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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the amendment to the claims, the restriction requirement as presented in the Office Action mailed March 26, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and rejected.
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 “at least one cross bar spanning a width of the rack between lateral segments” as recited in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “thereafter filling the empty container with food to be canned therein; and thereafter heating the oven cavity during a post-heat stage of the plurality of sequential heating stages with the now-filled container therein, targeting a predetermined post-heat temperature to thereby can the food in the container.” (see lines 8-11). For matters of form, it is suggested to amend these limitations to recite:
“thereafter filling the empty container with food to be canned therein to provide a filled container; and thereafter heating the oven cavity during a post-heat stage of the plurality of sequential heating stages with the filled container therein, targeting a predetermined post-heat temperature to thereby can the food in the filled container.”
Claim 2 recites, “the oven cavity’” on line 3. It appears that the apostrophe after “cavity” should be deleted.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein n the predetermined.” It appears that the term, “n” should be deleted.
Claim 18 recites, “the first low er” on line 3. It appears that this should recite, “the first lower.”
Claim 18 recites, “said wire rings” on line 4. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “said series of wire rings.”
Claim 18 recites, “the sub-array of said container-support segments” on line 5. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the lateral sub-array of said first plurality of container-support segments.”
Claim 19 recites, “filling the empty containers with food to be canned therein; thereafter receiving the rack with the now-filled containers back into the oven cavity; and thereafter heating the oven cavity during a post-heat stage of the plurality of sequential heating stages with the now-filled containers therein, targeting a predetermined post-heat temperature to thereby can the food in the containers.” (see lines 11-16). For matters of form, it is suggested to amend these limitations to recite:
“filling the empty containers with food to be canned therein to provide filled containers; thereafter receiving the rack with the filled containers back into the oven cavity; and thereafter heating the oven cavity during a post-heat stage of the plurality of sequential heating stages with the filled containers therein, targeting a predetermined post-heat temperature to thereby can the food in the filled containers.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 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 18 recites, “a first lower wire support defining a first plurality of container-support segments arranged in a lateral sub-array thereof.” (see lines 1-3). It is not clear as to what the term, “thereof” intends to modify, “a first plurality of container-support segments or “a first lower wire support.” This rejection can be overcome by deleting the term, “thereof.”
Claim 18 also recites, “the first lower wire support being suspended from curved wire segments of laterally outermost ones of a first plurality of said wire rings arranged in a lateral sub-array thereof.” (see lines 3-5). It is not clear as to what the term, “thereof” intends to modify.” This rejection can be overcome by deleting the term, “thereof.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation, “formed from a common wire” on line 3. It is not clear what it means for the wire to be a common wire. For example, is this referring to a “generic” wire, or a wire of the same material? Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient clarity in this regard.
Claim 18 recites, “the array of said wire rings,” on the last line of the claim. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear as to what array and wire rings are being referred to. That is, it is not clear whether this is referring to “a first plurality of said wire rings arranged in a lateral sub-array” or some other array or series of wire wrings.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivka (“Blue Chair Fruit’s Black Raspberry Jam”) in view of Sub-Zero (Canning in the Wolf Convection Steam Oven, Spicy Mango Brown Mustard), Nelson (US 20240093875) and Swayne (US 10561277).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Rivka teaches a method for canning food comprising, receiving a plurality of empty containers on a rack (see page 6 of 16, “rimmed baking sheet” “lower your oven racks so you have room for the jars”; jars is plural) inserted into the oven cavity and heating the oven cavity during a first stage targeting a predetermined pre-heat temperature for a first predetermined period of time in order to sterilize the empty container(s) (see page 6 of 16, “250 degrees F for at least 30 minutes”) and thereafter, filling the empty container(s) with food to be canned therein and thereafter heating the oven cavity during a post-heating stage with the now filled container(s) therein, targeting a predetermined post-heat temperature to thereby can the food in the container(s) (see page 6 of 16, “then again for another 15 minutes once filled”). That is, since Rivka is teaching that after sterilizing the empty containers, the containers would obviously have been removed from the oven, filled with food and then inserted back into the oven for the purpose of sterilizing the filled jars. Because Rivka is teaching canning within an oven using dry heat, Rivka can be construed as also teaching a method of canning that comprises “air canning.” Rivka is also teaching a plurality of sequential heating stages and which stages target a particular pre-heat and post-heat temperature, since the empty containers are sterilized in a first heating stage at 250°F for a period of time and then the filled containers are sterilized in a second heating stage at 250°F for another period of time, both within the same oven.
Claims 1 and 19 differ from Rivka in specifically reciting that the method for canning comprises a first step of receiving a user selection to activate an air canning mode including a pre-determined plurality of sequential heating stages in an oven cavity of a kitchen appliance; receiving an empty container (or a plurality of empty containers) on a rack inserted into the oven cavity and thereafter heating the oven cavity during the pre-heat stage. Rivka also does not explicitly recite that the rack is removed from the oven cavity and then filling the empty containers, as recited in claim 19.
Sub-Zero teaches ovens used for canning methods, where a plurality of empty containers are first received on a rack inserted into the oven cavity (see pages 1-4) and a user selects a mode that allows for sterilizing the empty containers (see page 5-12 which discloses sterilizing for about 13 minutes) and therefore teaches heating the oven cavity after placing the empty container(s) into the oven. Sub-Zero further teaches that after sterilizing the empty containers, they are removed from the oven (see page 15), then filled (see pages 17-20) and then the oven cavity is heated again during a post-heat stage for sterilizing the now-filled containers (see pages 20-22 teaching a half hour of treatment).
To therefore modify Rivka and the specific order of placing the empty containers into the oven cavity would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a rearrangement of steps for achieving the same result of providing sterilized empty containers that are subsequently filled and then reintroduced into the oven cavity for sterilizing of the filled containers.
Further regarding receiving a user selection to activate an air canning mode including a pre-determined plurality of sequential heating stages in an oven cavity of a kitchen appliance, Sub-Zero teaches that it has been conventional to provide an oven with an option for a user to activate a canning feature (see pages 6-9 showing selecting a canning mode and pages 37-38 of the reference which is this transcript). Since Sub-Zero teaches two different heating times for the empty and filled container, respectively, Sub-Zero also teaches that the oven comprises a plurality of heating stages (see page 10, “about 13 minutes”; see page 22, “half an hour”). Nelson (US 20240093875) further teaches an oven where a user can select a heating program (see paragraph 10: “The target cooking chamber temperature, the heating type, the temperature profile, and/or the heating profile can either be set by the user or be assigned in a programme memory to an automatic programme that can be selected by the user”), and which heating program can provide a heating element together with a circulation fan to control the heating devices for achieving a predetermined target temperature (see paragraph 10: “an initial cooking chamber temperature” and “a higher temperature”).
Swayne (US 10561277) also teaches an apparatus that allows a user to select a predetermined cooking program (see column 1, lines 53-55; figures 3-6) and which mode includes a plurality of sequential heating steps (see column 1, lines 55-56) for the purpose of regulating and providing uniformity to the heating of the oven cavity (see column 3, lines 47-62, column 8, line 61 to column 9, line 9).
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a user with a selection of a specific program comprising a plurality of sequential heating stages that target a predetermined pre-heat temperature and a predetermined post-heat temperature as taught by Nelson and Swayne would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of simplifying the process of using the oven cavity for sterilizing empty containers and then sterilizing the filled containers as well as for regulating and providing uniformity of heating the oven cavity to the desired target temperatures, for canning purposes as already desired by Rivka.
Regarding claim 3, Sub-Zero teaches that the empty container is disposed in a receptacle of the rack that is adapted to individually receive the empty container therein (see page 1-3 of Sub-Zero, showing a rack that is adapted to receive the empty container).
As shown on page 15, Sub-Zero teaches that the rack is withdrawn from the oven cavity after the pre-heat stage to accommodate filling the container with the food (see page 17 and 18) and thereafter re-received within the oven cavity prior to said post-heat stage (see page 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivka to use a rack that accommodates the empty container for making it easier to insert, remove, fill and then re-insert the container for canning.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Swayne teaches that the predetermined pre-heating temperature equals a predetermined pre-heat setpoint plus a first offset and the predetermined post-heat temperature equals a predetermined post heat setpoint temperature plus a second offset; where the offsets allow for proper heating of the contents within the oven cavity while also taking into account cavity specific factors such as the cavity thermal mass, heating rate of the heating element, cycling the door open, the rate at which the cavity loses heat and the effectiveness of air circulation as well as the specific set point that has been selected (see column 8, lines 22-60). These teachings would have been equally applicable to operating an oven in two different heating stages for this same purpose. To therefore modify the combination and to provide the predetermined pre-heating temperature to equal a predetermined pre-heat setpoint plus a first offset and the predetermined post-heat temperature to equal a predetermined post-heat setpoint temperature plus as second offset would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing the requisite heating of the oven cavity commensurate with factors that can affect how the cavity retains heat.
Regarding claim 8, Rivka teaches that the pre-heat temperature can be about 250°F (see page 6).
Regarding claim 9, Rivka teaches that the temperature used for treating the empty containers can be the same as the temperature used for treating the filled containers (i.e. 250°F) (see page 6).
Regarding claim 11, Rivka teaches that the post-heat stage continues for a second period of time (see page 6, “15 minutes”).
Claims 2, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hannah (US 20190327796), Blackson (US 20080237212) and Tcaciuc (EP 2896893)
Regarding claim 2, it is initially noted that Swayne teaches that during a pre-heat stage, a convection fan and at least one heating element are operated according to a pre-heat duty cycle to maintain the oven cavity at a pre-heat temperature for a first period of time and during said post-heat stage the convection fan and the at least one heating element are operated according to a post-heat duty cycle to maintain the oven cavity at the predetermined post-heat temperature (see column 6, line 55-64 and column 7, lines 4-18) for the purpose of providing uniformity in the temperature of the oven cavity (column 3, lines 37-41 and column 3, lines 47-51).
Additionally, Blackson (US 20080237212) teaches oven cavities that comprise a convection fan and at least one heating element (see paragraph 12 and 20) and where during a first heating operation, the heating element can be alternately activated (see paragraph 20) and where the fan is activated to speed up the heating process and eliminate temperature differentials, and where the fan can be operated for the entire heating operation either continuously or intermittently (see paragraphs 20-22). Hannah (US 20190327796) further teaches that each stage of heating of an oven cavity can include modifying the operating parameter of the heating element and the convection fan to the desired degree for providing an optimal heating outcome (see paragraph 40). Tcaciuc (EP 2896893) also teaches operating an oven cavity during a post-heat stage where the fan and heating element are operated according to a particular duty cycle (see figure 9, which shows the fan as being on while the heat is on and off).
To therefore modify the combination to provide duty cycles for the convection fan and heating for the pre-heat and post heat stage, as taught by Swayne, Blackson, Hannah and Tcaciuc would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for ensuring that the oven cavity was maintained at the requisite temperature for both stages of the process of Rivka, of first sterilizing the empty containers and then sterilizing the filled containers.
Regarding claim 4, Swayne teaches that the at least one heating element is operated via a PID algorithm during the post-heat duty cycle (see at least the abstract) for providing tighter temperature regulation around the target temperature (see column 9, lines 34-50) and to similarity use PID control for the post-heat duty cycle for sterilizing the filled containers as taught by Rivka would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for similarly providing tighter temperature regulation.
Regarding claim 5, Tcaciuc further teaches that during a heating stage, the convection fan can remain on continuously, whereas the heating element is cycled on and off (see figure 9 and paragraph 75-76).
Hannah (US 20190327796) further teaches that each stage of heating of an oven cavity can include modifying the operating parameter of the heating element and the convection fan to the desired degree for providing an optimal heating outcome (see paragraph 40).
To therefore modify the prior art combination to keep the convection fan on and cycle the at least one heating element on and off during the post-heat duty cycle for sterilizing the filled containers would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for ensuring that the oven cavity was maintained at the requisite temperature for sterilizing the filled containers of the process of Rivka.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Moncayo (US 20150329225).
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting that the first predetermined temperature is about 15 minutes.
Moncayo teaches heat based sterilization of containers prior to filling (see paragraph 48), where the sterilization can be carried out for 15-60 minutes (see paragraphs 48 and 51). Moncayo thus teaches that the specific period of time for sterilizing an empty container has been known to vary and where such variation can also be a function of the type of material from which the container is made and whether there has been any pre-treatment steps such as first simply washing or sanitizing (see paragraph 32). To therefore modify the combination and to use a sterilizing time such as about 15 minutes would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a result effective variable, based on providing pretreatment of washing or sanitizing the container prior to subsequent sterilization for canning.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Cheong (US 20050178799) and Anderson (US 20100147823).
Regarding claim 12, Sub-Zero teaches providing a timer that goes off once the sterilizing of the filled containers is finished (see page 23 and page 51 where the transcript discloses that the timer is going off to prompt the user that the second predetermined period of time has finished and to therefore remove the rack from the oven cavity).
If it could have been construed that Sub-Zero was not clear in this regard, then, Cheong (US 20050178799) teaches that once sterilization of a container is completed, there is a prompt to inform the user that the process has completed (see paragraph 48) and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that this would have prompted a user to remove the rack from the cavity, such as for storing the now sterilized, filled, containers. Even further, Anderson (US 20100147823) teaches that it has been desirable to provide a display for providing a user with instructions on how to perform tasks associated with the operation of an oven and a heating process in said oven (see paragraph 34).
To therefore modify Rivka’s process to also provide a prompt for the user to know that the second predetermined period of time has lapsed and to therefore remove the rack from the oven cavity would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for making it easier for the user to operate the oven for canning and to ensure that the user is informed that the process has completed.
Regarding claim 13, Sub-Zero teaches providing a timer that goes off once the sterilizing of the empty containers is finished (see page 23 and page 42 where the transcript discloses that the timer is going off to prompt the user that the sterilizing of the empty containers has completed; see page 15 where the rack is being removed after the timer has gone off ).
If it could have been construed that Sub-Zero was not clear in this regard then, Cheong (US 20050178799) teaches that once sterilization of a container is completed, there is a prompt to inform the user that the process has completed (see paragraph 48) and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that this would have prompted a user to remove the rack from the cavity, such as for storing the now sterilized, filled, containers. Even further, Anderson (US 20100147823) teaches that it has been desirable to provide a display for providing a user with instructions on how to perform tasks associated with the operation of an oven and a heating process in said oven (see paragraph 34).
To therefore modify Rivka’s process to also provide a prompt for the user to know that the first predetermined period of time has lapsed and to therefore remove the rack comprising the empty containers from the oven cavity would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for making it easier for the user to operate the oven for canning and to ensure that the user is informed that the process has completed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Zakria (US 5320804) and Wassenaar (US 3875854 cited on IDS), Divett (US 20040079355) and Savitz (US 20100092275).
Claim 14 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting, “a cool down stage following the post heat stage, wherein during the cool down stage the convection fan is operated and the at least one heating element is deactivated in order to cool down the filled container prior to removal from the oven cavity.”
It is noted that Rivka teaches that it has been desirable to allow the containers to cool (see page 8, last paragraph). Additionally, Wassenaar teaches that it has been desirable to sterilize filled containers in an oven (see column 1, lines 5-16) and after sterilization is completed, a timer will turn off the oven and allow the oven and the contents to cool so as to allow the containers to be removed from the oven (see column 1, lines 16-20). Wassenaar is therefore teaching that any heating elements would have been deactivated since the oven has been turned off after the timer period has finished (see column 1, lines 15-16).
While Wassenaar is not specific as to the convection fain being operated during cooling, Zakria (US 5320804) further teaches that a circulating fan is used to help the filled containers cool after the sterilization is complete (see column 6, line 42-51; column 9, lines 32-49).
Divett (US 20040079355) teaches an oven that comprises a fan that remains on, while the heating elements are turned off (see paragraph 38) for the purpose of lowering the temperature in the oven to an acceptable level and for maintaining safe surface door temperatures for consumer use (see paragraph 38 and 50).
Savitz (US 20100092275) teaches reducing build-up of heat in the oven and the surroundings of the oven and improving the safety of the appliance, by turning off the heating elements and running the fan (figure 2, item 222) at high speed (see paragraph 77 and 78) such as after a cooking cycle (see paragraph 8).
Distaso (US 20100139641) teaches an oven comprising a cooling function via the convection fan (see paragraph 29) and where cooling has been desirable after turning off the oven (and therefore the heating element) to prevent burns due to contact with hot surfaces (paragraph 9, 15).
To therefore modify the combination, which already desires for the oven to cool, and to turn off the heating element while running the convection fan at high speed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of reducing the build up of heat in the appliance and or the surroundings of the appliance, which would obviously have also made it easier to handle the sterilized filled containers.
Claim 15-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tipney (US 0313129) and Brown (US 1054503).
Regarding claims 15-17, the combination as applied to claim 1 teaches a rack onto which has been inserted a container; however, claim 15-17 differ from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting,
wherein the rack comprises: a wire frame; at least one cross bar spanning a width of the rack between lateral segments of the wire frame; at least one lower wire support; and a series of wire rings; wherein the at least one lower wire support and the series of wire rings define a plurality of receptacles adapted to receive individual canning containers in the rack (claim 15);
wherein the wire rings are arranged in a planar array that is coplanar with the wire frame (claim 16);
wherein the at least one lower wire support is suspended from the wire frame at a level beneath, and is arranged substantially parallel to, the array of wire rings (claim 17).
Tipney teaches a rack used for inserting containers for canning (see figure 1) and which rack comprises a wire frame, at least one cross bar (figure 1, item E) spanning a width of the rack between lateral segments of the wire frame (see figure 1 and 2, and the shorter lateral segments transverse to the long crossbar); at least one lower wire support (see the bottom of the rack as shown in figure 1) and a series of wire rings (see figure 2, item F; wherein the at least one lower wire support and the series of wire rings define a plurality of receptacles adapted to receive individual canning containers in the rack. See annotated figures 1 and 2 below. Tipney teaches that such a rack can make it easier to treat several contaienrs simultaneous and of various size while also preventing the containers from contacting each other (see page 1, lines 34-48).
Tipney further teaches that the wire rings are arranged in a planar array that is coplaner with the wire frame, as recited in claim 16. See annotated figures 1 and 2 below.
Tipney also teaches that the at least one lower wire support is suspended from the wire frame at a level beneath and is arranged substantially parallel to the array of wire rings, as recited in claim 17. See annotated figures 1 and 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If it could have been construed that Tipney did not specifically teach that the array provided wire “rings” then it is noted that Brown further teaches a wire frame comprising an array of wire rings used for securing a container in position within the rack (see figures 1-3 and item 56) and brace and hold the jars in position (see page 1, lines 7-18). To therefore modify the combination and use another known type of support rack for the purpose of treating containers to a canning method and which rack comprises an array of wire rings, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious substitution of one type of rack for another, both recognized to be used for the same purpose, and which rack can make it easier to transport multiple containers for canning.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 17, and in further view of Schwartz (US 2616601).
Claim 18 differs from the combination as applied to claim 17 in specifically reciting that, the at least one lower wire support comprising a first lower wire support defining a first plurality of container-support segments arranged in a lateral sub-array thereof and formed from a common wire, the first lower wire support being suspended from curved wire segments of laterally outermost ones of a first plurality of said wire rings arranged in a lateral sub-array thereof, the sub-array of said container-support segments being aligned respectively in-register with and disposed beneath the array of said wire rings (claim 18).
Schwartz teaches that a lower wire support comprises a first lower wire support defining a plurality of container support segments arranged in a lateral sub-array and formed from a common wire (see figure 7, item 26) and which first lower support is suspended from curved wire segments of laterally outermost ones of a first plurality of said wire rings (see figure 2 and 7, item 22, which connects the wire rings (28) to the lower wire support (26). The wire rings are arranged in a lateral sub-array and the sub-array of the container support segments are aligned with the wire rings as shown in figure 7. See annotated figure 1 and 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
536
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schwartz teaches that such a structure can be useful in stably holding containers within a rack. To therefore modify the combination and use another known type of support rack shape, as taught by would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design, based on known shapes for wire racks used for holding multiple containers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schulte (US 7009147) teaches providing an oven where the user selects a particular mode of operation (see column 4, lines 15-22) and where the oven therefore comprises a plurality of heating stages (see at least the abstract, “pre-heat mode, a ready mode”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights