DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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: locking element in claim 8.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murad (US 20220186937).
Regarding claim 1, Murad discloses an oven (100), comprising: a box body (102) having a cooking cavity (104); a middle spacer (113) arranged in the cooking cavity, wherein the middle spacer is detachably and fixedly connected to the box body (Figure 8), to selectively divide the cooking cavity into a first small cavity and a second small cavity (104L/104R); a first heating module (107L) arranged in the first small cavity; a second heating module (107R) arranged in the second small cavity, wherein the second heating module and the first heating module are capable of working independently of each other (Paragraph 46); a detection device (109) configured to detect whether the middle spacer is mounted in place and to generate a corresponding detection signal (Paragraphs 42-43); and a controller (118), wherein the detection device, the first heating module, and the second heating module are electrically connected to the controller, the controller switches between a small cavity mode and a large cavity mode according to the detection signal, and when the middle spacer is mounted in place, the controller controls the oven to be in the small cavity mode (Paragraphs 42-43 describes the sensing of the middle spacer in place and communicates to the controller to control the respective heating elements).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Murad discloses the oven according to claim 1 above. Murad further discloses the box body is provided with a first and second guide rail in cooperation with the middle spacer (grooves 105T and 105B in the top/bottom of the box body), the middle spacer is vertically arranged (Figure 8 as an example) and the detection device comprises a microswitch (109).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Kim (KR 20060065951).
Murad discloses the oven according to claim 1 above.
Murad fails to teach a thermal insulation cavity is arranged in the middle spacer, and the thermal insulation cavity is located between the first small cavity and the second small cavity, a plurality of first brackets arranged at intervals are arranged in the thermal insulation cavity, each of the first brackets has one end connected to a first side wall of the thermal insulation cavity and the other end connected to a second side wall of the thermal insulation cavity, and the second side wall is arranged opposite to the first side wall.
Kim teaches an oven (Figure 2) with a middle spacer (20) arranged in the cooking cavity which divides the cooking cavity into multiple regions, the middle spacer includes a thermal insulation cavity arranged between the first and small cavity (Figure 3), a plurality of brackets (33) which connects from a first side of the thermally insulated wall to the other thermally insulated wall (Figures 3-4 shows the brackets 33 arranged between and connecting respective plate portions of the middle spacer).
Because Murad discloses a middle spacer for an oven, and because Kim also teaches a middle divider for an oven with a thermal insulation cavity therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Murad such that a thermal insulation cavity is arranged in the middle spacer, and the thermal insulation cavity is located between the first small cavity and the second small cavity, a plurality of first brackets arranged at intervals are arranged in the thermal insulation cavity, each of the first brackets has one end connected to a first side wall of the thermal insulation cavity and the other end connected to a second side wall of the thermal insulation cavity, and the second side wall is arranged opposite to the first side wall as taught by Kim for the purposes of thermally insulating each oven cavity with brackets for improving strength.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Kim (KR 20060065951), and further in view of Ishibashi (WO 2014103773) and Lang (DE 102004037093).
Murad in view of Kim teaches the oven according to claim 3 above.
Murad fails to teach the middle spacer comprises a first plate and a second plate arranged opposite to each other, the first plate has a first flange, the second plate has a second flange, the second flange is arranged against the first flange, and each of the first brackets has the one end connected to the first plate and the other end connected to the second plate.
Ishibashi various insulating panels formed of multiple plate portions opposite to one another (Figure 110 as an example). The opposed walls include thermal insulation material therebetween establishing a thermal insulation cavity, and each of the walls include a first and second flange arranged against one another (172, 173). Lang teaches a thin rectangular insulation piece formed of two plates which can include flanges (9) and there are multiple different arrangements and ways of attaching the respective plates to one another through said flanges (see Figure 4a-4d as an example). Additionally, Lang teaches the utilization of brackets (28, 29) that connect between the two plates (Figure 2).
Because Murad in view of Kim teaches the oven with a dividing element with a thermal insulating element included therein, and because Ishibashi teaches that panels with thermal insulation therebetween can be formed with connecting flanges, and because such dividing elements are typically constructed of thin metal which is taught by Ishibashi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Murad such that the middle spacer comprises a first plate and a second plate arranged opposite to each other, the first plate has a first flange, the second plate has a second flange, the second flange is arranged against the first flange as taught by Ishibashi and each of the first brackets has the one end connected to the first plate and the other end connected to the second plate as taught by Lang for the purposes of ease of manufacturing and assembly and strengthening of the middle spacer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Whittenburg (US 4484063).
Murad discloses the oven according to claim 5 above. Murad further discloses the middle spacer is vertically arranged (Figures 8-9) with respective electric heating elements arranged on two sides of the first guide rail (Figure 5 shows electric heating elements 125 on each side of the first guide rail).
Murad fails to teach second brackets for supporting an electric heating element of the first and second heating module arranged on two sides of the first guide rail.
Whittenburg teaches an analogous oven with a heating element (63) which is mounted with second brackets (65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Murad such that second brackets for supporting an electric heating element of the first and second heating module arranged on two sides of the first guide rail as taught by Whittenburg for the purposes of mounting the electric heating element in the respective cavity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Larsen (US 7735480).
Murad discloses the oven according to claim 1 above. Murad further discloses a first door body and a second door body, wherein the first door body opens or closes the first small cavity; the second door body opens or closes the second small cavity (doors 106L and 106R which open/close respective first/second cavities).
Murad fails to teach the first door body and the second door body are provided with a locking element, respectively, the box body is provided with corresponding door hooks, and each of the door hooks cooperates with a corresponding one of the locking elements in an inserted manner to lock or unlock the first door body or the second door body.
Larsen teaches a door locking mechanism for a double door oven with first/second doors (52, 53) and a box body (Figure 1), and each of the door bodies are provided with a locking element (apertures 169, 170 are considered equivalents thereof since they are part of the locking apparatus and opposed to the door hooks, accomplishing the same thing as locking the doors), and the door hooks cooperates with the corresponding locking elements in an inserted manner to lock/unlock the door bodies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Murad such that the first door body and the second door body are provided with a locking element, respectively, the box body is provided with corresponding door hooks, and each of the door hooks cooperates with a corresponding one of the locking elements in an inserted manner to lock or unlock the first door body or the second door body as taught by Larsen for the purposes of locking the doors while the oven is operational.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Larsen (US 7735480), and further in view of Kang (US 7299809).
Murad in view of Larsen teaches the oven according to claim 8 above.
Murad fails to teach the locking element comprises a mounting portion, a first elastic clamping jaw, and a second elastic clamping jaw, one end of the first elastic clamping jaw and one end of the second elastic clamping jaw are connected to the mounting portion, the other end of the first elastic clamping jaw and the other end of the second elastic clamping jaw are arranged opposite to each other and are provided with stopper portions to form clamping grooves, the door hooks are provided with stopper matching portions, and when the door hooks are inserted into the clamping grooves, the stopper matching portions abut against the stopper portions to restrict movement of the door hooks.
Kang teaches a locking mechanism for an appliance door with a door hook (72, 73) and an opposed locking element which comprises a mounting portion (see unlabeled area containing 76 and 80), a first elastic clamping jaw (74) and a second elastic clamping jaw (opposite side of first elastic clamping jaw), one end of the first and second elastic clamping jaws are arranged opposite to each other and connected to the mounting portion (Figure 4), each elastic clamping jaw provided with stopper portions (75) to form clamping grooves, the hooks forming stopper matching portions (73b) abutting against the stopper portions to restrict movement of the hooks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hook/latch mechanism of Murad in view of Larsen such that the locking element comprises a mounting portion, a first elastic clamping jaw, and a second elastic clamping jaw, one end of the first elastic clamping jaw and one end of the second elastic clamping jaw are connected to the mounting portion, the other end of the first elastic clamping jaw and the other end of the second elastic clamping jaw are arranged opposite to each other and are provided with stopper portions to form clamping grooves, the door hooks are provided with stopper matching portions, and when the door hooks are inserted into the clamping grooves, the stopper matching portions abut against the stopper portions to restrict movement of the door hooks as taught by Kang for the purposes of the device is elastically locked to or unlocked from the coupling member, whereby the door can be locked/unlocked with a less user's force. Therefore, the present invention provides the user with convenience in use as well as feeling of soft touch. As modified, Murad includes the door hooks on the box body as taught by Larsen with the elastic/hook combination as taught Kang.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murad (US 20220186937) in view of Larsen (US 7735480) and Kang (US 7299809), and further in view of Mitrik (US 20220163212).
Murad in view of Larsen and Kang teaches the oven according to claim 9 above. Murad further discloses the small cavity mode allows for independent operation of the heating modules (Paragraphs 42-43).
Murad fails to teach the small cavity mode comprises a first small cavity mode, a second small cavity mode, and a third small cavity mode; in the first small cavity mode, the first heating module operates, and the second heating module does not operate; in the second small cavity mode, the first heating module does not operate, and the second heating module operates; and in the third small cavity mode, both the first heating module and the second heating module operate.
Mitrik teaches an oven that separates the cavity into multiple compartments (Figure 6), and teaches that the areas can be independently operated. Mitrik teaches a first small cavity mode, a second small cavity mode, and a third small cavity mode; in the first small cavity mode, the first heating module operates, and the second heating module does not operate; in the second small cavity mode, the first heating module does not operate, and the second heating module operates; and in the third small cavity mode, both the first heating module and the second heating module operate (Paragraph 42 describes multiple independent operating modes that includes each compartment on while the other is off, or both on at the same time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven modes of Murad such that the small cavity mode comprises a first small cavity mode, a second small cavity mode, and a third small cavity mode; in the first small cavity mode, the first heating module operates, and the second heating module does not operate; in the second small cavity mode, the first heating module does not operate, and the second heating module operates; and in the third small cavity mode, both the first heating module and the second heating module operate as taught by Mitrik for the purposes of only utilizing the heating areas that are required, optimizing the energy use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745