DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed 4/9/2026 have been entered. Amended Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 18 and 22 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 10, change “a recreational vehicle” to -- the recreational vehicle --
In Claim 9, lines 1-2, change “The range of claim 1 further comprising the controller configured” to -- The range of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 2019/0346151 A1) in view of Bowles et al. (US 2006/0090741 A1) (hereinafter “Bowles”) and Cooney (US 2014/0111000 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bell teaches of a range (10) for a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicle”) (see at least Abstract, [0047] and Fig. 2, 4, 7), comprising:
an oven (“oven” - 20) and a stove top (“gas cooktop” - 24), wherein the oven is an electric oven (“electric oven”) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0050], [0067] and Figs. 2-3) and the stove top includes one or more gas burners (26) (see at least [0050], [0065] and Fig. 7);
wherein the oven is configured to operate on a first fuel type (electricity of the “electric oven”) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0067] and Figs. 2-3), wherein the first fuel type is electricity (electricity of the “electric oven”) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0067] and Figs. 2-3); and
wherein the one or more gas burners (26) are configured to operate on a second fuel type different from the first fuel type (“gas”), wherein the second fuel type is a gas (“gas”) (see at least [0050], [0065] and Fig. 7).
Bell fails to explicitly teach that the oven includes one or more electrical cooking elements that are configured to operate on the first fuel type of electricity.
Bowles discloses a relatable a range (10) (see at least [0015] and Fig. 1) comprising an oven (52) and a stove top (14) (see at least [0015], [0018] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the oven includes one or more electrical cooking elements (64, 68, 120) (see at least [0019], [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2, 6) and the stove top includes one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1); wherein the one or more electrical cooking elements are configured to operate on a first fuel type (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the first fuel type is electricity (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) are configured to operate on a second fuel type different from the first fuel type (“gas”), wherein the second fuel type is a gas (“gas”) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1). Bowles teaches that the electric heating elements, in addition to a fan (78) that facilitates convection heating, can operate off of a “standard 120 volt household power supply” as opposed to a special 240 volt outlet and thus provide the advantage of, inter alia, being able to safely heat the oven with a common “120 volt household power supply” with the added functionality of convection cooking (see at least [0021], [0041] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Bell by configuring the existing electric oven to comprise one or more electrical cooking elements, in addition to a convection fan, that are configured to operate on the first fuel type of electricity as is taught by Bowles. Doing so would have enabled safe heating of the oven with a common 120 volt household power supply while adding the functionality of convection cooking.
Furthermore, Bell fails to explicitly teach of a controller configured to operate the range with respect to an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle, wherein power to operate the one or more electrical cooking elements is provided while preventing operation of at least one of the air conditioning unit and/or the refrigerator (Note that the limitation of the controller being “configured to operate the range with respect to an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle, wherein power to operate the one or more electrical cooking elements is provided while preventing operation of at least one of the air conditioning unit and/or the refrigerator” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill wherein “an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle” are not elements that are required by the claim but rather elements that the claimed controller needs to be capable of use with.).
Cooney discloses a relatable power kit (Fig. 1) for a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicles”) (see at least Abstract, [0004] and Figs. 1-3) that comprises a controller (24) (see at least [0019] and Figs. 1-2) that is configured to operate a first electronic device (first electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into any of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1) that may include a cooking range (since a cooking range is an electronic device that can be plugged into an outlet) with respect to a second electronic device (second electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into a remaining one of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2)) that may include an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle (since an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle is an electronic device that can be plugged into an outlet) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2), wherein power to operate the first electronic device (and any electrical cooking elements thereof) is provided (provided via element (24)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2) while preventing operation of the second electronic device (which may include at least one of the air conditioning unit and/or the refrigerator) (Note that elements (62) as shown in Fig. 2 are “for selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see [0025]) such that power to operate the first electronic device may be provided (provided via the upper outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the first electronic device) being “on”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2) while operation of the second electronic device is prevented (prevented via the lower outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the second electronic device) being “off”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2).). Cooney teaches that such configuration, inter alia, enhances control and safety of the apparatus (see at least [0006]) by providing means for “selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the apparatus taught by Bell and Bowles by configuring the existing controller to operate the existing first electronic device, which is the existing range, with respect to a second electronic device that can be plugged in to a power supply (which includes an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle since an air conditioning unit and/or a refrigerator of a recreational vehicle constitute second electronic devices that can be plugged in), wherein power to operate the first electronic device (and the existing electrical cooking elements thereof) is provided while preventing operation of the second electronic device (which may include at least one of the air conditioning unit and/or the refrigerator) based on the teachings of Cooney. Doing so would have enhanced control and safety of the system by enabling all outlets of the system and corresponding electronic devices plugged therein to be selectively activated and deactivated. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Bowles also teaches of a fan (79) that would be used in the oven of the combined apparatus (see at least [0041]-[0042], Figs. 2, 6 and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but Bell fails to explicitly teach that the oven includes one or more reflective heat surfaces. However, this limitation is also taught by Bowles.
Bowles also teaches that the oven (52) includes one or more reflective heat surfaces (“deflector 76”) and that such a surface helps to deflect heat towards the center of the oven while providing a location for temperature measurement (see at least [0021]-[0022] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus taught by implementing one or more reflective heat surfaces into the existing oven as is also taught by Bowles. Doing so would have provided means for deflecting heat towards the center of the oven while providing a location for temperature measurement. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Bowles also teaches that the one or more electrical cooking elements of the combined apparatus (64, 68) are electrically connected to a 120 volt power supply (“120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Bell also teaches that the second fuel type is propane (“propane”) (see at least [0004], [0028], [0042] and Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Bell also teaches that the range of Claim 1 is in combination with a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicle”) (see at least Abstract, [0047] and Fig. 2, 4, 7). Thus, the combination of Bell and Bowles would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Bell also teaches that the range of Claim 1 may be used in a non-residential housing application (non-residential housing application such as a “recreational vehicle” in the form of a “mobile home”) (see at least Abstract, [0047] and Fig. 2, 4, 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Cooney also teaches that the controller (24) that would be used in the combined apparatus is configured to prevent operation of both the air conditioning unit and the refrigerator during operation of the one or more electrical cooking elements (as is the case when, at least, each outlet (38) that the air conditioning unit and the refrigerator are plugged into, and the corresponding switch (62), is “off” while the outlet (38) and corresponding switch (62) of the one or more electrical cooking elements is “on”) (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 10, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of “another oven having one or more gas burners”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners (see at least [0043] and Fig. 2 of Bell and note that the oven may be a gas and electric “combination thereof” with one or more gas burners; also note that Bowles additionally teaches of the oven having one or more gas burners as is shown in Fig. 2) such that two ovens would be present as opposed to only one would have produced the expected result of increasing available cooking capacity (via the increase in available cooking space) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2-3 of Bell). Thus, it is clear that merely duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by duplicating the existing oven that already has one or more gas burners such that two ovens would be present as opposed to only one as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11, Bell teaches of a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicle”) (see at least Abstract, [0043], [0047] and Fig. 2, 4, 7), comprising:
a dual fuel range (10) having a stove top (“gas cooktop” - 24) and an oven (“oven” - 20), wherein the oven is an electric oven (“electric oven”) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0050], [0067] and Figs. 2-3) and the stove top includes one or more gas burners (26) (see at least [0050], [0065] and Fig. 7);
a gas connection (“In certain cases, the gas may be stored as a liquid in a pressurized container, and operatively-connected to the gas range”) in communication with the one or more gas burners of the stove top (see at least [0042] and Figs. 2, 7); and
an electrical connection in communication with the oven (electrical connection of the “electric oven”) (see at least [0043] and Fig. 2).
Bell fails to explicitly teach that the oven includes one or more electrical cooking elements that are in communication with the electrical connection.
Bowles discloses a relatable a range (10) (see at least [0015] and Fig. 1) comprising an oven (52) and a stove top (14) (see at least [0015], [0018] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the oven includes one or more electrical cooking elements (64, 68, 120) (see at least [0019], [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2, 6) and the stove top includes one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1); wherein the one or more electrical cooking elements are in communication with an electrical connection configured to supply a first fuel type (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the first fuel type is electricity (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) are configured to operate on a second fuel type different from the first fuel type (“gas”), wherein the second fuel type is a gas (“gas”) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1). Bowles teaches that the electric heating elements, in addition to a fan (78) that facilitates convection heating, can operate off of a “standard 120 volt household power supply” as opposed to a special 240 volt outlet and thus provide the advantage of, inter alia, being able to safely heat the oven with a common “120 volt household power supply” with the added functionality of convection cooking (see at least [0021], [0041] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Bell by configuring the existing electric oven to comprise one or more electrical cooking elements, in addition to a convection fan, that are in communication with an electrical connection and configured to operate on electricity as is taught by Bowles. Doing so would have enabled safe heating of the oven with a common 120 volt household power supply while adding the functionality of convection cooking.
Furthermore, Bell fails to explicitly teach of a controller configured to operate the range with respect to one or more electronic devices of the recreational vehicle, wherein power to operate the one or more electrical cooking elements is provided while preventing operation of the one or more electronic devices of the recreational vehicle (Note that the limitation of the controller being “configured to operate the range with respect to one or more electronic devices of the recreational vehicle, wherein power to operate the one or more electrical cooking elements is provided while preventing operation of the one or more electronic devices of the recreational vehicle” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill wherein “one or more electronic devices of the recreational vehicle” are not elements that are required by the claim but rather elements that the claimed controller needs to be capable of use with.).
Cooney discloses a relatable power kit (Fig. 1) for a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicles”) (see at least Abstract, [0004] and Figs. 1-3) that comprises a controller (24) (see at least [0019] and Figs. 1-2) that is configured to operate a first electronic device (first electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into any of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1) that may include a cooking range (since a cooking range is an electronic device that can be plugged into an outlet) with respect to a second electronic device of the recreational vehicle (second electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into a remaining one of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2)), wherein power to operate the first electronic device (and any electrical cooking elements thereof) is provided (provided via element (24)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2) while preventing operation of the second electronic device (Note that elements (62) as shown in Fig. 2 are “for selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see [0025]) such that power to operate the first electronic device may be provided (provided via the upper outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the first electronic device) being “on”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2) while operation of the second electronic device is prevented (prevented via the lower outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the second electronic device) being “off”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2).). Cooney teaches that such configuration, inter alia, enhances control and safety of the apparatus (see at least [0006]) by providing means for “selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the apparatus taught by Bell and Bowles by configuring the existing controller to operate the existing first electronic device, which is the existing range, with respect to a second electronic device that can be plugged in to a power supply, wherein power to operate the first electronic device (and the existing electrical cooking elements thereof) is provided while preventing operation of the second electronic device based on the teachings of Cooney. Doing so would have enhanced control and safety of the system by enabling all outlets of the system and corresponding electronic devices plugged therein to be selectively activated and deactivated. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, Bowles also teaches of a fan (79) that would be used in the oven of the combined apparatus (see at least [0041]-[0042], Figs. 2, 6 and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but Bell fails to explicitly teach that the oven includes one or more reflective heat surfaces. However, this limitation is also taught by Bowles.
Bowles also teaches that the oven (52) includes one or more reflective heat surfaces (“deflector 76”) and that such a surface helps to deflect heat towards the center of the oven while providing a location for temperature measurement (see at least [0021]-[0022] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus taught by implementing one or more reflective heat surfaces into the existing oven as is also taught by Bowles. Doing so would have provided means for deflecting heat towards the center of the oven while providing a location for temperature measurement. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Bowles also teaches that the one or more electrical cooking elements of the combined apparatus (64, 68) are electrically connected to a 120 volt power supply (“120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Bowles also teaches that the one or more electrical cooking elements (64, 68, 120) that would be used in the combined apparatus are configured to operate on a 15 amp, 20 amp, 30 amp, 50 amp, and/or 60 amp power supply (as is evident from the disclosure that the electric heating elements, in addition to the fan (78) that facilitates convection heating, can operate off of a “standard 120 volt household power supply” wherein a standard 120 volt household power supply is rated at 15 amp - see at least [0024], Fig. 2 and the rejection for Claim 11 above).
Regarding Claim 17, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fail to explicitly teach of “another oven having one or more gas burners, wherein the one or more gas burners of the another oven is in communication with the gas connection”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection (see at least [0043] and Fig. 2 of Bell and note that the oven may be a gas and electric “combination thereof” with one or more gas burners; also note that Bowles additionally teaches of the oven having one or more gas burners as is shown in Fig. 2) such that two ovens would be present as opposed to only one would have produced the expected result of increasing available cooking capacity (via the increase in available cooking space) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2-3 of Bell). Thus, it is clear that merely duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by duplicating the existing oven that already has one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection such that two ovens would be present with one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection as opposed to only one as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, Bell teaches of a method of operating a range (10) for a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicle”) (see at least Abstract, [0047] and Fig. 2, 4, 7), comprising the steps of:
providing a range (10) having one or more burners (26) in a stove top (“gas cooktop” - 24) and an electric oven (“oven” - 20) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0050], [0067] and Figs. 2-3);
providing electricity to the electric oven (electricity of the “electric oven”) (see at least [0028], [0043], [0067] and Figs. 2-3); and
providing gas (“gas”) to the one or more gas burners in the stove top (see at least [0050], [0065] and Fig. 7).
Bell fails to explicitly teach of providing one or more electrical cooking elements in the oven and of providing electricity to the one or more electrical cooking elements such that power supply to the one or more electrical cooking elements is permitted.
Bowles discloses a relatable a range (10) and method for using the same (see at least [0015] and Fig. 1), wherein the range comprises an oven (52) and a stove top (14) (see at least [0015], [0018] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the oven includes one or more electrical cooking elements (64, 68, 120) (see at least [0019], [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2, 6) and the stove top includes one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1); wherein the one or more electrical cooking elements are in communication with an electrical connection configured to supply a first fuel type (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2), wherein the first fuel type is electricity (electricity of “120 volt power supply 86”) such that power supply to the one or more electrical cooking elements is permitted (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2); and wherein the one or more gas burners (22, 24, 26, 28) are configured to operate on a second fuel type different from the first fuel type (“gas”), wherein the second fuel type is a gas (“gas”) (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1). Bowles teaches that the electric heating elements, in addition to a fan (78) that facilitates convection heating, can operate off of a “standard 120 volt household power supply” as opposed to a special 240 volt outlet and thus provide the advantage of, inter alia, being able to safely heat the oven with a common “120 volt household power supply” with the added functionality of convection cooking (see at least [0021], [0041] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Bell by configuring the existing electric oven to comprise one or more electrical cooking elements, in addition to a convection fan, that are in communication with an electrical connection and configured to operate on electricity as is taught by Bowles. Doing so would have enabled safe heating of the oven with a common 120 volt household power supply while adding the functionality of convection cooking. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in permitting power supply to the one or more electrical cooking elements in the oven as claimed.
Furthermore, Bell fails to explicitly teach of preventing power supply to one or more electrical devices of the recreational vehicle while permitting power supply to the one or more electrical cooking elements in the oven.
Cooney discloses a relatable power kit (Fig. 1) for a recreational vehicle (“recreational vehicles”), and method for using the same (see at least Abstract, [0004] and Figs. 1-3), wherein the kit comprises a controller (24) (see at least [0019] and Figs. 1-2) that is configured to operate a first electronic device (first electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into any of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1) that may include a cooking range (since a cooking range is an electronic device that can be plugged into an outlet) with respect to a second electronic device of the recreational vehicle (second electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into a remaining one of outlets (38)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2)), wherein power to operate the first electronic device (and any electrical cooking elements thereof) is provided (provided via element (24)) (see at least [0020] and Figs. 1-2) while preventing operation of the second electronic device (Note that elements (62) as shown in Fig. 2 are “for selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see [0025]) such that power to operate the first electronic device may be provided (provided via the upper outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the first electronic device) being “on”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2) while operation of the second electronic device is prevented (prevented via the lower outlet (38) as shown in Fig. 1 and corresponding switch (62) (which may connect to the second electronic device) being “off”) (see at least [0020], [0025] and Figs. 1-2).). Cooney teaches that such configuration, inter alia, enhances control and safety of the apparatus (see at least [0006]) by providing means for “selectively activating and deactivating the outlets 38” (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method taught by Bell and Bowles by configuring the method to include preventing power supply to one or more electrical devices of the recreational vehicle while permitting power supply to the one or more existing electrical cooking elements in the oven based on the teachings of Cooney. Doing so would have enhanced control and safety of the method/system by enabling all outlets of the system and corresponding electronic devices plugged therein to be selectively activated and deactivated. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Bowles also teaches that the one or more electrical cooking elements of the combined method (64, 68) are electrically connected to a 120 volt power supply (“120 volt power supply 86”) (see at least [0024] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Bowles also teaches that the one or more electrical cooking elements (64, 68, 120) that would be used in the combined method are configured to operate on a 15 amp, 20 amp, 30 amp, 50 amp, and/or 60 amp power supply (as is evident from the disclosure that the electric heating elements, in addition to the fan (78) that facilitates convection heating, can operate off of a “standard 120 volt household power supply” wherein a standard 120 volt household power supply is rated at 15 amp - see at least [0024], Fig. 2 and the rejection for Claim 18 above).
Regarding Claim 22, Cooney also teaches of preventing power supply to the first electronic device (which would be the existing one or more electrical cooking elements in the oven of the combined method) while permitting power supply to the one or more electrical devices (second electronic device of “various electronic devices” that can be plugged into a remaining one of outlets (38)) of the recreational vehicle (as is the case when the first switch (62) corresponding to the first electronic device is “off” while the second switch (62) corresponding to the second electronic device is “on”) (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-2)). Thus, the combination of Bell, Bowles and Cooney would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23, Bowles also teaches that the combined method would include a step of air frying food within the oven (air frying via “convection” from fan (79) - see at least [0023]-[0024], Fig. 2 and the rejection for Claim 18 above).
Regarding Claim 24, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the method of Claim 18 (see the rejection for Claim 18) but fail to explicitly teach of “another oven” having one or more gas burners and of providing gas to the one or more gas burners in the another oven. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection (see at least [0043] and Fig. 2 of Bell and note that the oven may be a gas and electric “combination thereof” with one or more gas burners; also note that Bowles additionally teaches of the oven having one or more gas burners as is shown in Fig. 2) such that two ovens would be present as opposed to only one would have produced the expected result of increasing available cooking capacity (via the increase in available cooking space) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2-3 of Bell). Thus, it is clear that merely duplicating the existing oven of the prior art that already has one or more gas burners would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined method by duplicating the existing oven that already has one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection such that two ovens would be present with one or more gas burners in communication with the gas connection as opposed to only one as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 3, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, Bowles and Cooney further in view of Conde Zelocuatecatl et al. (US 2023/0213203 A1) (hereinafter “Conde”).
Regarding Claim 3, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the one or more electrical cooking elements are one or more graphite heating elements.
Conde discloses a relatable range (10) with an electric oven (300) and a cooktop (40) of gas burners (41) (see at least [0026], [0032]-[0033] and Figs. 1-3). The electric oven (300) comprises one or more graphite heating elements (320) disposed therein (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3). Conde teaches that “The graphite bake element 320, such as are manufactured by Midea, enable full heat-up time from zero to approximately 2300 degrees Fahrenheit measured at the surface of the element in less than about one second. This performance is many times faster than standard heat elements, and also several times faster even than quartz elements” (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing electrical cooking elements to be in the form of graphite heating elements as is taught by Conde. Doing so would have made the cooking elements heat up significantly faster. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the range of Claim 11 (see the rejection for Claim 11) but fail to explicitly teach that the one or more electrical cooking elements are one or more graphite heating elements.
Conde discloses a relatable range (10) with an electric oven (300) and a cooktop (40) of gas burners (41) (see at least [0026], [0032]-[0033] and Figs. 1-3). The electric oven (300) comprises one or more graphite heating elements (320) disposed therein (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3). Conde teaches that “The graphite bake element 320, such as are manufactured by Midea, enable full heat-up time from zero to approximately 2300 degrees Fahrenheit measured at the surface of the element in less than about one second. This performance is many times faster than standard heat elements, and also several times faster even than quartz elements” (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing electrical cooking elements to be in the form of graphite heating elements as is taught by Conde. Doing so would have made the cooking elements heat up significantly faster. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 21, Bell, Bowles and Cooney teach the method of Claim 18 (see the rejection for Claim 18) but fail to explicitly teach that the one or more electrical cooking elements are one or more graphite heating elements.
Conde discloses a relatable range (10) with an electric oven (300) and a cooktop (40) of gas burners (41) in addition to a method for using the same (see at least [0026], [0032]-[0033] and Figs. 1-3). The electric oven (300) comprises one or more graphite heating elements (320) disposed therein (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3). Conde teaches that “The graphite bake element 320, such as are manufactured by Midea, enable full heat-up time from zero to approximately 2300 degrees Fahrenheit measured at the surface of the element in less than about one second. This performance is many times faster than standard heat elements, and also several times faster even than quartz elements” (see at least [0033] and Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined method by configuring the existing electrical cooking elements to be in the form of graphite heating elements as is taught by Conde. Doing so would have made the cooking elements heat up significantly faster. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Dumenil (US 2021/0310664 A1)
Ahuja (US 6,943,324 B2)
Bell, Jr. (US 6,431,628 B1)
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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/8/2026
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights