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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3-7 and 9-10 depends on subsequent claim 23. The claims should be cancelled and introduced as claims 24-30, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 9-16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepsen et al [20150157173], further in view of Guidry [5878739].
With respect to claim 11, Jepsen discloses: An oven, comprising: a main body (20) defining a cooking cavity (area incorporating pizza stone 48); a first portion (above burner 60) of the main body defining first opening (35) for receiving a pizza and acting as an air vent [paragraph 0017, 0023]; a second portion (below pizza stone 48) defining a second opening (62); a gas burner including a gas burner tube extending through the second opening in the second portion [paragraph 0021]; wherein the gas burner is configured to combust a gas to heat the cooking cavity [paragraph 0023].
Jepsen further shows:
{cl. 12} The oven of claim 11, further comprising a baking stone (48) positioned within the cooking cavity to support the pizza [see FIG 7, paragraph 0019].
{cl. 15} The oven of claim 11, wherein smoke from the wood circulates to reach the pizza [paragraph 0023, with the understanding the Jepsen acknowledges the use of wood, see paragraph 0003, as a heat source, and shows that convective flow of the heat is passed to the stone].
{cl. 16} The oven of claim 15, wherein the smoke is configured to escape the first opening [paragraph 0023].
Jepsen, although acknowledges using wood as a source of fuel for the pizza oven [paragraph 0003], does not show the wood burning tray.
Guidry makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 11, cont’d} a wood burning tray (34) assembly positioned in the main body, the wood burning tray assembly including: a grate (38); and an ashtray (42) defining an opening (33) through which the gas burner tube of the gas burner extends [see FIGs 4-6, col 4, line 17-29]; and wherein the gas burner tube is positioned to ignite wood on the grate of the wood burning tray assembly to further heat the cooking cavity [col 2, line 13-31].
Guidry further shows:
{cl. 13} The oven of claim 11, wherein the grate (38) is positioned on the ashtray (34, 95) of the wood burning tray assembly [see FIG 6, col 4, line 17-29].
{cl. 14} The oven of claim 11, wherein the grate defines a plurality of grate openings (48) that allow air to reach the wood positioned thereon and ash from the wood to fall into the ashtray once the wood is combusted [see FIG 4, col 3, line 25-34].
{cl. 20} The oven of claim 11, wherein the cooking cavity is configured to allow heat from the gas burner and smoke from the wood to circulate within the cooking cavity and exhaust out the first opening [col 3, line 59-col 4, line 16].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jepsen with the teachings of Guidry because Guidry provides a known arrangement that offers uniform heat and easy ignition of wood to further impart flavor in the cooking process, with the added benefit of using different heat sources simultaneously or individually.
With respect to claim 21, Jepsen discloses: A pizza oven, comprising: a main body (20) defining an opening (35) for receiving a pizza and a cooking cavity for cooking the pizza [paragraph 0017]; a baking stone (48) positioned within the cooking cavity upon which the pizza is placed for cooking [paragraph 0019]; a first source of heat positioned within the cooking cavity to cook the pizza on the baking stone [paragraph 0023].
Jepsen, although acknowledges using wood as a source of fuel for the pizza oven [paragraph 0003], does not show the differing heat sources.
Guidry makes up for these deficiencies by teaching a first heat source (30), and
{cl. 21, cont’d} a second source of heat (35) positioned within the cooking cavity to cook the pizza on the baking stone; wherein the first source of heat is different from the second source of heat [see abstract, FIGs 4-6, col 2, line 13-31, col 3, line 59-col 4, line 16].
Guidry further teaches:
{cl. 22} The pizza oven of claim 21, wherein the first source of heat is one of: gas, wood, charcoal, and pellets [see abstract].
{cl. 23} The pizza oven of claim 21, further comprising: a wood burning tray (38) assembly including a grate positioned in the main body as the first source of heat; and a gas burner (30) positioned adjacent to the wood burning tray assembly as the second source of heat; wherein the gas burner is configured to combust a gas to heat the cooking cavity; and wherein the gas burner is positioned to ignite wood on the grate of the wood burning tray assembly to further heat the cooking cavity [col 2, line 13-31].
{cl. 3} The pizza oven of claim 23, wherein the wood burning tray assembly further comprises an ashtray (34, 95) defining an ashtray opening through which a gas burner tube of the gas burner extends [col 4, line 17-29].
{cl. 4} The pizza oven of claim 3, wherein the grate is positioned on the ashtray of the wood burning tray assembly [see FIGs 5 and 6].
{cl. 5} The pizza oven of claim 4, wherein the grate defines a plurality of openings (48) that allow air to reach the wood positioned thereon and ash from the wood to fall into the ashtray once the wood is combusted [see FIG 4, col 3, line 25-34].
Jepsen further shows:
{cl. 6} The pizza oven of claim 23 wherein smoke from the wood circulates to reach the pizza. [paragraph 0023, with the understanding the Jepsen acknowledges the use of wood, see paragraph 0003, as a heat source, and shows that convective flow of the heat is passed to the stone].
{cl. 10} The pizza oven of claim 23, wherein the gas burner extends through the wood burning tray assembly [see FIG 4 of Guidry].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jepsen with the teachings of Guidry because Guidry provides a cooking apparatus usable with differing heat sources to maximize oven temperatures for the cooking process.
Claim(s) 7 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jepsen et al [20150157173], in view of Guidry [5878739], further in view of Tapaninaho [20180213973].
With respect to claims 7 and 17-19, Jepsen shows the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the hatch as further claimed.
Tapaninaho makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 7} The pizza oven of claim 23, further comprising a hatch opening (at 13) defined in the main body sized to allow for access to the grate positioned in the cooking cavity [see FIGs 1 and 14, paragraph 0108, 0111].
{cl. 17} The oven of claim 11, further comprising a hatch opening (at 13) defined in the main body at the second portion to allow for access to the grate positioned in the cooking cavity [see FIGs 1 and 14, paragraph 0108, 0111].
{cl. 18} The oven of claim 17, further comprising a hatch door (13) sized to cover the hatch opening [see FIGs 1 and 14, paragraph 0108, 0111].
{cl. 19} The oven of claim 18, wherein the hatch door includes a handle (14) to allow the hatch door to be removed from the hatch opening to access the grate [see FIGs 1 and 14, paragraph 0108, 0111].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jepsen with the teachings of Tapaninaho because Tapaninaho provides a door to open or close the oven opening to prevent heat loss and ensure proper cooking temperatures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Engelhardt [20070108177] is considered pertinent art for the teaching of using wood, a gas burner and ash collector similarly as claimed [see FIG 1, paragraph 0016, 0083-0087, elements 20, 24, 16, 26, 90].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
10/1/2025