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 .
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 5 and 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 5 and 21 depend from cancelled Claim 4 thus causing the claims to be indefinite. For purposes of this Office Action Claims 5 and 21 are interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “extendings” in the last line of the claim should read – extending –. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004057097 B4 (hereinafter “POERNER”) in view of CN 102777945 A (hereinafter “KUBO”) and US 20050217500 A1 (hereinafter “DUNN”).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
2415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, POERNER discloses a cooking apparatus comprising:
a housing (see Fig. 5) defining a cooking chamber (20);
a cooking tray (220) comprising:
a plurality of cooking surfaces defined at a first surface of the cooking tray (10; i.e., the plurality of cooking surfaces comprising regions or areas of the cooking tray), and
a tray retainer (22) protruded from a side of the housing and configured to detachably engage the cooking tray,
wherein the cooking tray further comprises:
a plate including the plurality of cooking surfaces (see again 10; i.e., the plurality of cooking surfaces comprising regions or areas of the cooking tray),
a tray holder (12) mounted on at an edge portion (18) of the plate (10), wherein the tray holder is configured to abut the tray retainer (22) to support the plate,
wherein the tray retainer comprises a holder fastening surface (see the provided English translation: “characterized in that the support rail ( 22 ) at least partially complementary to the slide rail ( 12 ) of the food support ( 10 ) is trained.”), and
wherein the tray holder (12) comprises:
a support surface (see 16) configured to be supported on the holder fastening surface of the tray retainer (22).
POERNER does not disclose a plurality of heaters arranged on an upper side of the cooking chamber; wherein heat is transferred to the plurality of cooking surfaces by the plurality of the heaters with different temperatures; an interference member protruding from a second surface of the cooking tray which is opposite to the first surface; and the interference member extendings [sic] from the support surface of the tray holder.
KUBO teaches a cooking apparatus comprising: a plurality of heaters (14a, 14b, 14c, 13/23) which provide heats of different temperatures to the plurality of cooking surfaces (40, 41) of the cooking tray (19).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify POERNER wherein a plurality of heaters provide heats of different temperatures to the plurality of cooking surfaces of the cooking tray as taught and/or suggested by KUBO, since such a modification would provide a means to concentrate heating in discrete areas of said cooking tray which are supporting an item to be cooked thereby increasing heating efficiency and shortening cooking times (see at least KUBO, para. [0059]).
DUNN teaches a cooking apparatus comprising: an interference member (320, 330) protruding from a second surface of the cooking tray (220) which is opposite to the first surface; and the interference member extendings [sic] from the support surface of the tray holder (260, 280).
PNG
media_image3.png
846
1868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify POERNER in view of KUBO to comprise an interference member protruding from a second surface of the cooking tray which is opposite to the first surface; and the interference member extendings [sic] from the support surface of the tray holder as taught and/or suggested by DUNN, since DUNN states at para. [0029]: “Accordingly, the downwardly extending projection(s) 320, 330 of the multi-use rack 220 forms a stop with the bottommost guide rail 360, thereby facilitating quick and easy placement of the rack 220 within the oven 360. A user is able to slide the multi-use rack 220 onto the bottommost guide rail 360 such that the first and second side edges 260, 280 slide along a top portion of the guide rail 360 until the projection(s) 320, 330 contacts an end portion 370 of the guide rail 360; thereby properly and securely positioning the multi-use rack 220 along the guide rail 360. Although not illustrated, it is recognized that the downwardly extending projection(s) 320, 330 can be employed in any of the other rack positions in the oven 340 in a similar manner. Specifically, the design of the multi-use rack 220 allows the user to position the rack 220 on the standard rack position and slide the rack 220 along a bottom guide rail until the downwardly extending projection(s) 320, 330 contacts an end portion of the bottom guide rail.”.
Regarding Claim 2, DUNN further teaches wherein the cooking tray (220) is insertable into the cooking chamber (see 340) in an insertion direction; the cooking tray further comprises a rear side (see 270) and a front side (see 290) which is opposite to the rear side along the insertion direction, the interference member (320, 330) being at the front side of the cooking tray; and the interference member covers a portion of a front of the tray retainer (350, 360).
Regarding Claim 5, DUNN further teaches wherein the front insertion of the cooking tray further includes the interference member (320, 330) extended further than the holder fastening surface of the tray retainer (i.e., the support surface of tray retainer 350, 360).
Regarding Claim 6, DUNN further teaches wherein the cooking tray (220) is insertable into the cooking chamber in an insertion direction; the cooking tray further comprises a rear side (see 270) and a front side (see 290) which is opposite to the rear side along the insertion direction, the interference member (320, 330) being at the front side of the cooking tray; reverse insertion of the cooking tray includes the front side of the cooking tray leading the rear side of the cooking tray in the insertion direction; and the interference member (320, 330) is configured to interfere with the tray retainer (350, 360) during the reverse insertion.
Regarding Claim 9, POERNER further discloses wherein within the cooking tray (10), the tray holder (12) comprises a material different from a material of the plate (see the provided English translation: “For baking is usually a baking tray made of steel or aluminum used.” and “The top 14 and the lower part 16 and thus the slide rail 12 are preferably made of a heat-resistant plastic.”).
Regarding Claim 10, both POERNER and DUNN disclose and/or teach further comprising a tray supporter which is protruded from the side of the housing and faces the tray retainer (see Fig. 5 of POENER; see DUNN, tray supporter 350), the tray supporter being closer to the plurality of heaters than the tray retainer, wherein the cooking tray which is inserted into the cooking chamber includes a portion of the cooking tray between the tray supporter and the tray retainer, together with the tray supporter restricting movement of the cooking tray away from the tray retainer and towards the plurality of heaters (both POERNER and DUNN satisfy this function limitation).
Regarding Claim 21, DUNN further teaches wherein the interference member (320, 330) extends from the support surface of the tray holder (260, 280) to a position lower than the holder fastening surface of the tray retainer (350, 360).
Claims 11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POERNER in view of KUBO and DUNN as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20050098047 A1 (hereinafter “STEINBERG”).
Regarding Claim 11, POERNER in view of KUBO and DUNN does not disclose wherein the cooking tray further comprises a plurality of separation members protruding from the first surface of the cooking tray.
STEINBERG teaches a cooking apparatus wherein the cooking tray (20, 26) further comprises a plurality of separation members (40, 42) protruding from the first surface of the cooking tray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify POERNER in view of KUBO and DUNN wherein the cooking tray further comprises a plurality of separation members protruding from the first surface of the cooking tray as taught and/or suggested by STEINBERG, since STEINBERG states at para. [0036]: “The present invention provides an oven shelf that prevents bottom surface burning of baked goods. The present oven shelf can prevent bottom surface burning in a wide variety of bakeware such as cookie sheets, pie pans, breadpans and the like.”
Regarding Claim 14, POERNER in view of KUBO, DUNN and STEINBERG discloses all of the claim limitations as is obvious from the discussion of the references above. KUBO teaches wherein within the cooking tray (19): the plurality of cooking surfaces are adjacent to each other along a length direction of the cooking tray; opposing ends of the cooking tray are defined along the length direction. DUNN teaches the interference member (320, 330) corresponding to an end of the cooking tray among the opposing ends; and STEINBERG teaches the plurality of separation members (40, 42) are each further from the end of the cooking tray (20, 26) than the interference member (as taught by DUNN), along the length direction.
Regarding Claim 15, KUBO further teaches a magnetron (23) which generates frequencies, wherein the cooking chamber (2) includes a bottom surface (9); within the cooking chamber, the magnetron (23) is closer to the bottom surface (9) than the plurality of heaters (14a, 14b, 14c); and the cooking tray (19) further comprises a heat generating layer (7) which absorbs the frequencies generated by the magnetron, the heat generating layer (7) extended along the second surface (i.e., a bottom surface) of the cooking tray (19).
Regarding Claim 16, KUBO further teaches wherein the cooking tray (19) is removably mountable on the bottom surface of the cooking chamber (i.e., the cooking tray 19 can be removed from the cooking chamber 2 and reinserted into the cooking chamber wherein said cooking tray is mounted on the bottom surface 9 or the cooking chamber 2).
POERNER in view of KUBO, DUNN and STEINBERG does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooking tray which is mounted on the bottom surface of the cooking chamber includes the plurality of separation members protruded towards the bottom surface together with the interference member protruded in a direction away from the bottom surface.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify POERNER in view of KUBO, DUNN and STEINBERG wherein the cooking tray which is mounted on the bottom surface of the cooking chamber includes the plurality of separation members protruded towards the bottom surface together with the interference member protruded in a direction away from the bottom surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See also Rearrangement of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C). In other words, the cooking tray can be placed on the bottom surface in an inverted position relative to its normal operational orientation such that the plurality of separation members protrude towards the bottom surface.
Regarding Claim 17, KUBO further teaches wherein the bottom surface (9) of the cooking chamber is defined by a glass member between the magnetron (23) and the plurality of heaters (14a, 14b, 14c).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, KUBO further comprises a magnetron (23) which generates frequencies, wherein the cooking tray (19) further comprises a heat generating layer (7) which absorbs the frequencies generated by the magnetron (23), the heat generating layer (7) extended along the second surface (i.e., a bottom surface) of the cooking tray (19); and the cooking tray (19) which is inserted into the cooking chamber (2) includes the first surface (i.e., the upper surface) of the cooking tray facing the plurality of heaters (14a, 14b, 14c) together with the second surface (7) facing the magnetron (23); wherein the cooking tray (19) which is inserted into the cooking chamber (2) defines an upper portion of the cooking chamber between the cooking tray (19) and the plurality of heaters (14a, 14b, 14c), together with a lower portion of the cooking chamber (2) between the cooking tray (19) and the magnetron (23); and the upper portion and the lower portion of the cooking chamber (2) are heated simultaneously with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 12 and 13 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 29, 2026, with regard to independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights