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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 7/9/26 response to the Office Action dated 4/29/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 17 are amended.
Claims 11 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth claim objections and 112(a) rejections so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 recites “wherein the interior surface defines a first centrally located depression, and the exterior surface defines a second centrally located depression that is approximately the same size of…the first centrally located depression”. This appears to contradict the limitation of dependent claim 19 which recites “the first centrally located depression is larger than the second centrally located depression”. However, it is possible that the first and second centrally located depressions are approximately the same size in one dimension while the first centrally located depression is larger than the second centrally located depression in a different dimension. Therefore, this is how the Examiner interprets these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, both the first and second depressions are claimed to have a planar wall. For the first depression, it is specifically the bottom wall of the first depression that is planar. For the second depression, a planar wall must just be present. A first depression with a planar bottom wall is shown in the embodiment shown in Figure 6, but this figure does not show the second depression with a planar wall. Furthermore, the as-filed disclosure does not disclose both the first and second depressions have planar walls.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a single embodiment that discloses the bottom wall of the first depression is planar and the second depression has a planar wall. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of the bottom wall of the first depression is planar; therefore, the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 11.
Claims 9-10 and 12-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) in view of Kagomoto et al. (JP 61079919 A, hereafter Kagomoto).
Reference is made to Bucksbaum unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding claim 1, Bucksbaum discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract, microwave oven), comprising:
a metal body (Col. 3, lines 49-51, “hollow cavity 12 having interior walls 14 of conductive material, such as stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel”) that defines a cooking cavity (Fig. 1, hollow cavity 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this is where the food is cooked, therefore it is a ‘cooking cavity’) and includes a bottom wall that has an interior surface that partially defines the cooking cavity (Fig. 1, interior surface of bottom instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above) and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand walls 14 would necessarily have an exterior surface opposite and interior surface. Reference the interior walls 14 in Fig. 3).
However, Bucksbaum does not disclose the interior surface defines only a single interior depression,
wherein the single interior depression is centrally located, and the exterior surface defines only a single exterior depression,
wherein the single exterior depression is centrally located and opposite of and horizontally aligned with the single interior depression defined by the interior surface.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, ‘Field of the Invention’) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for an interior surface to define only a single interior depression (annotated Fig. A), wherein the single interior depression is centrally located (annotated Fig. A), and the exterior surface defines only a single exterior depression (annotated Fig. A), wherein the single exterior depression is centrally located and opposite of and horizontally aligned with the single interior depression defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Bucksbaum with the depressions as taught by Kagomoto in order to have the interior surface defines only a single interior depression,
wherein the single interior depression is centrally located, and the exterior surface defines only a single exterior depression, wherein the single exterior depression is centrally located and opposite of and horizontally aligned with the single interior depression defined by the interior surface and thereby reduce warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, ‘Summary of the Invention’ of Kagomoto: “the engraved bottom surface has a slightly elongated material and is bent in a convex shape. Therefore, a difference in thermal expansion occurs between the flange portion and the bottom surface on which the food is placed, and the - C oven tray does not warp due to excessive tension.”) to increase cooking appliance longevity and user comfort.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Convex portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Single interior depression)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Single exterior depression)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 9 from Kagomoto showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the metal body is a steel body (Col. 3, lines 49-51, “hollow cavity 12 having interior walls 14 of conductive material, such as stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel”).
Regarding claim 3, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the portion of the interior surface that defines the single interior depression includes a convex portion that parallels the single exterior depression defined by the exterior surface of the bottom wall (annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the metal body further comprises:
a top wall opposite the bottom wall (Fig. 1, top instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above);
a first side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls (Fig. 1, left instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above);
a second side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall (Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above); and
a back wall that extends between the first and second side walls and between the top and bottom walls (Fig. 1, back instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above), wherein the back wall is disposed opposite an opening to the cooking cavity (Fig. 1, opening provides access to hollow cavity 12. One of ordinary skill would understand the back instance of interior wall 14 is disposed opposite the opening to hollow cavity 12).
Regarding claim 5, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 4, wherein the portion of the single exterior depression defined by the exterior surface that is nearest to the top wall (annotated Fig. A, apex of single exterior depression) is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first (Fig. 1, left instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above) and second side walls (Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above).
Regarding claim 6, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the single interior depression defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. A) has a first maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B), and the single exterior depression defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. A) has a second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B), and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Convex portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First maximum vertical depth)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second maximum vertical depth)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 9 from Kagomoto showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) in view of Kagomoto et al. (JP 61079919 A, hereafter Kagomoto) and further in view of (US 20140026880 A1, hereafter Froelicher).
Regarding claim 7, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the vertical depth of the single exterior depression defined by the exterior surface varies laterally (annotated Fig. A).
However, Froelicher, as modified above, does not disclose the vertical depth of the second single exterior depression is uniform longitudinally.
Froelicher discloses an oven (Fig. 2, oven 100) similar to the present invention and Froelicher further discloses it is known for a vertical depth (Fig. 7, maximum vertical depth of middle two instances of ribs 186) of a depression (Fig. 7, middle two instances of ribs 186.) to be uniform longitudinally (Fig. 7, which shows ribs 186 have a uniform maximum vertical depth in the longitudinal direction. See Par. 0032, “ribs 186 extend longitudinally from the front 188 to the back 190 of oven cavity 156”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Bucksbaum with the depression as taught by Froelicher in order to have the vertical depth of the second single exterior depression be uniform longitudinally and thereby more evenly distribute heated air between the front and the back of the cooking cavity to maintain more uniform cooking (As suggested by the Abstract of Froelicher) in foods that extend along the longitudinal direction of the cooking cavity.
Claims 8-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) in view of Kagomoto et al. (JP 61079919 A, hereafter Kagomoto) in view of Froelicher et al. (US 20140026880 A1, hereafter Froelicher).
Regarding Claim 8, Bucksbaum discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract, microwave oven), comprising: a metal body (Col. 3, lines 49-51, “hollow cavity 12 having interior walls 14 of conductive material, such as stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel”) that defines a cooking cavity (Fig. 1, hollow cavity 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this is where the food is cooked, therefore it is a ‘cooking cavity’) and includes a plurality of walls (Fig. 3, interior walls 14), wherein at least one of the plurality of walls includes an a lower interior surface that partially defines the cooking cavity (Fig. 1, interior surface of bottom instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above. Note this surface is located under the hollow cavity 12, therefore it is a ‘lower surface’) and an a lower exterior surface opposite the lower interior surface (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand walls 14 would necessarily have an exterior surface opposite and interior surface. Reference the interior walls 14 in Fig. 3. Note this surface is located under the hollow cavity 12, therefore it is a ‘lower surface’).
However, Bucksbaum does not disclose the lower interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall, the first depression extending in a direction toward the lower exterior surface, and the lower exterior surface defines a second depression with a planar wall that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the lower interior surface, the second depression extending in a direction toward the lower interior surface.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, ‘Field of the Invention’) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for a lower interior surface to define a first depression (annotated Fig. A, interior surface that comprises single interior depression. Note this surface is located under the food, therefore it is a ‘lower surfaces’) and a lower exterior surface (annotated Fig. A, the exterior surface that comprises the single exterior depression. Note this surface is located under the food, therefore it is a ‘lower surfaces’) defines a second depression (annotated Fig. A, single exterior depression) that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the lower interior surface (annotated Fig. A), wherein the single exterior depression is centrally located and opposite of and horizontally aligned with the single interior depression defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. A), the second depression extending in a direction toward the lower interior surface (annotated Fig. A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Bucksbaum with the depressions as taught by Kagomoto in order to have the interior surface defines only a single interior depression,
wherein the single interior depression is centrally located, and the exterior surface defines only a single exterior depression, wherein the single exterior depression is centrally located and opposite of and horizontally aligned with the single interior depression defined by the interior surface and thereby reduce warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, ‘Summary of the Invention’ of Kagomoto: “the engraved bottom surface has a slightly elongated material and is bent in a convex shape. Therefore, a difference in thermal expansion occurs between the flange portion and the bottom surface on which the food is placed, and the - C oven tray does not warp due to excessive tension.”) to increase cooking appliance longevity and user comfort.
However, Bucksbaum, as modified above, does not disclose the lower interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall, the first depression extending in a direction toward the lower exterior surface, and the lower exterior surface defines a second depression with a planar wall that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the lower interior surface, the second depression extending in a direction toward the lower interior surface.
Froelicher discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 2, oven 100) similar to the present invention and Froelicher further discloses it is known to have a lower interior surface (Fig. 3, interior surface of bottom wall 154. Note this surface is located under rack 164, therefore it is a ‘lower surface’) defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall (Fig. 3, portion of bottom wall 154 that the arrow associated with this element number is pointing to, specifically the interior surface of said portion), the first depression extending in a direction toward the lower exterior surface (Fig. 3, exterior surface of bottom wall 154).
Therefore, as evidenced by Froelicher, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first depression to have a planar bottom wall and extend in a direction toward the lower exterior surface, recognizing that a planar bottom wall extending in a direction toward the lower exterior surface makes it easier to place structures on the bottom of the oven, such as a tray with water, so a wider variety of cooking methods are possible, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere change in shape/orientation has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. In particular, note Par. 0031 of the PGPUBs: “In some implementations, the interior surface 18 of the bottom wall 16 that defines the first centrally located depression 22 may omit the convex portion 42”.
However, Bucksbaum, as modified above, does not disclose the lower exterior surface defines a second depression with a planar wall that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the lower interior surface, the second depression extending in a direction toward the lower interior surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the second depression to have a planar wall, recognizing that a planar wall makes manufacturing easier and/or faster and therefore cheaper, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere change in shape/orientation has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 8, wherein the second depression defined by the lower exterior surface (annotated Fig. A, single exterior depression) is horizontally aligned with the first depression defined by the lower interior surface (annotated Fig. A, single interior depression).
Regarding claim 10, Bucksbaum discloses the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the plurality of walls (Fig. 3, interior walls 14) comprises:
a bottom wall (Fig. 1, bottom instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted in claim 8);
a top wall opposite the bottom wall (Fig. 1, top instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above);
a first side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls (Fig. 1, left instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above); and
a second side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall (Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above), wherein the bottom wall includes the lower interior surface that defines the first depression and the lower exterior surface that defines the second depression (Bucksbaum: Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above in view of Kagomoto: annotated Fig. A, as explained in claim 8).
Regarding claim 12, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein an upward-most portion of the second depression defined by the lower exterior surface (annotated Fig. A, apex of single exterior depression) is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first (Fig. 1, left instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above) and second side walls (Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above).
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 6 above. Note that the terms "single interior depression" / "first depression" and “single exterior depression” / “second depression” are considered to be analogous. Reference claim 8 for mapping to the newly amended ‘lower’ limitation.
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 7 above. Note that the terms "single exterior depression" / "second depression" are considered to be analogous. Reference claim 8 for mapping to the newly amended ‘lower’ limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Bucksbaum discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the plurality of walls (Fig. 3, interior walls 14) further comprises:
a back wall that extends between the first and second side walls and between the top
and bottom walls (Fig. 1, back instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above), wherein the back wall is disposed opposite an opening to the cooking cavity (Fig. 1, opening provides access to hollow cavity 12. One of ordinary skill would understand the back instance of interior wall 14 is disposed opposite the opening to hollow cavity 12).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) in view of Kagomoto et al. (JP 61079919 A, hereafter Kagomoto) in view of Jenness (US 20150047515 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Bucksbaum discloses a metal body (Col. 3, lines 49-51, “hollow cavity 12 having interior walls 14 of conductive material, such as stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel”) for a cooking appliance (Abstract, microwave oven), comprising:
a bottom wall (Fig. 1, bottom instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above);
a top wall opposite the bottom wall (Fig. 1, top instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above);
a first side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls (Fig. 1, left instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above); and
a second side wall that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall (Fig. 1, right instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above), wherein the bottom wall includes an interior surface that partially defines a cooking cavity (Fig. 1, interior surface of bottom instance of interior wall 14 and Col. 3, lines 49-51, as quoted above) and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand walls 14 would necessarily have an exterior surface opposite and interior surface. Reference the interior walls 14 in Fig. 3).
However, Bucksbaum does not disclose the interior surface defines a first centrally located depression, and the exterior surface defines a second centrally located depression that is approximately the same size of, opposite of, and horizontally aligned with the first centrally located depression, and further wherein a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression than at a center of the first centrally located depression.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, ‘Field of the Invention’) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for an interior surface to define a first centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, single interior depression), and the exterior surface defines a second centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, single exterior depression) that is approximately the same size of, opposite of, and horizontally aligned with the first centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, which shows the depressions are approximately the same size in the left-right direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Bucksbaum with the depressions as taught by Kagomoto in order to have the interior surface defines a first centrally located depression, and the exterior surface defines a second centrally located depression that is approximately the same size of, opposite of, and horizontally aligned with the first centrally located depression and thereby reduce warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, ‘Summary of the Invention’ of Kagomoto: “the engraved bottom surface has a slightly elongated material and is bent in a convex shape. Therefore, a difference in thermal expansion occurs between the flange portion and the bottom surface on which the food is placed, and the - C oven tray does not warp due to excessive tension.”) in increase cooking appliance longevity and user comfort.
However, Bucksbaum, as modified above, does not disclose a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression than at a center of the first centrally located depression.
Jenness discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Jenness further discloses it is known for a distance between an interior surface (Figs. 4 and 6, interior surface of cooking cavity 165) and an exterior surface (Fig. 6, exterior surface of bottom surface 160) to be greater at a periphery of a first centrally located depression (Fig. 6, sides of centrally located depression, where the curve causes an increase in the distance between the interior surface of the cooking cavity 165 and exterior surface of bottom surface 160) than at a center of the first centrally located depression (Fig. 6, center of centrally located depression, where the curve causes a decrease in the distance between the interior surface of the cooking cavity 165 and exterior surface of bottom surface 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance of Bucksbaum with the depression as taught by Jenness in order to have a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression than at a center of the first centrally located depression and thereby reduce warping by increasing heat absorption. Furthermore, as evidenced by Jenness, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thickness of the periphery of the first centrally located depression, recognizing that increasing the thickness of the periphery of the first centrally located depression is directly correlated to increased heat absorption, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere change in shape/orientation has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the metal body of claim 17, wherein the first centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, single interior depression) is larger than the second centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, single exterior depression. Note the single interior depression is larger than the single exterior depression at least when measured from top to bottom).
Regarding claim 20, Bucksbaum, as modified above, discloses the metal body of claim 19, wherein the first centrally located depression defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. A, single interior depression) has a first maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B), and the second centrally located depression defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. A, single exterior depression) has a second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B), and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schmidbauer et al. (US8794226B2) discloses an oven with a planar depression in a bottom wall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights