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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “back wall 116” as stated on page 9, paragraph 35 of the written description. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the positioning of the camera in Figure 2 does not appear to be able to see the food item(s) in zone 2. As presented, the food/cookware in zone 1 can get in the way of capturing an image from zone 2. Applicant should note that if the claims are amended to include two cookware items and/or food items and the monitoring of both, the algorithm capable of doing this will be deemed insufficient since there is no current discussion of this in the disclosure. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, paragraph 40, the written description labels the cooking appliance with reference number 100, however, it should read “cooking appliance 10” as referred to in the rest of the written description and as shown in Figures 1-6.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“A plurality of heating elements provided within the cooking chamber” in claims 1 and 12. Support for the heating elements can be found on page 6, paragraph 24 which states, “one or more internal heating elements (e.g., baking, broiling, or convection heating elements) may be provided within cooking chamber 14 to cook or otherwise heat items therein.”
“A controller operably connected with the plurality of heating elements and the convection fan, the controller configured to perform a cooking operation” in claim 1. Paragraph 28 of the disclosure indicates the physical structure of the controller; however, examiner could not find specific recitations in the disclosure directed to the following functions completed by the controller: “estimating a temperature of convection air at the at least one exhaust outlet; and comparing the estimated temperature of the convection air at the at least one exhaust outlet with a temperature of a first food item within the first cooking zone, wherein the temperature of the first food item is a surface temperature of the first food item” in claims 11 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims state that the cooking appliance estimates a temperature of convection air, however, since the written description lacks an algorithm to perform such a function the claim fails to comply with the written description.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The written description fails to describe an algorithm used to estimate a temperature of convection air, it is unclear how the temperature is being estimated, what parameters are being utilized to determine estimation, and if an actual temperature of another location/item can be considered the estimate, therefore, making the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be read as “comparing any sensed temperature with a temperature of a food item, wherein the temperature of the food item is a surface temperature of the food item.”
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.
Citations for EP 2570732 and WO 2013008813 are referencing the English translations provided.
Claims 1, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US Patent Document No. 10223933), hereinafter Cheng, in view of Paller (US Patent Document No. 20200378609) and Morbidelli (EP Patent Document No. 2282128).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Cheng teaches a cooking instrument for multizone cooking (Title), the cooking instrument can identify relative areas in a cooking chamber to place at least two portions of food (Col. 2, lines 48-48); a plurality of heating elements provided within the cooking chamber (Col. 2, lines 28-29); a fan that can stir the air within the chamber to ensure heated air is moved to other parts of the chamber (Col. 12, lines 25-28); a computing device that serves as the control system for the cooking instrument (Col. 5, lines 5-6) that can control all or at least a subset of the physical components and/or functional components of the cooking instrument (Col. 5, lines 11-12), wherein the computing device can configure the heating elements to apply different heating patterns to different zones (Col. 9, lines 50-51; claim 1). Additionally, Cheng also teaches the cooking instrument controls, based on the heating sequence, the heating system such that the heating system directionally transfers heat under different heating characteristics respectively to the at least two portions of the food at the identified relative areas in the cooking chamber (claims 8 and 16); and the cooking instrument having a camera to capture an image of the cooking chamber (Col. 16, lines 49-51) and in response to detecting the image the cooking instrument can regenerate the heating sequence (Col 16, lines 57-59; claims 9 and 10).
However, Cheng fails to teach a cooking appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction; a duct system in fluid communication with the cooking chamber, the duct system defining an intake and at least one exhaust outlet, determining an operational parameter of the convection fan based on the first temperature request, the first cooking zone, the second temperature request, and the second cooking zone; and directing the convection fan according to the determined operational parameter, wherein the operational parameter of the convection fan comprises at least one of a rotation direction, a duty cycle, or a rotation speed. Cheng additionally fails to teach the duct system comprising a rear duct provided at a rear of the cabinet along the transverse direction, the convection fan being provided in the rear duct (Claim 3).
Paller teaches a multi-cavity oven appliance (Title) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction and a transverse direction (Pg. 1, par. 6) with a plurality of ducts (Fig. 2, 170, 172, 176, 180) within a cooking chamber, wherein a third duct (176) extends from an inlet (177) and each duct connects to an outlet (178; Pg. 3, par. 31) and fans (190, 192, 194) within the ducts (170, 172, 176, 180) configured to move air from the cooking chamber to the ducts (170, 172, 176, 180), more specifically, the ducts (170, 172, 176, 180) are provided at a rear of the cabinet (Fig. 2), the convection fans (190, 192, 194) being provided in the rear ducts (170, 172, 176) for the purpose of providing flexible operation while minimizing the footprint of the heating system within the oven appliance (Pg. 1, par. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Paller to define a vertical direction, a lateral direction and a transverse direction and have a duct system in fluid communication with the cooking chamber, the duct system defining an intake and at least one exhaust outlet and a convection fan for motivating air between the cooking chamber and the duct system for the purpose of providing flexible operation while minimizing the footprint of the heating system within the oven appliance (Pg. 1, par. 4).
However, the combination of Cheng and Paller still fails to teach the oven determining an operational parameter of the convection fan based on the first temperature request, the first cooking zone, the second temperature request, and the second cooking zone; and directing the convection fan according to the determined operational parameter, wherein the operational parameter of the convection fan comprises at least one of a rotation direction, a duty cycle, or a rotation speed.
Morbidelli teaches it is known to have an oven wherein the fan operating speed is chosen as a function of the cooking step (Pg. 2, par. 20) for the purpose of optimizing energy consumption (Pg. 2, par. 21). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Morbidelli to have the oven determine an operational parameter of the convection fan based on the first temperature request, the first cooking zone, the second temperature request, and the second cooking zone; and directing the convection fan according to the determined operational parameter, wherein the operational parameter of the convection fan comprises at least one of a rotation direction, a duty cycle, or a rotation speed for the purpose of optimizing energy consumption.
Regarding claim 3, the combination made in reference to claim 1 above teaches the duct system comprising a rear duct provided at a rear of the cabinet along the transverse direction, the convection fan being provided in the rear duct (see obvious statement for claim 1 above).
Claims 2, 7-8, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Wiseman et al (US Patent Document No. 20160040892), hereinafter Wiseman.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach the plurality of heating elements comprising a convection heating element adjacent to the convection fan.
Wiseman teaches the plurality of heating elements comprising a convection heating element (Fig. 2, 136) adjacent to the convection fan (138 ) for the purpose of minimizing the preheat time and adequately heating the air and surfaces of the cooking chamber (Pg. 1, par. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Wiseman to have the plurality of heating elements comprise a convection heating element adjacent to the convection fan for the purpose of adequately heating the air and surfaces of the cooking chamber (Pg. 1, par. 5).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach the plurality of heating elements comprising a bake heater provided at a bottom of the cooking chamber; and a broil heater provided at a top of the cooking chamber.
Wiseman teaches the plurality of heating elements comprising a bake heater provided at a bottom of the cooking chamber; and a broil heater provided at a top of the cooking chamber for the purpose of minimizing the preheat time and adequately heating the air and surfaces of the cooking chamber (Pg. 1, par. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Wiseman to have the plurality of heating elements comprise a bake heater provided at a bottom of the cooking chamber; and a broil heater provided at a top of the cooking chamber for the purpose of minimizing the preheat time and adequately heating the air and surfaces of the cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 8, the combination made in reference to claim 1 above as applied to claim 7 teaches the cooking operation further comprises determining one or more heating parameters of each of the bake heater and the broil heater in response to receiving each of the first and second temperature requests; and directing each of the bake heater and the broil heater according to the one or more determined heating parameters (see obvious statements for claims 1 and 7 above).
Regarding claim 16, the combination made in reference to claim 12 above as applied to claim 15 teaches the cooking operation further comprises determining one or more heating parameters of each of the bake heater and the broil heater in response to receiving each of the first and second temperature requests; and directing each of the bake heater and the broil heater according to the one or more determined heating parameters (see obvious statements for claims 12 and 15 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Duncan et al (US Patent Document No. 20060272632), hereinafter Duncan.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach the at least one exhaust outlet of the duct system comprising a pair of side exhaust outlets provided at lateral sides of the rear duct within the cooking chamber.
Duncan teaches an airflow system for a convection oven (Title) including a duct system comprising a pair of side exhaust outlets (Fig. 1, 43) provided at lateral sides (Fig. 1) of the rear duct within the cooking chamber (Fig. 1) for the purpose of providing maximum heat transfer and significantly reducing any restrictions that may otherwise impede airflow circulation (Pg. 1, par. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Duncan to have the at least one exhaust outlet of the duct system comprise a pair of side exhaust outlets provided at lateral sides of the rear duct within the cooking chamber for the purpose of providing maximum heat transfer and significantly reducing any restrictions that may otherwise impede airflow circulation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nishijima et al (WO Patent Document No. 2013008813), hereinafter Nishijima.
The modified device of Cheng fails to teach the duct system further comprising a top duct provided at a top of the cabinet along the vertical direction, and wherein the at least one exhaust outlet of the duct system comprises: a top exhaust defined in the top duct within the cooking chamber.
Nishijima teaches a heating cooker (Title) having a duct system comprising a top duct (Fig. 2, 72) provided at a top of the cabinet along the vertical direction (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one exhaust outlet (8) of the duct system comprises a top exhaust (8) defined in the top duct (72) within the cooking chamber (Fig. 2) for the purpose of cooking with a good finish without unevenness (Paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Nishijima to have the duct system further comprise a top duct provided at a top of the cabinet along the vertical direction, and wherein the at least one exhaust outlet of the duct system comprises a top exhaust defined in the top duct within the cooking chamber for the purpose of cooking with a good finish without unevenness.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Armstrong (US Patent Document No. 20190260915).
The modified device of Cheng fails to teach an ambient air inlet defined in the cabinet through which ambient air selectively enters the cooking chamber; a cooking chamber vent defined in the cabinet; and a cooling fan provided at the cooking chamber vent to selectively urge air within the cooking chamber to an ambient atmosphere.
Armstrong teaches an oven appliance (Title) having an ambient air inlet (Fig. 2, 188) defined in the cabinet through which air selectively enters the cooking chamber (Pg. 3, par. 29); a cooking chamber vent (190) defined in the cabinet (Fig. 2); and a cooling fan (184) provided at the cooking chamber vent (190) to selectively urge air within the cooking chamber to an ambient atmosphere (Pg. 3, par. 29) for the purpose of providing a good path for hot air to escape the cabinet without disturbing a user (Pg. 3, par. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Armstrong to have an ambient air inlet defined in the cabinet through which ambient air selectively enters the cooking chamber; a cooking chamber vent defined in the cabinet; and a cooling fan provided at the cooking chamber vent to selectively urge air within the cooking chamber to an ambient atmosphere for the purpose of providing a good path for hot air to escape the cabinet without disturbing a user.
Claims 9-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Bailey (US Patent Document No. 20220065457).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination made in reference to claims 1 and 12 above teach a cooking instrument with a sensor provided within the cooking chamber; and adjusting the determined operational parameter of the convection fan in response to determining one or more attributes of the cookware item. Convection within a cooking appliance inherently requires a fan in order to establish convection heating. Based on claim 14 of the application, the fan is incorporated into the programming of the convection heating element since the heating element’s pattern is dependent on the parameter of the fan. Therefore, regenerating the heating sequence based on the image would require the operational parameter of the convection fan to be adjusted as well.
However, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach determining one or more attributes of a cookware item provided in the cooking chamber via the sensor.
Bailey teaches a method of monitoring a cooking appliance (Title) wherein the cooking operation comprises determining the nature of the cookware material in the cooking chamber via a sensor (Pg. 2, par. 26) for the purpose of providing appropriate early warning of conditions that may lead to fire, and that are responsive to different types of cooking activity so that the warnings are tailored to the nature of cooking (Pg. 1, par. 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Bailey to have the cooking operation further comprise determining one or more attributes of a cookware item provided in the cooking chamber via the sensor for the purpose of providing appropriate early warning of conditions that may lead to fire, and that are responsive to different types of cooking activity so that the warnings are tailored to the nature of cooking.
Regarding claim 10, the combination made in reference to claim 9 above teaches wherein the sensor is a camera configured to capture a digital image of the cookware item (see obvious statement for claim 9 above).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Breunig et al (EP Patent Document No. 2570732), hereinafter Breunig and Hannah et al (US Patent Document No. 20190327795), hereinafter Hannah.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach a method of determining the operational parameter of the convection fan comprising comparing any sensed temperature with a temperature of a food item, wherein the temperature of the food item is a surface temperature of the food item (see 112(b) rejection above).
Breunig teaches a cooking process that monitors the core temperature of a product to be cooked, compares that temperature with a temperature of the cooking chamber and controls a fan based on the determined results (Pg. 7, par, 21) for the purpose of optimally adjusting the timing ratio to different foods and different cooking programs (Pg. 4, par. 4).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Breunig and have the method of determining the operational parameter of the convection fan comprise sensing a temperature within the cooking chamber; and comparing the sensed temperature with a temperature of a food item for the purpose of optimally adjusting the timing ratio to different foods and different cooking programs.
However, the combination of the modified device of Cheng and Breunig still fails to teach that the temperature of the food item is the surface temperature of the food item.
Hannah teaches measuring the surface temperature of a food item (Pg. 4, par. 33) for the purpose of more direct assessment of the food item (Pg. 1, par. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of the modified device of Cheng and Breunig to incorporate the teachings of Hannah and have the measured temperature of the food item be the surface temperature of the food item for the purpose of more direct assessment of the food item.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kim (US Patent Document No. US 20160195282) and Tcaciuc (EP Patent Document No. 2896893).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach determining a convection heating pattern of the convection heating element based on each of the first and second temperature requests, the first and second cooking zones, and the operational parameter of the convection fan; and directing the convection heating element according to the determined convection heating pattern
Kim teaches an oven may heat a cooked object accommodated in the cooking space by controlling a first burner, a second burner, and convection units, which includes a fan and a heater, depending on a control command of a user, whether the divider is mounted, and the temperature of the cooking space (Pg. 9, par. 96) to yield the predictable result of accurately heating the food item in the cooking chamber. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Kim to determine a convection heating pattern of the convection heating element based on each of the first and second temperature requests, the first and second cooking zones, and directing the convection heating element according to the determined convection heating pattern to yield the predictable result of accurately heating the food item in the cooking chamber.
However, the combination of the modified device of Cheng and Kim still fails to teach the oven determining a convection heating pattern of the convection heating element based on the operational parameter of the convection fan.
Tcaciuc teaches adapting the operational cycles of a convection fan and heating element to each other (Col. 5, lines 34-35) for the purpose of further improving uniformity of heating (Col. 5, lines 35-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of the modified device of Cheng and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Tcaciuc to determine a convection heating pattern of the convection heating element based on the operational parameter of the convection fan for the purpose of further improving uniformity of heating. It is also noted that every fan and oven has minimum and maximum parameters, therefore, the controller’s algorithm is restricted by those parameters and changes what happens within the oven when either the minimum or maximum is reached. Therefore, adjusting the pattern based on the operational parameters of the fan (minimum and maximum) is inherent in any algorithm.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Cheng as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Asami (US Patent Document No. 20220287160).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Cheng fails to teach directing the cooling fan based on the first temperature request, the first cooking zone, the second temperature request, and the second cooking zone.
Asami teaches controlling the drive of a cooling fan according to the type of cooking mode received by an operation panel (Pg. 9, par. 97) for the purpose of suppressing an increase in temperature around an outer surface of a heating chamber (Pg. 1, par. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Asami to direct the cooling fan based on the first temperature request, the first cooking zone, the second temperature request, and the second cooking zone for the purpose of suppressing an increase in temperature around an outer surface of a heating chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761