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 Arguments
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection presented in the Non-Final rejection dated 04/07/2026. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn, however, a new grounds of rejection is presented over Kim et. al (US 2006/0237425 A1) in view of Beck et. al (US 2005/0109335 A1) and further in view of Seo (US 10,933,157 B2), see rejection below.
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 1-8 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.
With respect to claim 1 the amended claim requires “at least one air filter configured to cool and filter the air flow” whereas the originally filed claims require “at least one air filter configured to cool and/or filter the air flow”; with regards to the amended claims it is unclear how a filter can cool the airflow beyond the filters innate capacity to absorb heat until it reaches an equilibrium temperature with the airflow. Therefore, any filter is interpreted as being able to “cool and filter” the airflow.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 2006/0237425 A1) in view of Beck et. al (US 2005/0109335 A1) and further in view of Seo (US 10,933,157 B2).
With respect to claim 1 Kim discloses a galley insert oven comprising: an oven compartment [reference character 60] for heating food; a door [reference character 70], attached to the oven, wherein the door comprises: a first panel [reference character 71], a second panel [reference character 74], and an air channel [reference character 76] provided between the first and second panels; at least one fan [reference character 90] for moving an air flow through the air channel in use; at least one air filter [reference character 79] configured to cool and filter the air flow in the air channel1, wherein the at least one air filter comprises a first air filter positioned at an entrance to the air channel [see Fig. 5 of Kim].
Kim does not disclose that the first and second panels are formed from a transparent material.
Beck discloses a galley insert oven comprising: an oven compartment [the interior of muffle 1] for heating food, a door [reference characters 3, 5, and 7], attached to the oven, wherein the door is at least in part transparent and comprises a first panel of transparent material [reference character 3 and paragraph 0011] and a second panel of transparent material [reference character 5 and paragraph 0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the oven door taught by Kim by forming all of the door panels [reference characters 71-74] from a transparent material, as taught by Beck, in order to allow the user to observe the food inside of the chamber without opening the oven door.
The combination of Kim and Beck do not disclose a second air filter positioned at an exit of the air channel.
Seo discloses a ventilation channel [reference character 14] with a photocatalyst filter [reference character 30] and a UV light [reference characters 41-42] disposed at an exit of the channel [see Fig. 1] that allows the filter to decompose and destroy harmful gases before discharging the air into an occupied space [column 8 lines 6-15].
With respect to claim 7 Kim discloses that the galley insert oven comprises a top end, an opposite bottom end, and a first side extending vertically in use between the top end and the bottom end and a second side extending vertically in use between the top end and the bottom end and a back side extending vertically in use between the top end and the bottom end, and wherein the oven door is connected to the galley insert oven at a front side, opposite to the back side, and wherein the oven door is connected to either one of the first and second sides [see Fig. 4].
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 2006/0237425 A1) in view of Beck et. al (US 2005/0109335 A1) and further in view of Seo (US 10,933,157 B2) in view of Maria et. al (DE 102010044215B4, machine translated).
With respect to claim 2 Kim does not disclose a monitoring system that is in communication with the air channel, the monitoring system comprising a processor that is configured to monitor and regulate the air flow in the air channel.
Maria discloses an oven with a door cooling system [see Fig. 1] having a monitoring system [reference character 18 with a temperature sensor, see paragraph 0024 of the machine translation] that is in communication with the air channel, the monitoring system comprising a processor [reference character 18] that is configured to monitor and regulate the air flow in the air channel [see paragraphs 0023-0024 of the machine translation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Kim by including the monitoring and control system taught by Maria in order to allow for varying the fan speed based on the door temperature in order to maintain safe external oven temperatures [paragraph 0024 of the machine translation of Maria].
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Kim and Maria disclose that the processor of the monitoring system is configured to decrease a temperature of the air flow in use when the temperature goes above a second threshold temperature [see paragraph 0024 of the machine translation of Maria].
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Kim and Maria discloses that the airflow temperature is decreased by increasing the airflow. See Fig. 2 of Maria where decreasing the oven door temperature requires increased fan power and therefore increased fan speed, see also paragraph 0024 of the machine translation of Maria.
With respect to claim 5 Kim discloses that the means of moving the air flow through the air channel comprises at least one fan [see Figs. 4-5 of Kim].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 2006/0237425 A1) in view of Beck et. al (US 2005/0109335 A1) and further in view of Seo (US 10,933,157 B2) in view of Chase et. al (US 3,692,015).
With respect to claim 6 Kim does not disclose that a lighting feature or features provided to illuminate the oven compartment.
Chase discloses an oven [see Fig. 1] having a cooking compartment [reference character 4] with a lamp [reference character 11] for illuminating the oven cavity [see column 3 lines 14-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the oven taught by Kim by including a lighting feature, as taught by Chase, in order to illuminate the oven cavity [see column 3 lines 14-19 of Chase].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 See 112(b) rejection above.
Prosecution Insights