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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their January 7, 2026 response to the Office Action filed October 8, 2025. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the previous objection and that objection is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 has overcome the previous rejection under 3 USC 112(b) and that rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 and line 5, it is suggested that “each end of the frame coupling portions” should read “each of the frame coupling portions”.
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 blocking member”, which is being interpreted as an elastically deformable material, such as a gasket, that blocks or prevents heat from flowing between the door duct and the inner glass, or functional equivalents.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0033143 by Lee (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of GB 2013872 (hereinafter “GB ‘872”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a cooking apparatus (Abstract, Fig 1 oven 1) comprising:
a main body that includes a cooking room in which an opening is formed at a front side of the cooking room, the opening configured to be capable of food to be put in and taken out of the cooking room through the opening, and to contain heat for cooking the food (Fig 2 casing 10 with cooking chamber 30); and
a door rotatably coupled to the main body at a front side of the opening and configured to open or close the opening (Fig 2 door assembly 100), the door including:
an outer glass that forms a front side of the door (Fig 2 front plate 101; paragraph [0065]), an inner glass positioned behind the outer glass to face the cooking room (Fig 2 rear plate 102, paragraph [0066]),
a door duct positioned between the outer glass and the inner glass and configured to guide air flowing between the outer glass and the inner glass to outside of the door (Figs 4-6 top cover 107, airflow shown in Fig 6).
But Lee does not teach a blocking member positioned in an accommodating space formed by the door duct below the door duct and above the inner glass, the blocking member configured to prevent heat contained in the cooking room from leaking out from between the inner glass and the door duct.
However, GB ‘872 teaches a cooking apparatus (Fig 1) having a door (Fig 2 door 3), wherein the door includes an outer glass (Fig 2 external glazed panel 5), an inner glass (Fig 2 inner glazed panel 6), a door duct between the inner and outer glass (Fig 2 air flow channel at top of glass panes delimited on a bottom portion by spacers 8 and 9 and in the rear by portions of frame 7) and which forms an accommodating space below the door duct and above the inner glass (Fig 2), and a blocking member positioned in the accommodating space and configured to prevent heat contained in the cooking room from leaking out between the inner glass and the door duct (Fig 2 perimetral gasket 10, shown with cross-hatching, in the accommodating space below the door duct and above inner glass; gasket would perform this function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking apparatus of Lee by including a blocking member in an accommodating space below the door duct and above the inner glass in order to seal the space between the door duct and the inner glass and prevent heat from the cooking space from entering the door though this space.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that the door duct includes: a first body positioned parallel to and behind the outer glass (see Examiner Annotated Figure A below, hereinafter “EAF A”); a second body bent from the first body and forming an upper surface of the door duct (EAF A below); a third body bent from the second body and formed with a communication hole configured so that air flowing between the outer glass and the inner glass is discharged outside the door (EAF A, third body includes outlet 108); and a fourth body bent from the third body and extending to a rear portion of the inner glass (EAF A).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 6 of Lee, showing the first, second, third, and fourth body of the door duct 107
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches that the door further includes a duct bracket coupled to an inner surface of the third body of the door duct (Fig 5 and Fig 6 handle plate 112, see also EAF A).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches that the duct bracket includes:
a bracket body (Fig 6 first handle plate 112a of bracket 112),
a duct coupling flange extending upward from the bracket body and coupled to the third body of the door duct (Fig 6 second handle plate 112b of bracket 112), and
a support flange extending downward from the bracket body and extending to a front portion of the inner glass (Figs 5 and 6 holder 125a).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches that the door further includes a door frame on a side of the door on a rear surface of the outer glass and configured to support the door duct and the inner glass at the side (Fig 5 side frames 103).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of GB ‘872 and in further view of US 3,996,710 by Nuss (hereinafter “Nuss”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee modified with GB ‘872 teaches the cooking apparatus of claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/GB ‘872 does not explicitly teach that the duct bracket includes a metal material configured to be welded onto the door duct.
However, Nuss teaches a cooking apparatus with a cooking room and a door (Fig 1 oven 16 with door 20), a door duct positioned between an outer glass and an inner glass and configured to guide air flowing between the outer glass and the inner glass to outside of the door (Figs 2 door duct made up of outer door panel 34 and inner door liner 36 at top of door and allowing for air to pass through to outlet slots 118). Nuss further teaches that components of the door are generally made of sheet metal (col 2 line 56-58), including a duct bracket coupled to the interior of the door duct (Fig 2 sheet metal insulation guard 106; col 3 line 61-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the duct bracket of Lee from metal, as taught by Nuss, since a metal material is durable, capable of withstanding high temperatures, and easily formed. The duct bracket made of metal would then be capable of being welded to the door duct, as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Lee modified with GB ‘872 teaches the cooking apparatus of claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/GB ‘872 does not explicitly teach that the blocking member includes a glass giber material.
However, Nuss teaches a cooking apparatus with a cooking room and a door (Fig 1 oven 16 with door 20) and a blocking member made of a glass fiber material positioned between a door duct and an inner glass (Fig 2 gasket 88 positioned in recess 86 between inner door liner 36 of door duct 34/36 and inner glass 92; col 3 line 41-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooking appliance of Lee with the blocking member taught by GB ‘872, to make the blocking member of glass fiber material, as taught by Nuss, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP 2144.07) Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. In the instant case, using glass fiber would be an obvious choice since it is known to be durable, resistant to high temperatures, and effective for sealing between components of a cooking appliance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of GB ‘872 and in further view of US 2013/0097937 by Flasher (hereinafter “Flasher”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee modified with GB ‘872 teaches the cooking apparatus of claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Lee, as modified by GB ‘872, also teaches that the blocking member is positioned on an upper surface of the inner glass to seal a gap between the inner glass and the door duct (GB ‘872 teaches the blocking member 10 is on an upper surface of inner glass 6 and seals a gap between inner glass and door duct. The modification of Lee with GB ‘872 results in the blocking member in this position and performing this function).
But Lee/GB ‘872 does not explicitly teach that the door further includes an adhesive member positioned on the door duct and configured to adhere the blocking member to the door duct.
However, Flasher teaches a home appliance, which may be a cooking apparatus (Fig 7 device 170, which may be an oven, paragraph [0033]), and which includes a gasket, or blocking member, to close a gap and retain heat in the oven (Fig 7 gasket 10; paragraph [0003]). Flasher teaches that the gasket is adhered to the door of the apparatus with an adhesive (Fig 7 gasket 10 adhered to door 150 with adhesive; paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking apparatus of Lee/GB ‘872 by including an adhesive member on the door duct and configured to adhere the blocking member to the duct in order to hold the blocking member in position, during and after assembly.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of GB ‘872 and in further view of KR 20170016580A by Lee (hereinafter “KR ‘580”).
Regarding claim 13, Lee modified with GB ‘872 teaches the cooking apparatus of claim 12. See details in parent claim 12 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Figure 5 of Lee also shows portions of the door duct extending downward from each end of the door duct as well as portions extending upward from the frame, but Lee does not explicitly disclose that these are coupling portions and are configured to be coupled together.
However, KR ‘580 teaches a similar door for a cooking apparatus (Fig 1 door 40 of oven), the door comprising an outer glass (Fig 10 front plate 41), an inner glass (Fig 10 rear glass 42), a door duct (Fig 4 door duct 100), and a door frame (Fig 4 support frame 45). KR ‘580 teaches that the door duct includes a frame coupling portion extending downward from each end of the door duct (Fig 5), and the door frame includes a duct fastening portion configured to be coupled to the frame coupling portion at each end of the door duct (Fig 5 coupling part 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking apparatus of Lee/GB ‘872 by including a frame coupling portion extending downward from each end of the door duct and a duct fastening portion on the door frame configured to be coupled to each frame coupling portion, in order to securely connect the door duct to the door frame. This would also result in the blocking member being compressed between the inner glass and the door duct when the duct fastening portion is coupled to the frame coupling portions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of GB ‘872 and in further view of US 2023/0221008 by Bernauer et al (hereinafter “Bernauer”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee modified with GB ‘872 teaches the cooking apparatus of claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Lee/GB ‘872 does not explicitly teach that the door is not formed with a handle.
However, Bernauer teaches a cooking apparatus (Abstract, Fig 1) with a similar oven door having a door duct (Fig 10, shielding facility 22C on door 3C; shielding facility 22C with ventilation slots 38 shown in Fig 13). Bernauer further teaches that the door may be formed without a handle (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking apparatus of Lee/GB ‘872 such that the door is not formed with a handle, since Bernauer teaches that an oven door may optionally be formed without a handle, and since the door without a handle may be easier to manufacture and easier to clean.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 was indicated in the previous Office Action as including allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a cooking apparatus with all of the limitations of the claim, particularly the limitation that “the door further includes an insulation member positioned between the door duct and the outer glass.” The prior art of Lee does not teach this limitation, nor does GB ‘872. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the cooking apparatus of Lee/GB’872 with this limitation. Since Lee/GB 872 uses active cooling via air flow to cool the door outer glass, it would not be obvious to then position an insulation member between the outer glass and the door duct carrying the cooling air flow. Therefore, this limitation, combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable at least because they depend from and include all of the limitations of an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762