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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto (WO 2004111542 A1), hereinafter Tsujimoto, in view of Farley (US 1627961 A), hereinafter Farley.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 11, Tsujimoto discloses a cooking appliance comprising:
a cooking chamber (“Reference numerals 23 in the figure indicate a heating chamber” all citations are from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
a machine compartment separate from the cooking chamber;
a wall partitioning the machine compartment into first and second zones (“On the upper surface 71, a U-shaped partition wall 77 is provided in plan view. The inside of the partition wall 77 is an upper heat reservoir 53, and the outer side is a first cooling air passage 79”);
a housing disposed in the machine compartment and extending through an opening in the wall such that a first portion of the housing is in the first zone (“57 is the first heat flow passage”) and a second portion of the housing is in the second zone (“61 is the third heat flow passage”);
wherein the housing includes a base (The lower half of the housing) and a cover received on the base (The upper half of the housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsujimoto does not disclose:
a flange assembly circumscribing the housing and disposed against the wall at the opening to inhibit air flow though the opening, the flange assembly including a first member and a second member slidably received in the first member;
wherein the second member is a planar member arranged perpendicular to a length of the housing;
wherein the first member defines a slot and the second member has an edge portion received in the slot;
wherein the first member is a cap member having a first leg defining a slot and a second leg defining another slot, and the second member is a planar member, wherein the first and second legs are disposed on opposite sides of the housing and each receives an edge portion of the planar member;
wherein the first member includes a hooked portion that engages with an edge of the second member;
wherein a width of the opening is less than widths of the first and second members;
wherein the second member is associated with the base and the first member is disposed over the cover.
However, Farley teaches:
a flange assembly circumscribing the housing and disposed against the wall at the opening to inhibit air flow though the opening (“plate assemblies apertured to receive pipes of heating systems or the like and intended to cover relatively large openings in floors, walls, etc., provision being made whereby the pipes may change their positions with respect to the plate assemblies under the influence of expansion and contraction” page 1, line 2), the flange assembly including a first member and a second member slidably received in the first member (“strips 12 receive the flanges 11 of the two plates 5 and 6, said strips slidably engaging the flanges of one plate but being secured to the flanges of the other plate” page 1, line 37);
wherein the second member is a planar member arranged perpendicular to a length of the housing (5 and 6 are both perpendicular to 9);
wherein the first member defines a slot (12) and the second member has an edge portion received in the slot (Figure 4);
wherein the first member is a cap member having a first leg (12) defining a slot and a second leg defining another slot (Opposite side 12), and the second member is a planar member (6), wherein the first and second legs are disposed on opposite sides of the housing and each receives an edge portion of the planar member (Figures 1 and 4);
wherein the first member includes a hooked portion (21) that engages with an edge of the second member (14 and 15 may be considered as part of the second member);
wherein a width of the opening is less than widths of the first and second members (“plate assemblies apertured to receive pipes of heating systems or the like and intended to cover relatively large openings in floors, walls, etc.” page 1, line 2);
wherein the second member is associated with the base (The lower half of 9) and the first member is disposed over the cover (The upper half of 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
194
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Farley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a flange assembly as is taught in Farley, in the cooking appliance disclosed by Tsujimoto because Farley states that the flange assembly covers accounts for movement caused by expansion and contraction. Therefore, including the flange assembly of Farley in the appliance of Tsujimoto will account for movement of the housing caused by expansion and contraction.
Regarding claim 2, Tsujimoto, as modified by Farley, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1.
Tsujimoto does not disclose wherein the second member is integrally formed with the housing. However, the court has held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, integrating the second member and housing would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Tsujimoto, as modified by Farley, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 11.
Tsujimoto does not disclose wherein the second member is integrally formed with the housing. However, the court has held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, integrating the second member and housing would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 17, Tsujimoto discloses a cooking appliance comprising:
a cooking chamber (“Reference numerals 23 in the figure indicate a heating chamber” all citations are from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
a machine compartment separate from the cooking chamber;
a wall partitioning the machine compartment into a ventilated zone and a non-ventilated zone (“On the upper surface 71, a U-shaped partition wall 77 is provided in plan view. The inside of the partition wall 77 is an upper heat reservoir 53, and the outer side is a first cooling air passage 79”), wherein the wall defines an opening (For 57, 61);
a housing disposed in the machine compartment and extending through the opening such that a first portion of the housing is in the ventilated zone (“57 is the first heat flow passage”) and a second portion of the housing is in the non-ventilated zone (“61 is the third heat flow passage”);
wherein the wall includes an upper edge and a lower edge (Figure 5).
Tsujimoto does not disclose:
wherein a gap is defined between the housing and a periphery of the opening;
a flange assembly circumscribing the housing and disposed against the wall such that the gap is covered to inhibit airflow between the zones, the flange assembly including a flange member surrounding a portion of the housing and a cap member surrounding another portion of the housing;
wherein the cap member defines a slot that receives a portion of the flange member to attach the flange member and the cap member together;
wherein the housing includes a bottom side that is above the lower edge and a top side that is below the top edge, and wherein the flange member covers a first portion of the gap defined between the lower edge of the wall and the bottom side of the housing, and the cap member is disposed on the top side of the housing and has an upper edge that is substantially coplanar with the upper edge of the wall
However, Farley teaches:
wherein a gap is defined between the housing and a periphery of the opening;
a flange assembly circumscribing the housing and disposed against the wall such that the gap is covered to inhibit airflow between the zones, the flange assembly including a flange member surrounding a portion of the housing and a cap member surrounding another portion of the housing (“plate assemblies apertured to receive pipes of heating systems or the like and intended to cover relatively large openings in floors, walls, etc., provision being made whereby the pipes may change their positions with respect to the plate assemblies under the influence of expansion and contraction” page 1, line 2);
wherein the cap member defines a slot that receives a portion of the flange member to attach the flange member and the cap member together “strips 12 receive the flanges 11 of the two plates 5 and 6, said strips slidably engaging the flanges of one plate but being secured to the flanges of the other plate” page 1, line 37);
wherein the housing includes a bottom side that is above the lower edge and a top side that is below the top edge, and wherein the flange member covers a first portion of the gap defined between the lower edge of the wall and the bottom side of the housing, and the cap member is disposed on the top side of the housing and has an upper edge that is substantially coplanar with the upper edge of the wall (Figure 1).
In view of Farley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a flange assembly as is taught in Farley, in the cooking appliance disclosed by Tsujimoto because Farley states that the flange assembly covers accounts for movement caused by expansion and contraction. Therefore, including the flange assembly of Farley in the appliance of Tsujimoto will account for movement of the housing caused by expansion and contraction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto, in view of Farley, and further in view of Ball (US 8151821 B2), hereinafter Ball.
Regarding claim 8, Tsujimoto, as modified by Farley, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1.
Tsujimoto, as modified by Farley, does not disclose wherein the housing defines an alignment channel, and the first member defines an alignment tab cooperating with the alignment channel to align the first member relative to the housing.
However, Ball teaches wherein the housing defines an alignment channel, and the first member defines an alignment tab cooperating with the alignment channel to align the first member relative to the housing (“a plurality of grooves 50 are positioned on at least an upper surface thereof. The grooves 50 are adapted to receive a portion of the top bracket, thereby preventing axial motion of the mounting sleeve 6 after installation” column 8, line 49).
PNG
media_image6.png
464
560
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Ball’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the housing defines an alignment channel, and the first member defines an alignment tab cooperating with the alignment channel to align the first member relative to the housing as is taught in Ball, in the appliance as modified because Ball states that the alignment channels prevent axial motion. Therefore, including the alignment channels of Ball will provide a more stable configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a cooking appliance with all of the limitations of claims 9 or 15.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “further comprising a steam system including a water reservoir disposed in the housing.” Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, has been rejected in view of Tsujimoto and Farley. The housing of Tsujimoto is a duct and it would not have been obvious to modify the housing of Tsujimoto to include a water reservoir. Therefore, this limitation, when combined with every other limitation of the base claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a steam system including a water reservoir disposed in the housing” and is allowable subject matter by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 9, above.
Claims 10 and 16 are objected to at least because they depend from claims 9 and 15 respectively.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a cooking appliance with all of the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a water-reservoir assembly disposed in the machine compartment and including a housing extending rearward from the from panel and through an opening defined in the wall such that the housing is partially disposed in both the ventilated and non-ventilated zones, the housing including a base and a cover, wherein the base defines a flange configured to cover a gap defined between the base and a periphery of the opening.” The closest prior art to claim 18 is Tsujimoto. The housing of Tsujimoto is a duct and it would not have been obvious to modify the housing of Tsujimoto to include a water reservoir. Therefore, this limitation, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable at least because they depend from allowable claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rogers (US 4321726 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
388
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wenz (DE 29923420 U1)
PNG
media_image8.png
716
526
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762