” in line 13 of claim 1, or another new “basket”.
Claim 15 recites “a lid plate” in line 6. The claim is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation “a lid plate” refers to the limitation “a lid plate” in line 15 of claim 1, or another new “lid plate.”
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets claim 15 as reciting “the food support of the steam cooking apparatus of claim 1, to mount in the cooking chamber of the steam cooking apparatus, wherein the food support comprises: the basket having perforated sides to allow air to flow through, the basket for containing first food items to be cooked; and the lid plate for mounting over the basket, wherein the lid plate for supporting second items to be cooked.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 14 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/269,432 in view of Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 15 of the instant application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other since claims 1, 11 and 15 of the copending application read into and therefore anticipates the pending claims as shown in Table 1, except that the pending claims further require the food support comprising a basket and a lid plate.
However, such a modification is consistent with well-known designs in the art, as shown by Vaupot, which teaches, in Fig. 1, a basket (14) having perforated sides to allow the air to flow through the basket (p. 5, lns. 10-12) to contain food items to be cooked.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food support in the steam cooking apparatus of the copending application to include the basket having perforated sides and the lid plate mounted over the basket, as this represents a predictable variation of known cooking apparatus configurations in order to improve air circulation and condensation control, and to allow two-tier cooking.
Although claims 11 and 12 of the instant application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other since claim 14 of the copending application reads into and therefore anticipates the pending claims as shown in Table 1, except that the pending claims further require the configuration of the extraction vent and the delivery vent in the rear wall area.
However, such a configuration is consistent with well-known designs in the art, as shown by Vaupot, which teaches, in Fig. 2, an extraction vent (50) is located in a middle region of a rear wall area (42) and leads directly to (as shown in Fig. 1) a fan (Fig. 1: 24), and a delivery vent is located at a top region of the rear wall area (42) above the extraction vent (50) (as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the extraction vent and the delivery vent in the rear wall area of the copending application to have the configuration, as this represents a predictable variation of known cooking apparatus configuration in order for “a circulatory flow [to be] generated [and] pass… under the lid…, thereby reducing condensation on the lid to prevent steaming up of the viewing window formed by the transparent lid.” Vaupot, p. 2, lns. 5-7.
Table 1
Claims of instant application
(like language bolded)
Claims in 18/269,432
(like language bolded)
1. A steam cooking apparatus, comprising:
a cooking chamber;
a steam generator to generate steam to be provided to the cooking chamber;
a heating chamber adjacent the cooking chamber;
a heating arrangement located within the heating chamber to heat air laden with the steam;
a vent arrangement between the cooking chamber and the heating chamber to allow a circulatory flow of the steam laden air between the heating chamber and the cooking chamber; and
a food support to mount in the cooking chamber, wherein the food support comprises:
a basket, having perforated sides to allow the air to flow through the basket, to contain first food items to be cooked; and a lid plate (86) to mount over the basket, wherein the lid plate is adapted to support second food items to be cooked,
wherein the vent arrangement comprises an extraction vent through which the air is drawn from inside the cooking chamber, and
a delivery vent to deliver the air to the cooking chamber, and wherein top of the lid plate, when the food support is mounted in the cooking chamber, is below bottom of the delivery vent.
1. A steam cooking apparatus, comprising:
a cooking chamber;
a steam heater at a bottom surface of the cooking chamber for generating steam;
a water reservoir;
a delivery system for delivering water from the water reservoir to the steam heater;
a heating chamber adjacent the cooking chamber;
a heating arrangement located within the heating chamber for heating air laden with the steam;
an air circulation arrangement between the cooking chamber and the heating chamber to allow a circulatory flow of the steam laden air between the heating chamber and the cooking chamber; and
a food support for mounting in the cooking chamber, wherein the food support has
…
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food support further comprises a base on which the basket is mounted.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food support comprises: a base which functions as a capture tray and which forms the bottom surface; and a support tray mounted over the base for supporting food items to be cooked.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the base comprises a capture tray and a support tray, and wherein the support tray is mounted spaced over the capture tray.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food support comprises: a base which functions as a capture tray and which forms the bottom surface; and a support tray mounted over the base for supporting food items to be cooked.
6. The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the steam generator comprises a water reservoir and a steam heater within the cooking chamber to heat water from the water reservoir to generate steam.
1. A steam cooking apparatus, comprising:
a cooking chamber;
a steam heater at a bottom surface of the cooking chamber for generating steam;
a water reservoir;
a delivery system for delivering water from the water reservoir to the steam heater;
…
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooking chamber comprises a base, a rear wall area, and a front wall area, and wherein the extraction vent and the delivery vent are in the rear wall area.
14. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooking chamber comprises a base, a rear wall area and a front wall area, wherein the air circulation arrangement comprises an extraction vent in the rear wall area through which the air is drawn from inside the cooking chamber, and a delivery vent in the rear wall area for delivering the air to the cooking chamber.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the extraction vent is located in a middle region of the rear wall area and leads directly to a fan, and wherein the delivery vent is located at a top region of the rear wall area above the extraction vent.
14. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooking chamber comprises a base, a rear wall area and a front wall area, wherein the air circulation arrangement comprises an extraction vent in the rear wall area through which the air is drawn from inside the cooking chamber, and a delivery vent in the rear wall area for delivering the air to the cooking chamber.
15. A food support for use as the food support of the steam cooking apparatus of claim 1, to mount in the cooking chamber of the steam cooking apparatus,
wherein the food support comprises:
a basket having perforated sides to allow air to flow through, the basket for containing first food items to be cooked; and
a lid plate for mounting over the basket, wherein the lid plate for supporting second items to be cooked.
15. A food support for use as the food support of the steam cooking apparatus of claim 1, for mounting in the cooking chamber of the steam cooking apparatus,
wherein the food support has a bottom surface which comprises a channel arrangement for positioning over the steam heater.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot, in view of Mundt (US 20170251859).
Regarding claim 1, Vaupot teaches, in Fig. 1,
a steam cooking apparatus (10, “cooking apparatus”), comprising:
a cooking chamber (12, “food chamber”);
a steam generator (annotated Fig. 1: 216, “steam generator”; the examiner interprets the combination of the water reservoir 20 and the first heater 16 as the steam generator, and assigned a reference number 216 as annotated in Fig. 1) to generate steam to be provided to the cooking chamber (12) (p. 5, ln. 14: “[t]he first heater [included in the steam generator 216] is used to generate steam (shown as arrow 17)”);
a heating chamber (annotated Fig. 1: 45, “heating chamber”) adjacent (the position relationship is shown in annotated Fig. 1) the cooking chamber (12);
a heating arrangement (18, “second heater”) located within the heating chamber (45) (the location shown in Fig. 1) to heat air laden with the steam (p. 5, lns. 23-24: “The second heater 18 is along the circulation path and thereby further heats the steam”; as shown in annotated Fig. 1, the steam generated by the first heater is mixed with the air flowing along the circulation path resulting in the “air laden with the steam”, which flows into the heating chamber to be heated by the second heater);
a vent arrangement (annotated Fig. 1: 55, “vent arrangement”; the examiner interprets a combination of “a circulation system comprising an extraction vent” (p. 1, ln. 25) and “a delivery vent arrangement… compris[ing] a first delivery vent 52” (p. 7, lns. 3-4) as the “vent arrangement”) between the cooking chamber and the heating chamber (annotated Fig. 1 shows the vent arrangement is located between the food chamber 12 and the heating chamber 45) to allow a circulatory flow (p. 5, ln. 23: 70, “circulation path”; the examiner interprets the combination of two arrows shown in Fig. 1 indicating the steam air flow as the “circulatory flow”, and annotates it as reference number 70 as shown in the annotated Fig. 1) of the steam laden air (p. 7, ln. 3: “delivery vent arrangement for delivering air (and steam)”; the examiner interprets “air (and steam)” as the “steam laden air”) between the heating chamber and the cooking chamber (annotated Fig. 1 shows the circulation path 70 is between the heating chamber 45 and the food chamber 12); and
a food support (annotated Fig. 1: 75, “food support”; p. 5, lns. 7-8: “a food chamber 12 in which a food basket 14 is mounted,” based on which the examiner interprets that there is a means, annotated as 89 in Fig. 1 to support the food basket 14 in the food chamber. The examiner interprets a combination of the food basket 14 and the mounting means 89 as the “food support”, annotated as 75 in Fig. 1) to mount in the cooking chamber (12), wherein the food support (75) comprises:
a basket (14, “food basket”), having perforated sides to allow the air to flow through the basket (p. 5, lns. 10-12: “The food basket has air permeable side walls … so that air and steam can circulate through the basket to the food”), to contain (shown in Fig. 1) first food items (15, “food”) to be cooked; and
wherein the vent arrangement (55) comprises an extraction vent (50, “extraction vent”) (p. 1, ln. 25: “a circulation system comprising an extraction vent”) through which the air is drawn from inside the cooking chamber (12) (p. 1, lns. 25-26: “an extraction vent … through which air is drawn from inside the food chamber”), and a delivery vent (52, “first delivery vent”) to deliver the air to the cooking chamber (12) (p. 1, lns. 26-27: “a delivery vent arrangement [comprising the first delivery vent 52 (p. 7, lns. 3-4)] for delivering air to the food chamber”), and
the food support (75) is mounted in the cooking chamber (12) below bottom of the delivery vent (52) (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Vaupot, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Vaupot does not explicitly teach,
a lid plate (86) to mount over the basket, wherein the lid plate is adapted to support second food items to be cooked,
wherein top of the lid plate, when the food support is mounted in the cooking chamber, is below bottom of the delivery vent.
However, Mundt teaches, in Fig. 8F, a steam cooking apparatus (Fig. 1: 100, “cooking apparatus”), comprising:
a lid plate (86) (802, “upper surface”) to mount over a basket (annotated Fig. 8F: 808, “basket”), wherein the lid plate (802) is adapted to support second food items to be cooked (paragraph 6: “a second food item on an upper support surface [802] positioned above the lower cooking surface [809 of the basket 808]”; annotated Fig. 8F: 809, “lower surface”),
wherein top of the lid plate (802), when the food support is mounted in the cooking chamber, is below bottom of the delivery vent (the food support including the basket over which the lid plate is mounted as taught in annotated Fig. 8F is below bottom of the delivery vent, which satisfies this limitation).
Vaupot and Mundt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the lid plate as taught by Mundt mounted over the basket taught by Vaupot, for the purpose of “cooking two food items simultaneously.” Mundt, paragraph 7.
PNG
media_image2.png
204
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8F of Mundt, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 1 of Vaupot,
the apparatus (10) of claim 1, wherein the food support (annotated Fig. 1: 75, “food support”) further comprises a base (annotated Fig. 1: 89, “mounting means”) on which the basket (14) is mounted (shown in annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 1 of Vaupot,
The apparatus (10) of claim 1, wherein the steam generator (annotated Fig. 1: 216, “steam generator”) comprises a water reservoir (20, “water reservoir”) and a steam heater (16) within the cooking chamber (12) to heat water from the water reservoir (20) to generate steam (p. 5, ln. 14: “[t]he first heater [included in the steam generator 216] is used to generate steam (shown as arrow 17)”).
Regarding claim 7, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 1 of Vaupot,
The apparatus (10) of claim 1, wherein the basket (14) is formed as a mesh (p. 5, lns. 10-12: “The food basket has air permeable side walls and … an air permeable base so that air and steam can circulate through the basket to the food”).
Regarding claim 11, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 1 of Vaupot,
the apparatus (10) of claim 1, wherein the cooking chamber (12) comprises a base (40, “base”), a rear wall area (42, “rear wall area”), and a front wall area (44, “front wall area”), and wherein the extraction vent (50, “extraction vent”) and the delivery vent (52, “first delivery vent”) are in the rear wall area (the configuration is shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 2 of Vaupot,
the apparatus (Fig. 1: 10) of claim 11, wherein the extraction vent (50) is located in a middle region of (the location shown in Fig. 2) the rear wall area (42) and leads directly to (shown in Fig. 1) a fan (Fig. 1: 24), and wherein the delivery vent (52) is located at a top region of the rear wall area (42) above the extraction vent (50) (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
271
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Vaupot
Regarding claim 14, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Vaupot and Mundt teaches the delivery vent (Vaupot: 52) and the lid plate (Mundt: 802), but does not explicitly teach the top of the lid plate is spaced by at least 15mm below the bottom of the deliver vent, for example by at least 20mm.
However, Vaupot teaches, in Fig. 1, an arrangement similar to the instant invention, wherein the food support (75) is placed in the cooking chamber (12), and the delivery vent (52) is located at the top region of the rear wall area (42) above the extraction vent (50). Further as shown in annotated Fig. 1 of Vaupot, the distance D between the delivery vent and the top of the food support where the lid plate (Mundt: 802) would be mounted provides a space through which the circulation path (70) of the steam flow passes. This arrangement ensures that “a circulatory flow is generated which passes under the lid … [, which] is heated with a continuous flow, thereby reducing condensation on the lid to prevent steaming up of the viewing window formed by the transparent lid.” Vaupot, p. 2, lns. 4-7. Accordingly, the distance D, which defines the vertical spacing between the delivery vent and the top of the food support, would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a design parameter affecting steam circulation and condensation reduction below the lid (13).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select any distance D for an appropriate spacing, including at least 15 mm, in an attempt to achieve the desired result of “reducing condensation on the lid to prevent steaming up of the viewing window formed by the transparent lid.” Vaupot, p. 2, lns. 6-7.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter choice to modify Vaupot to adjust the relative vertical position of the delivery vent with respect to the top of the food support for “a flow of the delivered air… to pass over the full area of the underside of the lid” (Vaupot, p. 2, lns. 11-12), since applicant has not disclosed that having a specific distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the configuration of Vaupot would perform equally well at a variety of spacings, such that selecting a particular distance, including at least 15 mm, would have been a matter of routine design selection to achieve effective airflow over the food support and reduction of condensation below the lid.
Regarding claim 15, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Vaupot in view of Mundt teaches, in annotated Fig. 1 of Vaupot,
the food support (Vaupot: 75) of the steam cooking apparatus (Vaupot: 10) of claim 1, to mount in the cooking chamber (Vaupot: 12) of the steam cooking apparatus (Vaupot: 10), wherein the food support (Vaupot: 75) comprises:
the basket (Vaupot: 14) having perforated sides to allow air to flow through (Vaupot, p. 5, lns. 10-12: “The food basket has air permeable side walls … so that air and steam can circulate through the basket to the food”), the basket (Vaupot: 14) for containing (shown in Fig. 1 of Vaupot) first food items (Vaupot: 15) to be cooked; and
the lid plate (Mundt: 802) for mounting over the basket (Mundt: 808), wherein the lid plate (Mundt: 802) for supporting second items to be cooked (Mundt, paragraph 6 and annotated Fig. 8F).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot, in view of Mundt (US 20170251859), and further in view of Choi (KR 20200103506).
Regarding claim 3, which is a dependent claim of claim 2, Vaupot and Mundt teaches the base (89) in Fig. 1 of Vaupot, but does not explicitly teach the base comprises a capture tray and a support tray, and wherein the support tray is mounted spaced over the capture tray.
However, Choi teaches, in Fig. 1, the base (52, “oil receiver body”) comprises a capture tray (50, “oil tray”) and a support tray (70, “grill”), and wherein the support tray (70) is mounted spaced over the capture tray (50) (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 1).
Vaupot, Mundt and Choi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the base comprising the capture tray and the support tray with their arrangement as taught by Choi mounted in the food support of Vaupot and Mundt, in order to “collect foreign substances such as oil.” Choi (translation), abstract.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
407
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Choi
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot, in view of Mundt (US 20170251859), and further in view of Olsson (US 20170188742).
Regarding claim 4, which is a dependent claim of claim 2, Vaupot and Mundt teaches the food support (75) comprises the base (89), but does not explicitly teach the food support further comprises a non-perforated pot to mount directly on the base or within the basket.
However, Olsson teaches, in Fig. 2, an apparatus (10, “steam cooking apparatus device”), wherein a non-perforated pot (200, “bowl”; Fig. 2 shows the bowl 200 is non-perforated) is mounted directly on (the arrangement is shown in Fig. 2) the base (100, “steaming pedestal”) or within the basket.
Vaupot, Mundt and Olsson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a steaming apparatus for heating food. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a non-perforated pot mounted on the base as taught by Olsson in the steam cooking apparatus taught by Vaupot and Mundt, in order to place “food to be heated within the bowl” while allowing the speed and duration of heating, and the thoroughness of cooking to be adjusted depending on the types of food contents. Olsson, paragraph 8.
PNG
media_image5.png
448
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Olsson
Regarding claim 5, Vaupot in combination with Mundt and Olsson teaches
the apparatus (Vaupot: 10) of claim 4, wherein the food support (Vaupot: 75) is configurable with:
only the base (Vaupot: 89);
only the base (Vaupot: 89) and the basket (Vaupot: 14);
only the base Vaupot: (89) and a top plate (Vaupot: 86);
only the base (Vaupot: 89) and the non-perforated pot (Olsson: 200); or
the base (Vaupot: 89), the non-perforated pot (Olsson: 200), and the top plate (Vaupot: 86).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot, in view of Mundt (US 20170251859), and further in view of Murat et al. (ES 2311049) hereinafter Murat.
Regarding claim 8, Vaupot and Mundt teaches, in Fig. 1 of Vaupot, the apparatus (10) of claim 1 comprising the food support (75) mounted in the cooking chamber (12), but does not explicitly teach the food support further comprises a handle arrangement to lift the food support in and out of the cooking chamber.
However, Murat teaches, in Fig. 3, a food support (1, “cooking basket”) further comprises a handle arrangement (8, “grip handle”) to lift the food support (1) in and out of the cooking chamber (Fig. 4: 10, “tank”) (Murat teaches the cooking basket 1 comprising the grip handle 8 as shown in Fig. 3, and “the cooking basket 1 … is deposit in the tank 10,” Murat (translation), p. 5, lns. 9-10. The examiner interprets this disclosure to indicate that the grip handle is configured to allow a user to grasp and lift the cooking basket in and out of the tank).
Vaupot, Mundt and Murat are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the food support comprising the handle arrangement as taught by Murat to be mounted in the cooking chamber of Vaupot and Mundt, in order to allow the food support to be grasped and lifted in and out of the cooking chamber for loading and unloading food items, which would have been a predictable use of a known handle arrangement to facilitate lifting of a cooking basket.
PNG
media_image6.png
601
435
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 & 4 of Murat
Regarding claim 9, Vaupot in view of Mundt and Murat teaches the apparatus (Vaupot: 10) of claim 8, wherein the handle arrangement (Murat: 8) is retractable (“a grip handle 8 mounted pivoting between a basket support position, as illustrated in figure 1, and at least one resting position, such as it is illustrated in figure 2,” Murat (translation), p. 4, lns. 48-49. As the handle pivots to a resting position to reduce the upper profile so that a lid can rest thereon, the examiner interprets this resting position as a retracted position).
PNG
media_image7.png
629
344
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 & 2 of Murat
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaupot et al. (WO 2020148187) hereinafter Vaupot, in view of Mundt (US 20170251859), and further in view of Bonaccorso (US 20170065127).
Regarding claim 10, Vaupot and Mundt teaches the apparatus (Vaupot: 10) of claim 1, and the lid plate (Mundt: 802) mounted over the food support (75), but does not explicitly teach the lid plate has handles to lift the lid plate off remainder of the food support.
However, Bonaccorso teaches, in Fig. 5, a lid plate (101, “lid”) has handles (HE, “handle element”) to lift the lid plate off remainder of the food support (103, “food basket”) (paragraph 37: “The handle element HE is advantageous to lift the lid 101 away from the food basket 103”).
Vaupot, Mundt and Bonaccorso are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cookware used in a cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have handles attached to the lid plate as taught by Bonaccorso mounted on the food support of Vaupot and Mundt, in order to allow “to lift the lid 101 away from the food basket 103, … [and] to access food ingredients placed inside the food basket.” Bonaccorso, paragraph 37.
PNG
media_image8.png
572
483
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Bonaccorso
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Popeil et al. (US 20140227411), Burridge et al. (US 20190290047), Griffin (US 20200359823), Li et al. (CN 110558832), Chen (CN 204541747), Chen (CN 104706209), Matsuoka (JP 2018027790), Yang (KR 101126539), Li et al. (CN 111214131), Tajima et al. (JP 2000139720), Diederichs et al. (EP 2433526), Vaupot et al. (EP 3679839), Canwell et al. (WO 2016147003), Gu et al. (CN 208769550), Davasligil et al. (EP 3320271), Gasparini et al. (EP 1995525), Holzapfel (DE 102013104956), Vaupot et al. (WO 2020099339), Oberfell et al. (DE 102012222142), Zhang (CN 209899171).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights