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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,498,554 (hereinafter “KLEIN”) in view of US 2,480,045 (hereinafter “REEVES”).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
1696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-9, KLEIN discloses an oven appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the oven appliance comprising: a plurality of sidewalls (see Col. 2, Ln. 52 through Col. 3, Ln. 2: “Also, while in the structure shown, the spring is on the rear wall, it is within the scope of my invention to place the spring 30, the rear ledge 24 and the strip 36 on one of the side walls of the oven compartment and the supporting ledge 22 and the keeper 37 on the opposite side wall.”) defining a cooking chamber (10) within a cabinet (see Fig. 1); a bottom panel (see 16) selectively received within the cooking chamber; a panel bracket (24) provided at a bottom of the cabinet; and an elastic member (30) provided between the bottom panel and the panel bracket, wherein the elastic member is configured to selectively bias the bottom panel toward a front of the oven appliance (see Col. 2, Lns. 43-46: “In this position, the spring 30 urges the bottom 16 forwardly, or to the left as viewed in Fig. 2, and thus firmly holds the bottom in position.”); wherein the elastic member is a cantilever spring attached to the panel bracket (the elastic member 30 is attached to the panel bracket 24 at or by bolt 32, the left and right halves of elastic member 30 respectively comprise cantilever springs spanning between the attachment point 32 and the left and right ends 34 of the elastic member); wherein the cantilever spring comprises a fixed end (see 32) and a free end (34), and wherein the fixed end of the cantilever spring is integral with the panel bracket (24); wherein the panel bracket forms a burner housing provided beneath the cooking chamber, and wherein the elastic member is provided within the burner housing (see the chamber which houses the “gas burners” indicated in Fig. 2); wherein the plurality of sidewalls comprises a rear wall (28), the bottom panel being at least partially received under the rear wall in an installed position (the bottom panel 16 is partially received under the rear wall flange 36); wherein the rear wall comprises a bottom flange (36) protruding forward along the transverse direction, wherein the elastic member (30) is provided below the bottom flange (36) along the vertical direction; wherein the bottom flange (36) overlaps the bottom panel (16) along the vertical direction for a predetermined length (see at least Fig. 2); wherein the bottom panel is selectively coupled to the oven appliance via one or more fasteners provided at a front of the bottom panel along the transverse direction (see Col. 2, Lns. 9-12: “The front wall 26 carries a horizontal, inwardly io projecting strip 37 which overlaps the front edge of the bottom 16 and serves as a keeper to hold the bottom 16 in position.”).
With regard to the claim amendment to Claim 1: at least a portion (i.e., the portion attached via bolt 32) of the elastic member (30) is integrally formed with the panel bracket (24). It is noted that Applicant’s specification only mentions the word “integral” at para. [0037] which states: “For at least one example, elastic members 2081 and 2082 are cantilever springs attached to panel bracket 206. Thus, elastic members 2081 and 2082 may be integral with panel bracket 206. In detail, elastic member 208 (e.g., first elastic member 2081 or second elastic member 2082) may include a fixed end 210 and a free end 212, such that fixed end 210 is integral with panel bracket 206.” (Bolding and italics mine, used to emphasize that attached to and comprising a fixed end is understood as comprising integral according to Applicant’s specification.) KLEIN discloses a cantilever spring (30) attached to the panel bracket (24); thus, elastic member (30) is integral with the panel bracket (24). Furthermore, see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
KLEIN further suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, a door movable between an open position and a closed position to selectively open and close the cooking chamber.
REEVES teaches an oven comprising: a door (15) movable between an open position and a closed position (compare Figs. 1 and 2) to selectively open and close the cooking chamber (7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify KLEIN to further comprise a door movable between an open position and a closed position to selectively open and close the cooking chamber as taught and/or suggested by REEVES, since such a modification would provide a means of preventing heat from escaping said cooking chamber during a cooking cycle. This is essential for maintaining a stable, consistent temperature for baking, roasting, and other cooking processes.
Regarding Claim 2, KLEIN further discloses wherein the elastic member is a first elastic member (see the left half of elastic member 30 in Fig. 3) provided at a first lateral side of the panel bracket (i.e., the lateral side covered by said left half of elastic member 30), and wherein the oven appliance further comprises a second elastic member (see the right half of elastic member 30 in Fig. 3) provided at a second lateral side of the panel bracket opposite the first elastic member (i.e., the lateral side covered by said right half of elastic member 30).
KLEIN does not disclose the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify KLEIN wherein the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Separating said first and second elastic member would result in the first lateral side and the first elastic member being spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member. Further still, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify KLEIN to comprise two elastic members (30) which would result in the elastic member (30) comprising a first elastic member (i.e., the first instance of elastic member 30) provided at a first lateral side of the panel bracket (i.e., that side of the panel bracket 24 covered by the first instance of elastic member 30), and wherein the oven appliance further comprises a second elastic member (i.e., a second instance of elastic member 30) provided at a second lateral side of the panel bracket opposite the first elastic member (i.e., that side of the panel bracket 24 covered by the second instance of the elastic member 30), the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member (i.e., the separate instances of elastic member 30), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also DUPLICATION OF PARTS: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). In the present case, modifying KLEIN to comprise two separate elastic members would enhance the intended biasing force applied to said bottom panel.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLEIN.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12-18, KLEIN discloses a cavity assembly for an appliance, the cavity assembly defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the cavity assembly comprising: a plurality of sidewalls (see Col. 2, Ln. 52 through Col. 3, Ln. 2: “Also, while in the structure shown, the spring is on the rear wall, it is within the scope of my invention to place the spring 30, the rear ledge 24 and the strip 36 on one of the side walls of the oven compartment and the supporting ledge 22 and the keeper 37 on the opposite side wall.”) defining a chamber (10); a bottom panel (see 16) removably provided within the chamber; a panel bracket (24) provided at a bottom of the chamber, wherein the bottom panel and the panel bracket collectively form a housing below the chamber (see the chamber which houses the “gas burners” indicated in Fig. 2); and an elastic member (30) provided between the bottom panel and the panel bracket within the housing, wherein the elastic member is configured to selectively bias the bottom panel toward a front of the appliance (see Col. 2, Lns. 43-46: “In this position, the spring 30 urges the bottom 16 forwardly, or to the left as viewed in Fig. 2, and thus firmly holds the bottom in position.”); wherein the elastic member is a cantilever spring attached to the panel bracket (the elastic member 30 is attached to the panel bracket 24 at or by bolt 32, the left and right halves of elastic member 30 respectively comprise cantilever springs spanning between the attachment point 32 and the left and right ends 34 of the elastic member); wherein the cantilever spring comprises a fixed end (i.e., at attachment point 32) and a free end (i.e., at end 34), and wherein the fixed end of the cantilever spring is integral with the panel bracket (24); wherein the plurality of sidewalls comprises a rear wall (28), the bottom panel being at least partially received under the rear wall in an installed position (the bottom panel 16 is partially received under the rear wall flange 36); wherein the rear wall comprises a bottom flange (36) protruding forward along the transverse direction, wherein the elastic member (30) is provided below the bottom flange (36) along the vertical direction; wherein the bottom flange (36) overlaps the bottom panel (16) along the vertical direction for a predetermined length (see at least Fig. 2); wherein the bottom panel (16) is selectively coupled to the panel bracket via one or more fasteners (37) provided at a front of the bottom panel along the transverse direction (see Col. 2, Lns. 9-12: “The front wall 26 carries a horizontal, inwardly io projecting strip 37 which overlaps the front edge of the bottom 16 and serves as a keeper to hold the bottom 16 in position.”); wherein the appliance is a cooking appliance, the chamber is a cooking chamber (oven compartment 10), and the housing is a heating element housing in which one or more heating elements are provided (see again the chamber which houses the “gas burners” indicated in Fig. 2).
With regard to the claim amendment to Claim 10: at least a portion (i.e., the portion attached via bolt 32) of the elastic member (30) is integrally formed with the panel bracket (24). It is noted that Applicant’s specification only mentions the word “integral” at para. [0037] which states: “For at least one example, elastic members 2081 and 2082 are cantilever springs attached to panel bracket 206. Thus, elastic members 2081 and 2082 may be integral with panel bracket 206. In detail, elastic member 208 (e.g., first elastic member 2081 or second elastic member 2082) may include a fixed end 210 and a free end 212, such that fixed end 210 is integral with panel bracket 206.” (Bolding and italics mine, used to emphasize that attached to and comprising a fixed end is understood as comprising integral according to Applicant’s specification.) KLEIN discloses a cantilever spring (30) attached to the panel bracket (24); thus, elastic member (30) is integral with the panel bracket (24). Furthermore, see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Regarding Claim 11, KLEIN further discloses wherein the elastic member is a first elastic member (see the left half of elastic member 30 in Fig. 3) provided at a first lateral side of the panel bracket (i.e., the lateral side covered by said left half of elastic member 30), and wherein the cavity assembly further comprises a second elastic member (see the right half of elastic member 30 in Fig. 3) provided at a second lateral side of the panel bracket opposite the first elastic member (i.e., the lateral side covered by said right half of elastic member 30).
KLEIN does not disclose the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify KLEIN wherein the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Separating said first and second elastic member would result in the first lateral side and the first elastic member being spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member. Further still, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify KLEIN to comprise two elastic members (30) which would result in the elastic member (30) comprising a first elastic member (i.e., the first instance of elastic member 30) provided at a first lateral side of the panel bracket (i.e., that side of the panel bracket 24 covered by the first instance of elastic member 30), and wherein the oven appliance further comprises a second elastic member (i.e., a second instance of elastic member 30) provided at a second lateral side of the panel bracket opposite the first elastic member (i.e., that side of the panel bracket 24 covered by the second instance of the elastic member 30), the first lateral side and the first elastic member spaced apart from the second lateral side and the second elastic member (i.e., the separate instances of elastic member 30), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also DUPLICATION OF PARTS: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). In the present case, modifying KLEIN to comprise two separate elastic members would enhance the intended biasing force applied to said bottom panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights