N 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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 3/23/26 response to the Office Action dated 12/23/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 12, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification overcome the previously set forth specification objections and claim rejections so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly. Applicant’s terminal disclaimer overcomes the previously set forth double patenting rejection.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks regarding claim 1 on pgs. 10-11 of the Remarks filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states Froelicher does not disclose "wherein the interior surface defines a first single centrally located depression, and the exterior surface defines a second single centrally located depression that is opposite of and horizontally aligned with the first single centrally located depression defined by the interior surface” (emphasis added). As shown in annotated Figure A, Froelicher discloses a single instance of the first and second centrally located depressions. To elaborate, the bottom wall 154 forms a single centrally located depression with interior and exterior surfaces. Therefore, Froelicher in view of Busckbaum reads on claims 1-7 of the amended claim set.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims 8 and 17 and their dependents 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.
Looking at Figure 6 of the Applicant’s Drawings, this embodiment comprises a first centrally located depression with a planar surface and wherein a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression. It is respectfully recommended by the Examiner to consider amending the claim language to clearly require both of these features in a single independent claim, as this may distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 17, lines 10-12, “a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression” should read “a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression tha[[t]]n at a center of the first centrally located depression” (emphasis added) to correct what appears to be a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 18 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 11, the portion of the interior surface that defines the first depression is claimed to include a convex portion. This feature is present in the embodiment shown in Figure 5 of the Applicant’s as-filed specification, but not in Figure 6. Claim 8 is the base claim for claim 11 and claim 8 recites “the interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall”. A first depression with a planar bottom wall is shown in the embodiment shown in Figure 6, but not in Figure 5. Therefore, base claim 8 is limited to the embodiment shown in Figure 6 while dependent claim 11 is limited to the embodiment shown in Figure 5. Furthermore, the as-filed disclosure does not disclose the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion and the interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall are both present in a single embodiment.
In light of the above discrepancy between the embodiments recited in claims 8 and 11, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a single embodiment that discloses the interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall and the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of the interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall or the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion, and therefore the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 11.
A similar rejection also applies to claim 18. Claim 18 also recites the portion of the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion. As noted above, this feature is present in the embodiment shown in Figure 5 of the Applicant’s as-filed specification, but not in Figure 6. Claim 17 is the parent claim for claim 18 and claim 17 recites “distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression”. A distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface that is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression is shown in Figure 6, but not Figure 5. Therefore, base claim 17 is limited to the embodiment shown in Figure 6 while dependent claim 18 is limited to the embodiment shown in Figure 5. Furthermore, the as-filed disclosure does not disclose the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion and the distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression are both present in a single embodiment.
In light of the above discrepancy between the embodiments recited in claims 17 and 18, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a single embodiment that discloses the distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression and the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived of the distance between the interior surface or the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression and the interior surface that defines the first depression includes a convex portion, and therefore the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 18.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froelicher et al. (US 20140026880 A1, hereafter Froelicher) in view of Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A).
Regarding claim 1, Froelicher discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 2, oven 100), comprising:
a body (Fig. 3, top wall 166, pair of opposing side walls 16, bottom wall 154 and annotated Fig. A, rear wall) that defines a cooking cavity (Fig. 3, oven cavity 156) and includes a bottom wall (Fig. 3, bottom wall 154) that has an interior surface (annotated Fig. B, interior surface) that partially defines the cooking cavity and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. B, exterior surface) opposite the interior surface, wherein the interior surface defines a first single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, interior surface of centrally located depression. Note there is a single centrally located depression), and the exterior surface defines a second single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, exterior surface of centrally located depression) that is opposite of and horizontally aligned with the first single centrally located depression defined by the interior surface (Figs. 3-4).
However, Froelicher does not disclose the body is metal.
NOTE: Froelicher discloses the bottom wall is metal (Par. 0027, “bottom wall 154 can be constructed from a metal sheet”).
Bucksbaum discloses a microwave heating apparatus (Col. 3, lines 48-51) similar to the present invention and Bucksbaum further discloses it is known for a body (Col. 3, lines 48-51, interior walls 14) that defines a cavity (Col. 3, lines 48-51, hollow cavity 12) to be metal (Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel).
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 body of Froelicher to be metal as disclosed by Bucksbaum in order to have a conductive body (As suggested by Col. 3, lines 48-51 of Bucksbaum) and thereby aid even heat distribution for more uniform cooking and/or reduce oven maintenance costs. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rear wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Centrally located depression)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Convex portion)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 3 from Froelicher showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Interior surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Exterior surface)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Froelicher showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the metal body (From Froelicher -Fig. 3, top wall 166, pair of opposing side walls 16, bottom wall 154 and annotated Fig. A, rear wall - in view of Bucksbaum - Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel) is a steel body (From Bucksbaum: Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel).
Regarding claim 3, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the portion of the interior surface (annotated Fig. B, interior surface) that defines the first single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, interior surface of centrally located depression) includes a convex portion (annotated Fig. A, convex portion) that parallels the second single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, exterior surface of centrally located depression) defined by the exterior surface of the bottom wall (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, bottom wall 154).
Regarding claim 4, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the metal body (From Froelicher - Fig. 3, top wall 166, pair of opposing side walls 16, bottom wall 154 and annotated Fig. A, rear wall - in view of Bucksbaum - Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel) further comprises:
a top wall (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, top wall 166) opposite the bottom wall (From Froelicher: bottom wall 154);
a first side wall (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, left instance of side walls 16) that extends between the top and bottom walls;
a second side wall (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, right instance of side walls 16) that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall; and
a back wall (annotated Fig. A, rear wall) that extends between the first and second side walls and between the top and bottom walls, wherein the back wall is disposed opposite an opening (annotated Fig. A, opening) to the cooking cavity (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, oven cavity 156).
Regarding claim 5, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 4, wherein the portion of the second single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, exterior surface of centrally located depression) defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. B, exterior surface) that is nearest to the top wall (From Froelicher: Fig. 3, apex of exterior surface of dimple 174 that is nearest to top wall 166) is positioned substantially equidistantly (annotated Fig. A) from the first (From Froelicher: left instance of side walls 16) and second side walls (From Froelicher: right instance of side walls 16).
Regarding claim 6, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the first single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, interior surface of centrally located depression) defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. B, interior surface) has a first maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. C, first maximum vertical depth), and the second single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. A, exterior surface of centrally located depression) defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. B, exterior surface) has a second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. C, second maximum vertical depth), and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. C).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First maximum vertical depth)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second maximum vertical depth)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Froelicher showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 7, Froelicher, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the vertical depth of the second single centrally located depression (annotated Fig. C, second maximum vertical depth) defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. B, exterior surface) varies laterally (Figs. 3-4, lateral direction L).
However, Froelicher, as modified above, does not disclose the vertical depth of the second centrally located depression is uniform longitudinally.
Froelicher further discloses it is known for a vertical depth (Fig. 7, maximum vertical depth of middle two instances of ribs 186) of a centrally located depression (Fig. 7, middle two instances of ribs 186. Examiner notes the middle two instances of ribs 186 are centrally located between the left and right instances of side walls 160) 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 embodiment of Froelicher directed to Par. 0033 with the embodiment of Froelicher directed to Fig. 7 so the vertical depth of the second single centrally located depression is 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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnell et al. (US 20040149722 A1, hereafter Schnell) in view of Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A).
Regarding claim 8, Schnell discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract), comprising:
a body (Fig. 7, cooking device muffle) that defines a cooking cavity (Par. 0001, cooking chamber) and includes a plurality of walls (Fig. 7, top wall 5, side walls 3, rear wall 4, and collection areas 8, 9), wherein at least one of the plurality of walls (Figs. 7-8, collection areas 8, 9) includes an interior surface (Figs. 7-8, interior surface of collection areas 8, 9) that partially defines the cooking cavity and an exterior surface (Figs. 7-8, exterior surface of collection areas 8, 9) opposite the interior surface, wherein the interior surface defines a first depression (annotated Fig. D, interior surface of centrally located depression), and the exterior surface defines a second depression (annotated Fig. D, exterior surface of centrally located depression) that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the interior surface (Figs. 7-8).
However, Schnell does not disclose the body is metal.
Bucksbaum discloses a microwave heating apparatus (Col. 3, lines 48-51) similar to the present invention and Bucksbaum further discloses it is known for a body (Col. 3, lines 48-51, interior walls 14) that defines a cavity (Col. 3, lines 48-51, hollow cavity 12) to be metal (Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel).
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 body of Schnell to be metal as disclosed by Bucksbaum in order to have a conductive body (As suggested by Col. 3, lines 48-51 of Bucksbaum) and thereby aid even heat distribution for more uniform cooking and/or reduce oven maintenance costs. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image5.png
312
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Centrally formed depression)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 7 from Schnell showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 9, Schnell discloses the cooking appliance of claim 8, wherein the second depression defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. D, exterior surface of centrally located depression) is horizontally aligned with the first depression defined by the interior surface (annotated Fig. D, interior surface of centrally located depression).
Regarding claim 10, Schnell discloses the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the plurality of walls (Fig. 7, top wall 5, side walls 3, rear wall 4, and collection areas 8, 9) comprises:
a bottom wall (Fig. 7, collection areas 8, 9);
a top wall (Fig. 7, top wall 5) opposite the bottom wall;
a first side wall (Fig. 7, left instance of side wall 3) that extends between the top and bottom walls; and
a second side wall (Fig. 7, right instance of side wall 3) that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall, wherein the bottom wall includes the interior surface that defines the first depression (annotated Fig. D, interior surface of centrally located depression) and the exterior surface that defines the second depression (annotated Fig. D, exterior surface of centrally located depression).
Regarding claim 15, Schnell discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the plurality of walls (Fig. 7, top wall 5, side walls 3, rear wall 4, and collection areas 8, 9) further comprises:
a back wall (Fig. 7, rear wall 4) that extends between the first (Fig. 7, left instance of side wall 3) and second side walls (Fig. 7, right instance of side wall 3) and between the top (Fig. 7, top wall 5) and bottom walls (Fig. 7, collection areas 8, 9), wherein the back wall is disposed opposite an opening (Figs. 7-8, opening at front of cooking device muffle 1) to the cooking cavity (Par. 0001, cooking chamber. Reference Fig. 1 for location of cooking chamber 2).
Regarding claim 16, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the metal body (From Schnell: Fig. 7, top wall 5, side walls 3, rear wall 4, and collection areas 8, 9 in view of Bucksbaum: Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel) is a steel body (From Bucksbaum: Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnell et al. (US 20040149722 A1, hereafter Schnell) in view of Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) and further in view of Kagomoto et al. (JP 61079919 A, hereafter Kagomoto).
Regarding claim 11, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10.
However, Schnell, as modified above, does not disclose the portion of the interior surface that defines the first centrally located includes a convex portion that parallels the second centrally located depression defined by the exterior surface of the bottom wall.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, Par. 1, oven) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for a portion of an interior surface that defines a first centrally located depression (Fig. 9, interior surface of bottom surface 10) to include a convex portion (Fig. 9) that parallels a second centrally located depression (Fig. 9, exterior surface of bottom surface 10) defined by an exterior surface of a bottom wall (Fig. 9, bottom surface 10).
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 centrally located depression as disclosed by Schnell, as modified above, to include a convex portion as disclosed by Kagomoto and thereby decrease warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, Par. 1 of Kagomoto: “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION To provide a tray for an oven which does not warp even if any food is placed and heated at any place on the bottom surface of the tray for the oven and does not warp even if any food is placed at any place on the bottom surface of the preheated tray for the oven.”). Furthermore, it’s noted that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the convex shape of the centrally located depression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the centrally located depression to include a convex portion.
Regarding claim 12, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10.
However, Schnell, as modified above, does not disclose an upward-most portion of the second depression defined by the exterior surface is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first and second side walls.
NOTE: Schnell discloses the second depression defined by the exterior surface has a uniform upward-most portion, therefore the upward-most portion could arbitrarily be defined as the center of the second depression, which is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first and second side walls.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, Par. 1, oven) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for an upward-most portion (Fig. 9, apex of exterior surface of bottom surface 10) of the second depression defined by the exterior surface (Fig. 9, exterior surface of bottom surface 10) is positioned substantially equidistantly (Fig. 9) from the first (Fig. 9, left instance of flange 12) and second side walls (Fig. 9, right instance of flange 21).
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 centrally located depression as disclosed by Schnell, as modified above, to an upward-most portion that is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first and second side walls as disclosed by Kagomoto and thereby decrease warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, Par. 1 of Kagomoto: “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION To provide a tray for an oven which does not warp even if any food is placed and heated at any place on the bottom surface of the tray for the oven and does not warp even if any food is placed at any place on the bottom surface of the preheated tray for the oven.”). Furthermore, it’s noted that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to an upward-most portion that is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first and second side walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the centrally located depression to include an upward-most portion that is positioned substantially equidistantly from the first and second side walls.
Regarding claim 13, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10.
However, Schnell, as modified above, does not disclose the first centrally located depression defined by the interior surface has a first maximum vertical depth, and the second centrally located depression defined by the exterior surface has a second maximum vertical depth, and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth.
Kagomoto discloses an oven (Pg. 2, Par. 1, oven) similar to the present invention and Kagomoto further discloses it is known for a first centrally located depression defined by an interior surface (Fig. 9, interior surface of bottom surface 10) has a first maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. E, first maximum vertical depth), and a second centrally located depression defined by an exterior surface (Fig. 9, exterior surface of bottom surface 10) has a second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. E, second maximum vertical depth), and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth (annotated Fig. E).
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 centrally located depression as disclosed by Schnell, as modified above, to include a convex portion as disclosed by Kagomoto and thereby decrease warping (As suggested by Pg. 3, Par. 1 of Kagomoto: “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION To provide a tray for an oven which does not warp even if any food is placed and heated at any place on the bottom surface of the tray for the oven and does not warp even if any food is placed at any place on the bottom surface of the preheated tray for the oven.”). Furthermore, it’s noted that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the convex shape of the centrally located depression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the centrally located depression to include a convex portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
338
508
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First maximum vertical depth)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second maximum vertical depth)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 9 from Kagomoto showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnell et al. (US 20040149722 A1, hereafter Schnell) in view of Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) and further in view of Froelicher et al. (US 20140026880 A1, hereafter Froelicher).
Regarding claim 14, Schnell discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the vertical depth of the second centrally located depression defined by the exterior surface (annotated Fig. D, vertical depth of the exterior surface of centrally located depression) varies laterally (Figs. 7-8, left-right direction).
However, Schnell, as modified above, does not disclose the vertical depth of the second centrally located 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 centrally located depression (Fig. 7, middle two instances of ribs 186. Examiner notes the middle two instances of ribs 186 are centrally located between the left and right instances of side walls 160) 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 centrally located depression of Schnell with the centrally located depression of Froelicher so the vertical depth of the second single centrally located depression is uniform longitudinally and thereby more evenly distributes 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnell et al. (US 20040149722 A1, hereafter Schnell) in view of Bucksbaum (US 4137441 A) and further in view of Poon (US 20140208962 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Schnell discloses a body (Fig. 7, cooking device muffle) for a cooking appliance (Abstract), comprising:
a bottom wall (Figs. 7-8, collection areas 8, 9);
a top wall (Fig. 7, top wall 5) opposite the bottom wall;
a first side wall (Fig. 7, left instance of side wall 3) that extends between the top and bottom walls; and
a second side wall (Fig. 7, right instance of side wall 3) that extends between the top and bottom walls opposite the first side wall, wherein the bottom wall includes an interior surface (annotated Fig. D, interior surface) that partially defines a cooking cavity (Fig. 3, oven cavity 156) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. D, exterior surface) opposite the interior surface, and wherein the interior surface defines a first centrally located depression (annotated Fig. D, interior surface of centrally located depression), and the exterior surface defines a second centrally located depression (annotated Fig. D, exterior surface of centrally located depression) that is opposite of and horizontally aligned with the first centrally located depression (annotated Fig. D).
However, Schnell does not disclose the body is metal and
a distance between the interior surface and the exterior surface is greater at a periphery of the first centrally located depression that at a center of the first centrally located depression.
Bucksbaum discloses a microwave heating apparatus (Col. 3, lines 48-51) similar to the present invention and Bucksbaum further discloses it is known for a body (Col. 3, lines 48-51, interior walls 14) that defines a cavity (Col. 3, lines 48-51, hollow cavity 12) to be metal (Col. 3, lines 48-51, stainless steel aluminum or cold rolled steel).
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 body of Schnell to be metal as disclosed by Bucksbaum in order to have a conductive body (As suggested by Col. 3, lines 48-51 of Bucksbaum) and thereby aid even heat distribution for more uniform cooking and/or reduce oven maintenance costs.
However, Schnell, 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 that at a center of the first centrally located depression.
Poon discloses a grilling apparatus (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Poon further discloses it is known to have a bottom wall (Figs. 2-3, bottom of collection plate 22) wherein a distance between an interior surface (Figs. 2-3, interior surface of bottom of collection plate 22) and an exterior surface (Figs. 2-3, exterior surface of bottom of collection plate 22) to be greater at a periphery (Fig. 3, first and second raised peripheral edges 36, 37 of the middle instance of the collection channel 34. Note claim 1 which discloses the first and second raised peripheral edges 36, 37 are present on each collection channel 34) of a first centrally located depression (Fig. 3, interior surface of the middle instance of the collection channel 34) that at a center of the first centrally located depression (Fig. 3, center of the middle instance of the collection channel 34).
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 bottom wall of Schnell with the same of Poon in order to route fluids away from cooking food (As suggested by Par. 0032 of Poon: “As the cooking progresses, fluids from the food (i.e. grease, juices, sauces, etc.) will drip below grill 42 and onto the collection plate 22. Some of the fluids will be routed via collection channels 34…fluids…are ultimately directed into peripheral trough 38 for later disposal.”) and thereby reduce smoke (As suggested by Par. 0032 of Poon: “This arrangement greatly limits, if not eliminates, the smoke created by cooking fluids”) and/or make cleaning easier and/or more convenient.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 11 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 19, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the metal body of claim 17, wherein the first centrally located depression (Fig. 3, interior surface of the middle instance of the collection channel 34) is larger than the second centrally located depression (Fig. 3, exterior surface of the middle instance of the collection channel 34).
Regarding claim 20, Schnell, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 19, wherein the first centrally located depression (Fig. 3, interior surface of the middle instance of the collection channel 34) defined by the interior surface (Figs. 2-3, interior surface of bottom of collection plate 22) has a first maximum vertical depth (Fig. 3, depth as measured from the top of the first and second raised peripheral edges 36, 37 of the middle instance of the collection channel 34 to the interior surface of the trough 38), and the second centrally located depression (Fig. 3, exterior surface of the middle instance of the collection channel 34) defined by the exterior surface (Figs. 2-3, exterior surface of bottom of collection plate 22) has a second maximum vertical depth (Fig. 3, depth from the interior surface of the trough 38 to the exterior surface of the bottom of the collection plate 22), and wherein the first maximum vertical depth is greater than the second maximum vertical depth (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schmidbauer et al. (US 8794226 B2) discloses it is known for an oven to have a cooking appliance, comprising: a body that defines a cooking cavity and includes a bottom wall that has an interior surface that partially defines the cooking cavity and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface, wherein the interior surface defines a first single centrally located depression, and the exterior surface defines a second single centrally located depression that is opposite of and horizontally aligned with the first single centrally located depression defined by the interior surface and a cooking appliance, comprising: a body that defines a cooking cavity and includes a plurality of walls, wherein at least one of the plurality of walls includes an interior surface that partially defines the cooking cavity and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface, wherein the interior surface defines a first depression with a planar bottom wall, and the exterior surface defines a second depression that is opposite of and aligned with the first depression defined by the interior surface.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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