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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on January 5, 2026. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. Claims 16-21 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to pages 5-6 of the Applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that modifying Raj’s portable fire containment and extinguisher system with the aircraft oven of Ryczek would change the “principle of operation” of Raj, citing In re Ratti. However, the Examiner respectively disagrees. The rejection does not rely on modifying Raj in a manner that would destroy or negate its intended function. Rather, the rejection relies on the teaching of using an aircraft oven as a fire containment structure, as taught by Ryczek, in order to contain onboard fires within an aircraft environment.
Under MPEP 2143.01(VI), a proposed modification is improper only where it renders the prior art invention inoperable for its intended purpose . Raj is directed to onboard aircraft fire containment. Ryczek teaches that an aircraft oven can serve as a fire containment device. The combination merely substitutes one known aircraft-based containment structure for another known aircraft-based containment structure to achieve the same predictable result, containment of an onboard fire. The fundamental principle of operation: containing a fire within an aircraft to prevent spread, remains unchanged. The modification does not render the system incapable of containing fire. Instead, it represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Unlike in Ratti, the proposed modification does not destroy the basic functionality of the primary reference. The portable nature of Raj is a feature of a preferred embodiment, not a required principle of operation. The claims do not recite that the device must be portable in the sense argued by Applicant, nor do they exclude use of a fixed aircraft structure. As a result, Applicant has not shown that the proposed combination changes the principle of operation in the manner contemplated by Ratti.
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.
Claim 16-21 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.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are being indefinite because the claims recite that the aircraft oven is “operable as a conventional oven for cooking or warming of meals.” The term “conventional” is a relative term that fails to provide an objective standard by which the scope of the claim can be determined. It is unclear what structural or operational characteristics render the aircraft oven “conventional.” The claims do not specify whether “conventional” refers to a particular configuration, industry standard, performance capability, heating structure, control system, or other objective criteria. Absent such guidance, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the insulation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and recites “wherein the control valve is permanently closed.” However, claim 18 recites that “when the aircraft oven is in the normal operation mode, the control valve is configured to allow a fluid flow through the vent hose and the control valve is operable to maintain the aircraft oven as operable as the conventional oven for the cooking or the warming of meals, and wherein, when the aircraft oven is in the safety operation mode, the control valve is closed so as to prevent the fluid flow through the vent hose.” Claim 19 states “the control valve is permanently closed” is inconsistent with and contradicts the limitations of claim 19. A control valve that is “permanently closed” would be incapable of allowing fluid flow in the normal operation mode as required by claim 18. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty in view of this internal inconsistency.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al. (US 9,339,671 B1) in view of Ryczek (CN 114173887 A).
With regard to claim 1, Raj discloses a fire containment device (1) comprising: an inner cavity configured to receive at least one hazardous item; a door (1a); wherein, when the oven door is closed, fire containment device is configured to switch from a normal operation mode (when the containment case is open, the case is operable as a normal storage) to a safety operation mode, in use (when the case is closed, the case is operable as a fire extinguishant).
Raj does not explicitly disclose that the fire containment device is an aircraft oven.
Ryczek teaches a fire containment device is an aircraft oven (120) installed onboard an aircraft may be used as a fire containment device. Ryczek discloses that the oven defines an enclosed cavity with a closable door and fire-resistant structure suitable for containing onboard fires.
It is noted by the Examiner that both references are directed to aircraft onboard fire containment. A person of ordinary skill in the art concerned with mitigating in-flight fire hazards would have reasonably looked to known aircraft structures suitable for fire containment, including ovens already designed to withstand elevated temperatures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Raj, by employing the aircraft oven as the fire containment device as taught by Ryczek, since simple substitution of one known element (aircraft oven) for another known fire-resistant enclosure (containment case) to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claims 2-3, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that a vent hose (tubular stem) and a valve (4); and wherein, when the aircraft oven is in the safety operation mode, the control valve is closed, wherein the valve is permanently closed (when it is not in bleed/vent mode, valve 4 is permanently closed).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that a Human Machine Interface and/or a mechanical actuator (2c); wherein the Human Machine Interface and/or the mechanical actuator is configured to switch the aircraft oven from the normal operation mode to the safety operation mode, in use.
With regard to claims 5, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that an insulation, an airtight seal, wherein the airtight seal is located between the oven door and the insulation (Col. 8 lines 44-47).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that the oven door includes an inner door surface and wherein the inner cavity includes an inner cavity surface and wherein the airtight seal is located between the inner door surface and the inner cavity surface (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that the inner door surface and the inner cavity surface includes a refractory or metallic material (Col. 8 lines 52-63).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Raj further discloses that An aircraft (Title).
With regard to claim 16, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Ryczek further discloses that during the normal operation, the aircraft oven is operable as a conventional oven for cooking or warming of meals (the oven of Ryczek is designed for cooking).
With regard to claim 17, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Ryczek further discloses that the inner cavity is surrounded by insulation on a top side, a bottom side, a first lateral side, a second lateral side, and a rear side, and wherein, when the oven door is closed, an airtight seal is formed between the insulation and the door (Col. 8 lines 52-63).
With regard to claims 9-15 and 20-21, since the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Raj as modified by Ryczek will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 9-15 and 20-21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752