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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 09/23/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of KR10-2022-0120531 application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 cites “is configured to be move”. This should be “moved”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bernauer et al., WO 2022017794, citations in this OA are referred to US 20230296260 (hereafter Bernauer).
Regarding claim 1, A cooking appliance (1) comprising: a casing (7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ) configured to form part of a cavity (cooking chamber 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
484
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Bernauer
and a door (3) configured to open and close the cavity, wherein the door comprises: a transparent door assembly(Paragraph [8] teaches “ The outer pane, the inner pane and the intermediate panes are preferably transparent at least in some portions.”) configured to allow a user to view inside the cavity; and a door frame (Fig. 2) to couple to the transparent door assembly,
PNG
media_image2.png
552
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Bernauer
and the door frame including first (18) and second (19) side frames, an upper frame,( Fig. 2) and a lower frame that extends from a first end to a second end, (Strip 26 comprises lower frame)
wherein the first end of the lower frame is to be assembled to the first side frame, and the second end of the lower frame is to be assembled to the second side frame, ( Fig. 2)
and a drainage guide (condensate collecting strip 26) is provided between the first and second ends of the lower frame, (Fig. 2)
and the drainage guide is inclined from the lower frame and towards the casing. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 2,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the lower frame is configured to be slidingly coupled to the first and second side frames, (The limitation “slidingly” claims the step of assembling the ends of lower frame to the side frames. MPEP 2113-I sets forth ““[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
The claim is interpreted as lower frame is connected to side frames at both ends.
Bernauer teaches “The condensate collecting strip 26 is thus attached to the door supports 18,19 at the side by means of the articulated heads 31 and the snap hooks 29. During mounting, the condensate collecting strip 26 is positioned by being tilted and guided by means of the articulated heads 31 such that the snap hooks 29 are securely positioned and come into contact in a defined manner with a corresponding engagement portion 33 (FIG. 3) on the respective door support 18, 19” in paragraph [74].)
and the first side frame includes a catching step (33)configured such that an end portion of the lower frame is to pass over the catching step and to be secured by a fixing end of the catching step. (The claim is interpreted as first side frame and lower frame are connected by a snap connection.
Bernauer teaches “During mounting, the condensate collecting strip 26 is positioned by being tilted and guided by means of the articulated heads 31 such that the snap hooks 29 are securely positioned and come into contact in a defined manner with a corresponding engagement portion 33 (FIG. 3) on the respective door support 18, 19” in paragraph [74]. Strip 26 comprises lower frame as taught in Fig. 16.)
Regarding claim 3,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the first end of the lower frame includes a first frame assembly configured to move along a surface of the first side frame, and the second end of the lower frame includes a second frame assembly configured to move along a surface of the second side frame, (The limitation claims the steps of fitting the ends of lower frame to the side frames. MPEP 2113-I sets forth ““[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
The claim is interpreted as lower frame is connected to side frames at both ends.
Bernauer teaches “The condensate collecting strip 26 is thus attached to the door supports 18,19 at the side by means of the articulated heads 31 and the snap hooks 29. During mounting, the condensate collecting strip 26 is positioned by being tilted and guided by means of the articulated heads 31 such that the snap hooks 29 are securely positioned and come into contact in a defined manner with a corresponding engagement portion 33 (FIG. 3) on the respective door support 18, 19” in paragraph [74].)
and the first side frame includes a catching step configured to change a moving path of the first frame assembly, and the first frame assembly is to be fixed to the first side frame by a fixing end of the catching step. (The claim is interpreted as first side frame and lower frame are connected by a snap connection.
Bernauer teaches “During mounting, the condensate collecting strip 26 is positioned by being tilted and guided by means of the articulated heads 31 such that the snap hooks 29 are securely positioned and come into contact in a defined manner with a corresponding engagement portion 33 (FIG. 3) on the respective door support 18, 19” in paragraph [74]. Strip 26 comprises lower frame as taught in Fig. 16.)
Regarding claim 4,
The cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the transparent door assembly includes a plurality of panels, (17, 20)
and the lower frame is configured to support at least one of the plurality of panels. (Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image3.png
468
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Bernauer
Regarding claim 5,
The cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the first side frame includes a guide channel, and the lower frame includes a moving guide spaced apart from the first frame assembly and configured to move along the guide channel, (Bernauer teaches “The articulated heads 31 can be received in recesses 32 (FIG. 5) provided on the door supports 18, 19” in paragraph [73]. Here recess 32 is the guide channel, head 31 is moving guide.)
and the first frame assembly has a cantilever structure protruding from the first end of the lower frame, (snap hook 29 in Fig. 3)
and the moving guide has a cantilever structure protruding from the first end of the lower frame. (The limitation “cantilever” is interpreted as a projecting member supported at only one end.
Fig. 7 teaches head 31 projecting out from lower frame.)
Regarding claim 6,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the lower frame is configured to be moved in a first direction to a surface of each of the first and second side frames, and the lower frame is configured to be move in a second direction over a catching step provided at each of the first and second side frames such that the lower frame is to be secured by a fixing end of the catching step. (The limitation claims the steps of fitting the ends of lower frame to the side frames. MPEP 2113-I sets forth ““[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
The claim is interpreted as lower frame is connected to side frames at both ends.
Bernauer teaches “The condensate collecting strip 26 is thus attached to the door supports 18,19 at the side by means of the articulated heads 31 and the snap hooks 29. During mounting, the condensate collecting strip 26 is positioned by being tilted and guided by means of the articulated heads 31 such that the snap hooks 29 are securely positioned and come into contact in a defined manner with a corresponding engagement portion 33 (FIG. 3) on the respective door support 18, 19” in paragraph [74].)
Regarding claim 7,
The cooking appliance of claim 6, wherein a protruding height of the catching step gradually increases in the second direction. (The claim is interpreted as the height of the catching step gradually increases in one direction.
Bernauer teaches catching step 33 in Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 8,
The cooking appliance of claim 6, wherein the first side frame includes a first guide channel that extends in the second direction, and the lower frame includes a moving guide configured to move in the first guide channel in the second direction, (The claimed “second direction” is interpreted as any direction.
Bernauer teaches “The articulated heads 31 can be received in recesses 32 (FIG. 5) provided on the door supports 18, 19” in paragraph [73]. Here recess 32 is the guide channel, head 31 is moving guide.)
and the first side frame has a channel entrance which is open in the first direction and is configured to receive the moving guide. (Annotated Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image4.png
623
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Bernauer
Regarding claim 9,
The cooking appliance of claim 8, wherein the first side frame includes a first side fence, and the first guide channel is disposed between a surface of the first side frame and the first side fence, and the second side frame includes a second side fence and a second guide channel disposed between a surface of the second side frame and the second side fence. (The claim is interpreted as side frames have a wall. Annotated Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image5.png
623
794
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Bernauer
Regarding claim 10,
The cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the transparent door assembly includes a plurality of panels, (17, 20)
and a rearmost panel of the plurality of panels is in close contact with the surface of the first side fence, (Annotated Fig. 3)
and the channel entrance is provided in the first side fence and is configured to receive the moving guide. (Annotated Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 11,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the transparent door assembly includes a plurality of panels, (17, 20)
each of the first and second side frames separately comprises: a front board to couple to a front panel, of the plurality of panels ; and a side fence spaced apart from the front board and the side fence to couple to a rear panel of the plurality of panels, (Fig. 3)
wherein an inner panel of the plurality of panels is disposed between the front panel and the rear panel and is disposed between the front board and the side fence, and a catching step that protrudes on a rear surface of the front board, which is opposite to a front surface of the front board. (Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image6.png
656
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Bernauer
Regarding claim 14,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the transparent door assembly includes a plurality of panels, (17, 20)
and the drainage guide includes an upper end and a last end, (Fig. 2)
wherein when the door is closed, a rear panel of the plurality of panels is disposed to be closer to the casing than the last end of the drainage guide, (Annotated Fig. 3)
and when the door is opened, the last end of the drainage guide is disposed to be closer to the casing than the rear panel. (The claim is interpreted as the door opens outward as described in paragraph [194] in the original disclosure. Fig. 1 in Bernauer.)
Regarding claim 16,
The cooking appliance of claim 14, wherein the first side frame includes a plurality of panel guides disposed at intervals, (Fig. 3 in Bernauer)
and at least one of the plurality of panels is disposed between two of the panel guides, (21, 22)
and the first side frame includes a panel support to support at least one of the plurality of panels, and the panel support is configured to have a plurality of steps each to have a different height. (Annotated Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image7.png
656
605
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Bernauer
Regarding claim 18,
A cooking appliance comprising: a casing configured to have a cavity therein; and a door configured to open and close the cavity, wherein the door comprises: a transparent part; a pair of side frames coupled to the transparent part; (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
an upper frame disposed on upper portions of the pair of side frames; and a lower frame having a first end and a second end disposed at lower portions of the pair of side frames, (Fig. 2 in Bernauer)
wherein the first end of the lower frame is assembled to the first side frame and the second end of the lower frame is assembled to the second side frame, and a drainage guide provided at the lower frame and (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
that extends towards a lower portion of the casing such that when the door is closed a lower end of the drainage guide is closer to the casing than a panel of the transparent part. (Similar scope to claim 14 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 19,
The cooking appliance of claim 18, wherein the transparent part includes a plurality of panels, each of the pair of side frames separately comprises: a front board to couple to a front panel of the plurality of panels; (Similar scope to claim 11 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
and a side fence spaced apart from the front board, (Fig. 3 in Bernauer)
PNG
media_image6.png
656
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Bernauer
and the side fence to couple to a rear panel of the plurality of panels, wherein an inner panel of the plurality of panels is disposed between the front board and the side fence. (Similar scope to claim 11 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 20,
The cooking appliance of claim 19, wherein the drainage guide includes a upper end and the lower end, wherein when the door is closed, the rear panel is disposed to be closer to the casing than the lower end of the drainage guide, and when the door is opened, the lower end of the drainage guide is disposed to be closer to the casing than the rear panel. (Similar scope to claim 14 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harward et al., US 20130319393 (hereafter Harward).
Regarding claim 12,
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the lower frame includes a first frame assembly at the first end of the lower frame and having a frame assembly hole, and an assembly protrusion of the first side frame is mounted to the frame assembly hole. (The claim is interpreted as side frame and first frame are screwed together.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Harward teaches lower frame 202d of oven door is connected to the hinge covers 702 using screws in paragraph [46] and Fig. 6d.)
PNG
media_image8.png
454
342
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6d in Harward
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the frames in Bernauer using screws as taught in Harward. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the drip tray assembly 700 retains the ceramic transparent panel 220 in the door 200 by restraining the panel 200 at the bottom of the door 200 while at the same time covering the hinge assembly” as taught in paragraph [46] in Harward.
Regarding claim 13,
The cooking appliance of claim 12, wherein the lower frame includes a second frame assembly provided at the second end of the lower frame, and the drainage guide is disposed at the lower frame between the first frame assembly and the second frame assembly. (Fig. 2 in Bernauer)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernauer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dinkel et al., US 20200300477 (hereafter Dinkel).
The cooking appliance of claim 14, wherein when the door is closed, an inclination at the last end of the drainage guide is less than an inclination at the upper end of the drainage guide. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Dinkel teaches a drainage guide 18 with different inclination along its width in Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image9.png
505
610
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Dinkel
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the inclined guide as taught in Dinkel to the appliance in Bernauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “On the top side of the guide strip 18, which is oblique compared with a horizontal plane, the condensate P then runs as far as a drip edge 26 of the guide strip 18 and then drips or runs into the collection tray or the collection container 10 arranged there below” as taught in paragraph [59] in Dinkel.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dinkel et al., US 20200300477 (hereafter Dinkel).
The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein a water tray having a depressed shape is provided at a lower portion of the casing, and the drainage guide is disposed upwards from the water tray. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Dinkel teaches water tray 10 wherein drainage guide 18 is disposed upwards from tray 10 in Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image10.png
544
784
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Dinkel
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the guide and tray as taught in Dinkel to the appliance in Bernauer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “On the top side of the guide strip 18, which is oblique compared with a horizontal plane, the condensate P then runs as far as a drip edge 26 of the guide strip 18 and then drips or runs into the collection tray or the collection container 10 arranged there below” as taught in paragraph [59] in Dinkel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights