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 § 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) 1-5, 13-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruin-Slot et al (US 2021/0025597).
Regarding claim 1, Bruin-Slot discloses, an oven appliance defining a vertical, a lateral, and a transverse direction, (Fig 1 shows an oven having vertical, lateral and transverse directions) the oven appliance comprising:
a cooking chamber positioned within a cabinet (figs 1 and 2 show a cooking chamber within a cabinet);
a door rotatably mounted to the cabinet for providing selective access to the cooking chamber (door 82 is capable of being opened and closed, See Paragraph [0045]); and
a rotisserie assembly comprising (rotisserie assembly, See Paragraph [0093]):
a first spit support and a second spit support mounted in the cooking chamber and being spaced apart along the lateral direction (Fig 16 shows a first spit support 452 and a second spit support 464, which can be mounted in the chamber, See Paragraph [0092]);
a spit rod rotatably supported by the first spit support and the second spit support (spit rod 450 is supported by the first and second spit support); and
a motor assembly for engaging and selectively rotating the spit rod when the spit rod is in an installed position. (Motor assembly 158, See Paragraph [0092])
Regarding claim 2, Figs 16 and 17 show the first and second supports 452, 464, each having a notch 460, 466, See Paragraph [0092]) Regarding claim 3, Fig 18 shows a front vertical arm, as part of the spit support, and a rear arm and cross arm. Regarding claim 4, the rotisserie assembly has a base pan 130 which is slidably mounted in the cavity via tray sliding structures 34. Regarding claim 5, the oven chamber has first and second sidewalls spaced apart with ribs 34 for slidably receiving the rack 130.
Regarding claim 13, Bruin-Slot discloses, an oven appliance defining a vertical, a lateral, and a transverse direction, (Fig 1 shows an oven having vertical, lateral and transverse directions) the oven appliance comprising: a cooking chamber positioned within a cabinet (figs 1 and 2 show a cooking chamber within a cabinet); a rotisserie assembly comprising (rotisserie assembly, See Paragraph [0093]): a first spit support and a second spit support mounted in the cooking chamber and being spaced apart along the lateral direction (Fig 16 shows a first spit support 452 and a second spit support 464, which can be mounted in the chamber, See Paragraph [0092]); a spit rod rotatably supported by the first spit support and the second spit support (spit rod 450 is supported by the first and second spit support); and a motor assembly for engaging and selectively rotating the spit rod when the spit rod is in an installed position. (Motor assembly 158, See Paragraph [0092]) Regarding claim 14, Figs 16 and 17 show the first and second supports 452, 464, each having a notch 460, 466, See Paragraph [0092]) Regarding claim 15, Fig 18 shows a front vertical arm, as part of the spit support, and a rear arm and cross arm. Regarding claim 16, the oven chamber has first and second sidewalls spaced apart with ribs 34 for slidably receiving the rack 130.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 2021/0025597) in view of Jovanovic (US 4,810,856).
The teachings of Bruin-Slot have been discussed above. Bruin-Slot discloses a drip tray positioned below the spit, but fails to disclose the drip tray within a central aperture.
Jovanovic discloses a rotisserie assembly (See Fig 4) having a central aperture with a drip tray 23 located within the aperture and below the spit rod 25. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Bruin-Slot in view of Jovanovic to provide the drip tray positioned within the central aperture for collection of cooking juices for basting or making gravy.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 2021/0025597) in view of Kaliveh et al (US 7,587,973).
The teachings of Bruin-Slot have been discussed above. Bruin-Slot fails to disclose the rack having standoff feet.
However, Kaliveh discloses a rack for cooking, having standoff feet 30. (See Column 3, Lines 45-65) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Bruin-Slot in view of Kaliveh to provide the standoff feet for increased rigidity and airflow.
Claim(s) 8-11, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 2021/0025597) in view of Waltman (US 6,499,393).
The teachings of Bruin-Slot have been discussed above. Bruin-Slot fails to disclose a spit support bracket attached to a bottom end of each of the first spit support and the second spit support.
Waltman discloses a first and second spit support attached to a spit support bracket comprising open ends 20 of columns 18. (See Fig 2, Column 2, Lines 15-39).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Bruin-Slot in view of Waltman to provide a spit support bracket attached to a bottom end of each of the first spit support and the second spit support for allowing the spit supports and rod for being attached and removed from the rack.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Bruin-Slot fails to disclose two necked regions. However Waltman discloses the spit rod defining two necked regions 62 and 66. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Bruin-Slot in view of Waltman to provide two necked regions on the spit rod for positioning the spit rod within the center portion of the frame.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruin-Slot et al (US 2021/0025597) in view of Lee (US 6,998,593).
The teachings of Bruin-Slot have been discussed above. Bruin-Slot fails to disclose the motor assembly is mounted on one of a first sidewall or a second sidewall outside of the cooking chamber. Lee discloses a rotisserie assembly where the motor 130 is located outside the cooking chamber 110 as shown in Fig 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Bruin-Slot in view of Lee to provide the motor assembly is mounted on one of a first sidewall or a second sidewall outside of the cooking chamber since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights