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 .
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections are withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Applicant argues that silicon based material should be interpreted as any amount of silicon based material.
Examiner disagrees. It still remains unclear what constitutes a silicon “based” material. How much silicon would read on “based”? The spec and arguments do not clarify and the response only suggests any amount of “silicon based material” would read on the claim.
Applicant argues that Garces does not teach a silicon based material as the seal and further traverses the offices position that providing silicon as a sealant is readily understood in the art.
Examiner agrees that Garces does not explicitly teach the seals including a silicon based material and has provided a reference of such a known sealant.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 term “silicone based material” in claims 1, 7, 10 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “silicone based material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what amount of silicone would be necessary to read on silicone based. Would it need to be over 50wt%? or simply the majority component?
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.
Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to include the limitation, “at least in part from a silicon-based material”. The specification does not provide support for this limitation. The specification does not disclose the seal is formed of anything other than the silicon based material. The claim as amended appears to be open to the seal comprised of the silicon based material and another material.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garces et al. (PGPub# US 20190335774 A1) in view of LavaLock (Amazon.com: LavaLock RTV 600 F BBQ Grill Smoker Sealer & Gasket Maker High Temp Silicon Adhesive 3 oz. (2.8 Fluid Ounce) : Patio, Lawn & Garden) Available 6/2/2022.
Regarding claim 1, Garces teaches an indoor smoker (figure 1) comprising: a cabinet 102 defining a discharge vent 200; a smoking chamber 120 positioned within the cabinet and defining a plurality of openings, the plurality of openings comprising a chamber inlet (158 mislabeled 160 in figure 1) and a chamber outlet 160; a smoke generation system (150, 184, 176) positioned within the cabinet in fluid communication with the smoking chamber; an exhaust duct 202 provided between the chamber outlet and the discharge vent; an air handler 190 provided within the exhaust duct for urging a flow of smoke from the smoking chamber, through the exhaust duct, and out of the discharge vent, the air handler creating a negative pressure within the smoking chamber (par. 46-47); a catalytic converter (210 214)positioned within the exhaust duct upstream from the air handler, the catalytic converter comprising a catalytic element 210 and a catalyst heater 214; and a plurality of seals provided within the cabinet, the plurality of seals comprising: an inlet seal 230 provided at the chamber inlet between the smoke generation system and the smoking chamber; and an outlet seal 232 provided at the chamber outlet between the exhaust duct and the smoking chamber. (figures 1-5 and par. 42-45 and 56: Dampers read on seals as the can be moved into position to block smoke from entering or exiting smoke chamber.) Garces further teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
Garces does not explicitly teach the seals are formed at least in part from a silicon based material.
However, LavaLock teaches a silicone caulk sealant for use with smokers that is used for sealing and making gaskets. LavaLock teaches the sealant, “Works great on lids, gaskets, doors, cracks & anywhere”. (pages 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the silicon caulk of LavaLock, for the seals and all other seals of Garces, in order to provide the smoker with a sealed smoke chamber as desired by Garces.
Regarding claim 2, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein an airflow capacity of the air handler is directly proportional to a volumetric size of the smoking chamber.
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 3, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein a negative pressure value created by the air handler within the smoking chamber is directly proportional to the airflow capacity of the air handler.
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37) Garcia further teaches that a negative pressure environment is needed for the smoke chamber. (par. 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate/negative pressure as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity/negative pressure as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate and smoke conditions within the smoking chamber. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 4, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the negative pressure within the smoking chamber created by the air handler is between minus 10 and minus 20 Pascals (Pa).
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37) Garcia further teaches that a negative pressure environment is needed for the smoke chamber. (par. 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate/negative pressure as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity/negative pressure as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate and smoke conditions within the smoking chamber. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 5, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of openings further comprises: a probe port; a cavity light port; and a temperature sensor port.
However, Garces teaches that a variety of sensors such as one or more temperature sensor and humidity sensors can be placed withing the smoking chamber and connected to a controller 140. (Par. 30-31)
Further, the examiner takes official notice that prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known in the art to include lights sensors temperature probes within a cooking chamber such as an indoor oven for allowing sight of the food and monitor food temperature and environment while cooking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a variety of ports into the smoking chamber of Garces, for the purpose of adding sensors, and probes into the smoking chamber for allowing sight of the food and monitor food temperature and environment while cooking.
Regarding claim 6, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of seals further comprises: a probe port seal provided at the probe port; a cavity light seal provided at the cavity light port; and a temperature sensor port seal provided at the temperature sensor port.
However, Garces teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealed all entry points of the smoking chamber in order to retain smoke and heat within the chamber as taught by Garces.
Regarding claim 7, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of seals is formed from a silicon based material.
Garces does not explicitly teach the seals are formed at least in part from a silicon based material.
However, LavaLock teaches a silicone caulk sealant for use with smokers that is used for sealing and making gaskets. LavaLock teaches the sealant, “Works great on lids, gaskets, doors, cracks & anywhere”. (pages 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the silicon caulk of LavaLock, for the seals and all other seals of Garces, in order to provide the smoker with a sealed smoke chamber as desired by Garces.
Regarding claim 8, Garces teaches a door 126 rotatably attached to the cabinet to provide selective access to the smoking chamber. (par. 21)
Garces does not explicitly teach a door seal provided around a periphery of the door.
However, Garces teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealed all entry points of the smoking chamber in order to retain smoke and heat within the chamber as taught by Garces.
Regarding claim 9, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the exhaust duct is fixed to the smoking chamber via a plurality of fasteners.
The examiner takes official notice that prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known in the art that ducts and other parts of a smoking appliance can be attached by use of a plurality of fasteners to prevent undesired movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of fasteners to attach the exhaust duct to the smoking chamber in order to prevent undesired movement.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garces et al. (PGPub# US 20190335774 A1) in view of Garces2 (PGPub# US2021/0037840 A1) and LavaLock (Amazon.com: LavaLock RTV 600 F BBQ Grill Smoker Sealer & Gasket Maker High Temp Silicon Adhesive 3 oz. (2.8 Fluid Ounce) : Patio, Lawn & Garden) Available 6/2/2022.
Regarding claim 10, Garces teaches an indoor smoker (figure 1) comprising: a cabinet 102 defining a discharge vent 200; a smoking chamber 120 positioned within the cabinet and defining a plurality of openings, the plurality of openings comprising a chamber inlet (158 mislabeled 160 in figure 1) and a chamber outlet 160; a smoke generation system (150, 184, 176) positioned within the cabinet in fluid communication with the smoking chamber the system having a smoldering heater 184; an exhaust duct 202 provided between the chamber outlet and the discharge vent; an air handler 190 provided within the exhaust duct for urging a flow of smoke from the smoking chamber, through the exhaust duct, and out of the discharge vent, the air handler creating a negative pressure within the smoking chamber (par. 46-47); a catalytic converter (210 214)positioned within the exhaust duct upstream from the air handler, the catalytic converter comprising a catalytic element 210 and a catalyst heater 214; and a plurality of seals provided within the cabinet, the plurality of seals comprising: an inlet seal 230 provided at the chamber inlet between the smoke generation system and the smoking chamber; and an outlet seal 232 provided at the chamber outlet between the exhaust duct and the smoking chamber. (figures 1-5 and par. 42-45 and 56: Dampers read on seals as the can be moved into position to block smoke from entering or exiting smoke chamber.) Garces further teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
Garces does not explicitly teach the smoke generation system comprising a hopper and an auger.
However, Garces2 teaches a similar indoor smoking system that includes a hopper 244 and auger 240 for selectively adding combustible material into the smoke generation system. (par. 42 and figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the auger/hopper system of Garces2, into the smoke generation system of Garces, in order to allow for selectively adding combustible material into the smoke generation system as taught by Garces2.
Garces in view of Garves2 does not explicitly teach the seals are formed at least in part from a silicon based material.
However, LavaLock teaches a silicone caulk sealant for use with smokers that is used for sealing and making gaskets. LavaLock teaches the sealant, “Works great on lids, gaskets, doors, cracks & anywhere”. (pages 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the silicon caulk of LavaLock, for the seals and all other seals of Garces in view of Garces2, in order to provide the smoker with a sealed smoke chamber as desired by Garces.
Regarding claim 11, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein an airflow capacity of the air handler is directly proportional to a volumetric size of the smoking chamber.
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 12, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein a negative pressure value created by the air handler within the smoking chamber is directly proportional to the airflow capacity of the air handler.
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37) Garcia further teaches that a negative pressure environment is needed for the smoke chamber. (par. 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate/negative pressure as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity/negative pressure as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate and smoke conditions within the smoking chamber. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 13, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the negative pressure within the smoking chamber created by the air handler is between minus 10 and minus 20 Pascals (Pa).
However, Garces teaches that the air handler is a variable speed fan that can be used to control the amount of smoke drawn from the smoke generation system and depending on need to quickly evacuate the smoking chamber. (par. 37) Garcia further teaches that a negative pressure environment is needed for the smoke chamber. (par. 46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the capacity of the fan in any manner desired in order to provide the desired evacuation rate/negative pressure as necessary as taught by Garces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized the result-effective variable of air flow capacity/negative pressure as evidenced by Garces in order to achieve the desired evacuation rate and smoke conditions within the smoking chamber. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 14, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of openings further comprises: a probe port; a cavity light port; and a temperature sensor port.
However, Garces teaches that a variety of sensors such as one or more temperature sensor and humidity sensors can be placed withing the smoking chamber and connected to a controller 140. (Par. 30-31)
Further, the examiner takes official notice that prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known in the art to include lights sensors temperature probes within a cooking chamber such as a indoor oven for allowing sight of the food and monitor food temperature and environment while cooking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a variety of ports into the smoking chamber of Garces, for the purpose of adding sensors, and probes into the smoking chamber for allowing sight of the food and monitor food temperature and environment while cooking.
Regarding claim 15, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of seals further comprises: a probe port seal provided at the probe port; a cavity light seal provided at the cavity light port; and a temperature sensor port seal provided at the temperature sensor port.
However, Garces teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealed all entry points of the smoking chamber in order to retain smoke and heat within the chamber as taught by Garces.
Regarding claim 16, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of seals is formed from a silicon based material.
Garces in view of Garves2 does not explicitly teach the seals are formed at least in part from a silicon based material.
However, LavaLock teaches a silicone caulk sealant for use with smokers that is used for sealing and making gaskets. LavaLock teaches the sealant, “Works great on lids, gaskets, doors, cracks & anywhere”. (pages 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the silicon caulk of LavaLock, for the seals and all other seals of Garces in view of Garces2, in order to provide the smoker with a sealed smoke chamber as desired by Garces.
Regarding claim 17, Garces teaches a door 126 rotatably attached to the cabinet to provide selective access to the smoking chamber. (par. 21)
Garces does not explicitly teach a door seal provided around a periphery of the door.
However, Garces teaches that the smoking chamber should be sealed to retain smoke and heat with the chamber. (par. 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealed all entry points of the smoking chamber in order to retain smoke and heat within the chamber as taught by Garces.
Regarding claim 18, Garces does not explicitly teach wherein the exhaust duct is fixed to the smoking chamber via a plurality of fasteners.
The examiner takes official notice that prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it was known in the art that ducts and other parts of a smoking applicant can be attached by use of a plurality of fasteners to prevent undesired movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of fasteners to attach the exhaust duct to the smoking chamber in order to prevent undesired movement.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Garces in view of Garces2 does not explicitly teach wherein: the inlet seal is stationary at the chamber inlet; the outlet seal is stationary at the chamber outlet; and the inlet seal being stationary at the chamber inlet and the outlet seal being stationary at the chamber outlet promotes creation of the negative pressure within the smoking chamber by the air handler, and wherein the silicon-based material of the inlet and outlet seals comprises a silicon caulk.
However, LavaLock teaches a silicone caulk sealant for use with smokers that is used for sealing and making gaskets. LavaLock teaches the sealant, “Works great on lids, gaskets, doors, cracks & anywhere”. (pages 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the silicon caulk of LavaLock, for the seals and all other seals of Garces in view of Garces2, in order to provide the smoker with a sealed smoke chamber as desired by Garces.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights