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 § 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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and by dependency claims 2-11)
Applicant states that the cooking appliance is “in particular a domestic oven” this raises indefiniteness as to whether the claim requires a domestic oven or can be a more generic cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 10
Applicant states that the viewing direction is oblique to a vertical direction “and in particular oblique to a horizontal direction” it is indefinite how one would be a subset (“in particular”) of the other as they appear to be separate limitations. The following “in particular” recitations suffer from a similar deficiency. “At least 5 cm, in particular at least 10 cm” suffers from another specific deficiency in that it contains a broad and narrow limitation in the same claim raising indefiniteness as to which controls.
Regarding claim 11
“At most 3 cm in particular of at most 2 cms” has a broad and narrow limitation in the same claim such that it is indefinite which limitation controls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) xxxx is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0166276 to Garuccio.
Garuccio teaches: Regarding claim 1
A cooking appliance (), in particular a domestic oven, comprising - a cooking chamber (Fig. 1, see chamber where rack is placed) with an inner cooking chamber wall (Inner walls of cooking chambers), wherein the inner cooking chamber wall comprises a cooking chamber bottom wall ( bottom wall in Fig. 1)), a cooking chamber top wall (top wall in Fig. 1), a cooking chamber rear wall (rear wall Fig. 1) and cooking chamber side walls (see two lateral walls in Fig. 1), - a heating device (108), - a camera for monitoring the cooking chamber (38), wherein the camera is arranged at least partially above the cooking chamber top wall (Fig. 3; the camera is entirely above the top wall as shown).
Regarding claim 3
wherein the cooking chamber top wall has an opening (34) and a camera niche (open area in which 38 is placed shown in Fig. 3) is arranged above the cooking chamber top wall and adjacent to the opening (Fig. 3), wherein the camera is partially arranged within the camera niche (fully in the niche as defined).
Regarding claim 5
wherein the camera niche is openly connected to the cooking chamber (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6
wherein an insulation layer is arranged above the cooking chamber top wall and directly adjacent to the cooking chamber top wall (22 with airgap layer 234), wherein the camera niche is arranged within the insulation layer (Fig. 3) and wherein the camera niche does not project upwards beyond the insulation layer (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7
wherein an insulation layer (22 with airgap layer 234) is arranged above the cooking chamber top wall and directly adjacent to the cooking chamber top wall (Fig. 3), wherein an electronics compartment (area where 114 is placed) with control electronics (114) is arranged above the insulation layer (Fig. 3), wherein the camera niche is arranged completely below the electronics compartment within the insulation layer (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio.
Regarding claim 4
Garuccio teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach that the opening has a circular, oval or rectangular shape and the camera niche has a shape of an oblique, obtuse circular cone.
However, Applicant has not stated that the opening shape and camera niche shape provides any particular advantage or unexpected result beyond providing an opening for the camera light and a niche shape for placement of the camera. As such it would have been an obvious change in the shape of the components to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed shapes. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is merely a change in shape that does not effect the function of the device a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 10
Garuccio teaches all of the lmiitations as discussed above and further teaches wherein the camera is directed obliquely to a vertical direction (Fig. 3) and horizontal direction (Fig. 3) and that the camera is spaced from a center of the cooking chamber top wall (it is near the side of the wall as shown in Fig. 3).
Garuccio does not teach that the camera is spaced from the center of the cooking chamber by at least 5/10 cms.
However, the spacing of the camera is not stated by Applicant to have any particular purpose/synergby/unexpected result beyond merely placing the camera off center, which is already shown in the prior art, as such it would have been nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the claimed invention and prior art is merely the recitation of a rearrangement of parts that does not effect the function of the invention a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Regarding claim
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garuccio in view of US 2019/0242584 to Ebert.
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 9
Garuccio teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the camera contains a front window (40) but fails to teach wherein the camera, or specifically (claims 8 and 9) a front window of the camera is both partially above and partially below the cooking chamber top wall inside the cooking chamber.
Ebert teaches a camera (8) partially above and partially below the cooking chamber top wall (6; see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garuccio such that the camera is located both partially above and partially below the cooking chamber top wall as this is a known configuration for cooking chamber cameras and would have yielded only the predictable result of providing control images to the cooking appliance.
Additionally, it would have been obvious (claims 8 and 9) to arrange specifically the front window of the camera partially above and below the cooking chamber top wall as it is already known from Ebert that the camera may be partially above and below the top wall, and that it will predictably result in a functional configuration, such that the placement of the window above and below the top wall would be nothing more than an obvious arrangement of parts which would be expected to function analogously and predictably. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and claimed invention is merely the arrangement of parts that does not effect the function of the device a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04)
Regarding claim 11
Garuccio as modified teaches all of the lmiitations as discussed above.
Garuccio as modified does not teach that the camera is specifically projected into the cooking chamber at most 2/3 cms.
However, the spacing of the camera is not stated by Applicant to have any particular purpose/synergby/unexpected result beyond merely placing the camera partially above and below the top wall, which is already shown in the prior art, as such it would have been nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed arrangement. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the claimed invention and prior art is merely the recitation of a rearrangement of parts that does not effect the function of the invention a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights