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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 9: heating device. The nonce term “device” is modified by functional language “heating.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a gas burner as specified in Par. 0133, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Arai ‘764.
Reference is also made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Untranslated ‘839.
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a heating cooker (Par. 0001, roaster) comprising:
an outer casing (Fig. 2, decorative frame 5 and dust collection box 7) provided with a rectangular outer bottom wall (Fig. 7, bottom wall of dust collection box 7, which is a square. Examiner notes a square is a type of rectangle) having an exhaust port (Fig. 7, volume damper connection port 8 and Par. 0029, “(17) is a volume damper connected to the volume damper connection port (8) of the dust collection box (7), and the smoke exhaust air volume can be adjusted by rotating its handle (18)”), and a first outer sidewall (Fig. 2, back sidewall of dust collection box 7), a second outer sidewall (Fig. 2, front sidewall of dust collection box 7), a third outer sidewall (Fig. 2, left sidewall of dust collection box 7), and a fourth outer sidewall (Fig. 2, right sidewall of dust collection box 7), said outer sidewalls rising from the four sides of the outer bottom wall (Fig. 2);
an inner casing (Fig. 2, water tank 41 and heat transmitting plate 12) provided with an inner bottom wall that is rectangular (Fig. 7, bottom wall of heat transmitting plate 12, which is a square. Examiner notes a square is a type of rectangle) and has a flat upper surface (Figs. 2 and 20, receiving flange 43), and a first inner sidewall (Fig. 2, back sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12), a second inner sidewall (Fig. 2, front sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12), a third inner sidewall (Fig. 2, left sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12), and a fourth inner sidewall (Fig. 2, right sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12), said inner sidewalls rising from the four sides of the inner bottom wall (Fig. 2), the inner casing being disposed inside the outer casing (Figs. 18 and 20);
a heating device (Fig. 20, gas burner B. Examiner notes gas burner B is equivalent to the “gas burner” and its equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above); and
a top cover (Figs. 2 and 20, intake cylinder 44) having an intake hole (Fig. 2, intake holes 45) in communication with the exhaust port (Par. 0042, which discloses intake holes 45 are in communication with volume damper 17. Examiner notes volume damper 17 is connected with volume damper connection port 8 (i.e., exhaust port) per Par. 0029), the top cover being disposed above the outer casing and the inner casing (Figs. 2 and 20), wherein
the first outer sidewall faces the first inner sidewall (Figs. 2 and 20),
the second outer sidewall faces the second inner sidewall (Figs. 2 and 20),
the third outer sidewall faces the third inner sidewall (Figs. 2 and 20),
the fourth outer sidewall faces the fourth inner sidewall (Figs. 2 and 20).
However, Arai does not explicitly disclose a size of a gap between an inner surface of the first outer sidewall and an outer surface of the first inner sidewall and a size of a gap between an inner surface of the second outer sidewall and an outer surface of the second inner sidewall, are smaller than a size of a gap between an inner surface of the third outer sidewall and an outer surface of the third inner sidewall and a size of a gap between an inner surface of the fourth outer sidewall and an outer surface of the fourth inner sidewall.
NOTE: Arai discloses the gap between the water tank 41 (i.e., inner casing) and decorative frame 5 (i.e., outer casing) functions as an intake passage for smoke exhaust (Par. 0013). In addition, Fig. 20 appears to show the gap between the sidewalls defining the left instance of intake passage P has a smaller size than the gap between the sidewalls defining the right instance of intake passage P.
Untranslated discloses a barbecue grill (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Untranslated further discloses it is known for a size of a gap (annotated Fig. A, size of first gap) between an inner surface of a first outer sidewall (Fig. 2, inner surface of back sidewall of vertical outer wall 2) and an outer surface of a first inner sidewall (Fig. 2, outer surface of back sidewall of solid fuel basket 6) and a size of a gap (annotated Fig. A, size of second gap) between an inner surface of a second outer sidewall (Fig. 2, inner surface of front sidewall of vertical outer wall 2) and an outer surface of a second inner sidewall (Fig. 2, outer surface of front sidewall of solid fuel basket 6), are smaller than a size of a gap (annotated Fig. A, size of third gap) between an inner surface of a third outer sidewall (Fig. 2, inner surface of left sidewall of vertical outer wall 2) and an outer surface of a third inner sidewall (Fig. 2, outer surface of left sidewall of solid fuel basket 6) and a size of a gap (annotated Fig. A, size of fourth gap) between an inner surface of a fourth outer sidewall (Fig. 2, inner surface of right sidewall of vertical outer wall 2) and an outer surface of a fourth inner sidewall (Fig. 2, outer surface of right sidewall of solid fuel basket 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Third gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fourth gap)][AltContent: textbox (First gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second gap)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 5 from Untranslated showing location of prior art elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have suitably modified the heating cooker of Arai with the gaps between the sidewalls as disclosed by Untranslated in order to have a size of a gap between an inner surface of the first outer sidewall and an outer surface of the first inner sidewall and a size of a gap between an inner surface of the second outer sidewall and an outer surface of the second inner sidewall, are smaller than a size of a gap between an inner surface of the third outer sidewall and an outer surface of the third inner sidewall and a size of a gap between an inner surface of the fourth outer sidewall and an outer surface of the fourth inner sidewall and thereby increase the velocity of the exhaust flow flowing through the third and fourth gaps for more effective smoke ventilation.
To the extent that the Applicant disagrees, Examiner notes 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 (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the shape of the outer and inner casings. 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 outer and inner casings to be rectangular.
Regarding claim 3, Arai discloses the heating cooker according to claim 1, wherein the heating device is a gas burner (Fig. 20, gas burner B), the heating cooker (Par. 0001, roaster) further comprising a hot plate (Figs. 2 and 20, heat reflecting dish 48. Examiner notes a hot plate is designed to heat items such as food, therefore heat reflecting dish 48 is a ‘hot plate’ because it projects heat onto food. See Par. 0046) above the heating device (Fig. 20).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated) and further in view of Sim (US 20010017131 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 1.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the third inner sidewall and the fourth inner sidewall are provided with placement portions configured to have a cooking utensil disposed thereupon.
Sim discloses a charcoal cooker (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Sim further discloses it is known for an inner sidewall (Par. 0117, first longitudinal sidewall 22) and another inner sidewall (Par. 0117, second longitudinal sidewall 23) to be provided with placement portions (Par. 0117, projections 27) configured to have a cooking utensil (Par. 0117, inner dish 100) disposed thereupon (Par. 0117, “flange 101 is supported by projections 27 formed on the inner surfaces of the first longitudinal sidewall 22 and the second longitudinal sidewall 23 of the housing 20”).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, to have the projections and cooking utensil as disclosed by Sim in order to have the an inner sidewall and another inner sidewall provided with placement portions configured to have a cooking utensil disposed thereupon and thereby allow more food to be cooked simultaneously for greater user convenience and/or to allow food to be cooked at different heights to accommodate a wider range of user preferences.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the third inner sidewall and the fourth inner sidewall are provided with placement portions configured to have a cooking utensil disposed thereupon.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the placement portions formed on the third and fourth inner sidewalls since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was 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 placement portions was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e. placement portions on the third and fourth inner sidewalls, placement portions on the first and second inner sidewalls. One could have expected the projections to perform substantially equally well, whether on the first and second inner sidewalls or in their original position.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated) and further in view of Best (US 20090202688 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 3, wherein the fourth outer sidewall (Figs. 2 and 20, right sidewall of dust collection box 7) and the inner bottom wall (Fig. 7, bottom wall of heat transmitting plate 12) have through-openings (annotated Fig. B) for allowing the gas burner (Fig. 20, gas burner B) to pass therethrough (annotated Fig. B shows the right sidewall of dust collection box 7 (bottom arrow) and right sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12 (top arrow) must necessarily have through-openings for gas burner B to positioned such that it passes through them as shown).
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the second outer sidewall and the second inner sidewall have through-openings for allowing the gas burner to pass therethrough.
Best discloses a cooking device (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Best further discloses it is known for a second outer sidewall (Fig. 6, wall 55) and a second inner sidewall (Figs. 2-3, left sidewall of combustion chamber 80) to have through-openings for allowing the gas burner (Figs. 2-3, burner 32 and tubular air injector 62) to pass therethrough (Figs. 2-3 show the wall 55 and the left sidewall of combustion chamber 80 must necessarily have through-openings for burner 32 and tubular air injector 62 to be positioned as shown).
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 through-holes of Arai, as modified above, to be located in the second outer and inner sidewalls as disclosed by Best so the second outer sidewall and the second inner sidewall have through-openings for allowing the gas burner to pass therethrough and thereby have the burner oriented parallel to the longest dimension of the inner and outer casings, so users can cook long, thin foods such as ribs, rather than cutting them up into smaller pieces, for greater user convenience.
PNG
media_image3.png
816
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through-openings)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 20 from Arai showing location of prior art elements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated) and further in view of Sim (US 20010017131 A1) and Best (US 20090202688 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 3, further comprising a gas unit (Arai: Par. 0069, pilot nozzle and gas burner B) including a pilot burner (Par. 0069, pilot nozzle) for igniting the gas burner (Arai: Par. 0069, gas burner B).
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the gas unit is removably attached to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall.
Sim discloses a charcoal cooker (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Sim further discloses it is known for a gas unit (Fig. 2, gas ignitor 50 and gas vessel 200) to be attached to an outer surface of an outer sidewall (Fig. 2, side wall 25).
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 gas unit of Arai, as modified above, with the same of Sim in order to have the gas unit attached to an outer surface of an outer sidewall and thereby make the pilot burner easier to clean and maintain.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the gas unit is removably attached to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall.
Best discloses a cooking device (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Best further discloses it is known for a gas unit (Fig. 2, control valve 64) to be attached to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall (Fig. 6, outer surface of wall 55).
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 gas unit of Arai, as modified above, to be attached to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall as disclosed by Best so the burner is oriented parallel to the longest dimension of the inner and outer casings, so users can cook long, thin foods such as ribs, rather than cutting them up into smaller pieces, for greater user convenience.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the gas unit is removably attached to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall. Although the reference doesn’t appear to explicitly have any “removable” language, per se, it is the examiner’s position that a comparison between Figures 2 and 3 shows what would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art to be a removable gas unit, i.e. Fig. 2 has gas ignitor 50 attached to side wall 25 and Figs. 3 and 20 has gas ignitor 50 removed from side wall 25.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, then the Examiner takes the position that it’s well-known in the art to make gas units removable, as indicated by Pg. 15, line 35 - Pg. 16, line 4 of Tapaninaho (GB 2545929 A) referenced in the conclusion. In this case, making the gas unit removable would provide the predicable benefit of easier maintenance and cleaning of Arai’s heating cooker.
Claims 6-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated), Sim (US 20010017131 A1) and Best (US 20090202688 A1) and further in view of Cusson (CA 2127783 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 5, further comprising a side cover (Sim: Fig. 2, walls forming gas ignitor 50) attached to the outer surface of the second outer sidewall (Sim: Fig. 2, side wall 25).
However, Arai, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the pilot burner has a burner hole, the burner hole of the pilot burner being positioned inside the side cover.
Cusson discloses a heating unit that can be transformed into a variety of different cookers, including a barbecue grill unit (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Cusson further discloses it is known for a pilot burner (Fig. 11, pilot unit 144 and Pg. 14, lines 23-24, “flame of pilot unit 114”) to have a burner hole (Fig. 11, combustion air intake ports 118a), the burner hole of the pilot burner being positioned inside a cover (Pg. 5, lines 17-18, “figure 12 is a view at an enlarged scale of the pilot unit appearing in the area circumscribed by arrow 12 in figure 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 pilot burner of Arai, as modified above, with the same of Cusson so the pilot burner 1) has a burner hole and 2) the burner hole of the pilot burner is positioned a cover and thereby ensure there is sufficient airflow to 1) sustain the flame of the pilot burner (As suggested by Pg. 14, lines 22-24 of Cusson: “combustion air intake ports 118a at its lower portion…for sustaining the flame of pilot unit 114”) and 2) protect the pilot burner from contaminants for increased reliability of the heating cooker.
NOTE: It’s understood that the limitation “the burner hole of the pilot burner being positioned inside the side cover” is necessarily met by modified Arai. To elaborate, Arai teaches the gas unit has a side cover and Cusson teaches the burner holes are positioned in a cover; therefore, the burner holes of modified Arai must necessarily be positioned inside the side cover.
Regarding claim 7, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 6.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose during operation of the heating cooker, a pressure inside the side cover is approximately the same as a pressure in the gap between the inner surface of the second outer sidewall and the outer surface of the second inner sidewall.
Best further discloses a cooking device (Par. 0002) similar to the present invention and Best further discloses it is known for during operation of the heating cooker (Par. 0002, cooking device), a pressure inside a combustion chamber (Par. 0108, “pressure within the combustion chamber 80”) is approximately the same (Par. 0108, “the pressure within the combustion chamber 80 (e.g., immediately under the emitter plate 34 and, therefore, outside of the burner 32) to be approximately equal to (e.g., substantially the same as) the pressure (e.g., ambient atmospheric pressure) in which the combustion chamber 80 is located”) as a pressure in a gap between an inner surface of a second outer sidewall (Fig. 3, inner surface of wall 55) and an outer surface of the second inner sidewall (Fig. 3, outer surface of left sidewall of combustion chamber 80. Par. 0108, “the pressure (e.g., ambient atmospheric pressure) in which the combustion chamber 80 is located” Examiner notes the pressure in which the combustion chamber 80 is located includes the gap between the inner surface of right wall 54 and outer surface of combustion chamber 80 (i.e., pressure in a gap between an inner surface of a second outer sidewall and an outer surface of the second inner sidewall).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, with the approximately equal pressures as disclosed by Best so during operation of the heating cooker, a pressure inside the side cover is approximately the same as a pressure in the gap between the inner surface of the second outer sidewall and the outer surface of the second inner sidewall and thereby encourage increase the reliability of the pilot burner (As suggested by Par. 0108 of Best, “a good distribution of the convective products of combustion 84”) for increased reliability of the heating cooker as whole.
NOTE: It’s understood that the limitation “a pressure inside the side cover is approximately the same as a pressure in the gap between the inner surface of the second outer sidewall and the outer surface of the second inner sidewall” is necessarily met by modified Arai. To elaborate, Arai teaches the side cover has a combustion chamber due to the presence of the pilot burner and Best teaches the pressure inside a combustion chamber is approximately the same as a pressure in a gap between an inner surface of a second outer sidewall and an outer surface of a second inner sidewall; therefore, the a pressure inside the side cover of modified Arai must necessarily be approximately the same as a pressure in the gap between the inner surface of the second outer sidewall and the outer surface of the second inner sidewall.
Regarding claim 8, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 6.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose a lower portion of the third inner sidewall and a lower portion of the fourth inner sidewall have inclined portions that are inclined inwardly, and the outer casing is further provided with inclined guides provided to the inner surface of the second outer sidewall for making contact with the inclined portions.
Untranslated further discloses it is known for a lower portion of the third inner sidewall (Fig. 2, lower portion of left sidewall of solid fuel basket 6) and a lower portion of the fourth inner sidewall (Fig. 2, lower portion of right sidewall of solid fuel basket 6) have portions (Fig. 2, bottom of left and right sidewall of solid fuel basket 6), and the outer casing (Fig. 2, vertical outer wall 2) is further provided with guides (annotated Fig. C, guides. A guide is designed to lead or direct something’s way, therefore the structures identified in Fig. C are guides because they lead or direct solid fuel basket 6 into position) provided to the inner surface of the second outer sidewall (Fig. 2, inner surface of front sidewall of vertical outer wall 2) for making contact with the portions (Fig. 2).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, with the guides as disclosed by Untranslated so a lower portion of the third inner sidewall and a lower portion of the fourth inner sidewall have portions and the outer casing is further provided with guides provided to the inner surface of the second outer sidewall for making contact with the portions and thereby increase the reliability of the heating cooker by increasing support for the inner casing.
PNG
media_image5.png
507
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Guides)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Untranslated showing location of prior art elements.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose a lower portion of the third inner sidewall and a lower portion of the fourth inner sidewall have inclined portions that are inclined inwardly, and the outer casing is further provided with inclined guides provided to the inner surface of the second outer sidewall for making contact with the inclined portions.
Sim further discloses it is known for a third inner sidewall (Figs. 11-13, lower portion of left side wall of inner dish 100) and a lower portion of a fourth inner sidewall (Figs. 11-13, lower portion of right side wall of inner dish 100) to have inclined portions that are inclined inwardly (Figs. 11-13), and the outer casing (Figs. 1 and 9, housing 20) is further provided with inclined portions (Fig. 9, inclined portions on left and right side of housing 20).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, with the inclined portions as disclosed by Sim so a lower portion of the third inner sidewall and a lower portion of the fourth inner sidewall have inclined portions that are inclined inwardly, and the outer casing is further provided with inclined portions and thereby guide smoke around the inclined portions of the third and fourth inner sidewalls towards the exhaust port for more effective smoke ventilation.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, then the Examiner takes the position that it’s well-known in the art for inner casings to have inclined portions, as indicated by Par. 0039 of Gadams et al. (US 20240142108 A1) referenced in the conclusion. In this case, the inclined portions would provide the predicable benefit of guiding smoke towards the exhaust port and thereby increase the effectiveness of ventilating smoke from Arai’s heating cooker.
Regarding claim 10, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 6, wherein the size of the gap (annotated Fig. A, size of second gap) between the inner surface of the second outer sidewall (Arai: Fig. 2, front sidewall of dust collection box 7) and the outer surface of the second inner sidewall (Arai: Fig. 2, front sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12) is smaller than the size of the gap (annotated Fig. A, size of first gap) between the inner surface of the first outer sidewall (Fig. 2, back sidewall of dust collection box 7) and the outer surface of the first inner sidewall (Fig. 2, back sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12. Examiner notes the size of the gap between the second outer and inner sidewalls is necessarily smaller than the size of the gap between the first outer and inner sidewalls because of the protrusion of modified Arai that is explained in claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 6.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose each of the first inner sidewall and the second inner sidewall has an inner intake opening for taking in air, and the inner casing is further provided with inner splash prevention portions extending diagonally upward and outward from lower edges of the inner intake openings.
Sim further discloses each of the first inner sidewall (Fig. 11, back sidewall of inner dish 100) and the second inner sidewall (Fig. 11, front sidewall of inner dish 100) has an inner intake opening for taking in air (Fig. 11, air inlet 102 and Par. 0117, “At least an air inlet 102 permitting air to flow from outside to inside of the inner dish 100 are formed in the longitudinal sidewalls of the inner dish 100”), and an inner casing (Fig 11, inner dish 100) is further provided with inner splash prevention portions (Fig. 11, eaves 103 and Par. 0117, “the air inlet 102 is covered with the eaves 103 so that the eaves 103 prevent the fallen filth from getting out of the inner dish 100 through the air inlet 102”) extending diagonally upward and outward from lower edges of the inner intake openings (Fig. 13).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, to have the inner intake openings and splash prevention portions disclosed by Sim so each of the first inner sidewall and the second inner sidewall has an inner intake opening for taking in air, and the inner casing is further provided with inner splash prevention portions extending diagonally upward and outward from lower edges of the inner intake openings and thereby better ensure sufficient airflow for combustion while preventing contaminants from entering the heating cooker (As suggested by Par. 0117 of Sim: “the eaves 103 prevent the fallen filth from getting out of the inner dish 100 through the air inlet 102”) for increased reliability of the heating cooker.
Regarding claim 12, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 11, wherein each of the first inner sidewall (Arai: Fig. 2, back sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12) and the second inner sidewall (Arai: Fig. 2, front sidewall of heat transmitting plate 12) has a pocket (annotated Fig. D. Examiner notes the structure identified in annotated Fig. D is necessarily formed underneath the splash prevention portion of Sim that is explained in claim 11. A pocket is designed to hem in something, therefore the structure identified in annotated Fig. D is a ‘pocket’ because it hems in water and/or other substances underneath the splash prevention portion of Sim and the second inner sidewall, third inner sidewall, and fourth inner sidewall of Arai) below the inner splash prevention portion (Sim: Fig. 11, eaves 103 and Par. 0117, as quoted in claim 11).
PNG
media_image7.png
504
387
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Pocket)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 2 from Arai showing location of prior art elements, using the second inner sidewall as an example.
Regarding claim 13, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 12.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose each of the first outer sidewall and the second outer sidewall has an outer intake opening for taking in air, the outer intake openings being provided above the pockets.
Sim further discloses each of the first outer sidewall (Fig. 40, back sidewall of housing 20) and the second outer sidewall (Fig. 40, front sidewall of housing 20) has an outer intake opening for taking in air (Fig 40, air inlets 23a and 22a)
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, with the outer intake openings as disclosed by Sim each of the first outer sidewall and the second outer sidewall has an outer intake opening for taking in air and thereby better ensure sufficient airflow for combustion.
It’s understood that the limitation “the outer intake openings being provided above the pockets” is necessarily met by modified Arai. To elaborate, modified Arai teaches pocket is located at the bottom of the inner casing so adding the outer intake openings above the bottom of the inner casing as disclosed by Simi necessarily means the outer intake openings are provided above the pockets.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated), Sim (US 20010017131 A1), Best (US 20090202688 A1), and Cusson (CA 2127783 A1) and further in view of Jung (KR101017640B1).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Arai ‘764.
Regarding claim 9, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 6.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the first outer sidewall has a protrusion protruding toward the second outer sidewall, the protrusion making contact with the outer surface of the first inner sidewall and pushing the inner casing toward the second outer sidewall.
Jung discloses a barbecue device (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Jung further discloses it is known for a first outer sidewall (Fig. 2, back sidewall of body 1) to have a protrusion (Fig. 2, support plate 17) protruding toward a second outer sidewall (Fig. 2, front sidewall of body 1), the protrusion making contact with an outer surface of the first inner sidewall (Fig. 14, outer surface of front sidewall of left instance of charcoal container 3 and Pg. 7, last two lines, which discloses support plate 17 supports the charcoal container 3 on the inside. Examiner notes the reference to charcoal container as element number 2 in this citation appears to be a typo in light of the rest of the specification and Figures) and pushing an inner casing (Fig. 14, left instance of charcoal container 3) toward the second outer sidewall (Figs. 2 and 14).
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 heating cooker of Arai, as modified above, with the protrusion as disclosed by Jung so the first outer sidewall has a protrusion protruding toward the second outer sidewall, the protrusion making contact with the outer surface of the first inner sidewall and pushing the inner casing toward the second outer sidewall and thereby increase the reliability of the heating cooker by increasing support for the inner casing.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP2009247764A) in view of 久田見 et al, (JP6856839B1, hereafter Untranslated), Sim (US 20010017131 A1), Best (US 20090202688 A1) and Cusson (CA 2127783 A1) and further in view of Dahle et al. (US 20190167039 A1, hereafter Dahle).
Regarding claim 14, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 13.
However, Arai, as modified above, does not disclose the outer casing is further provided with outer splash prevention portions extending diagonally upward and outward from lower edges of the outer intake openings.
Dahle discloses an outdoor cooking station (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Dahle further discloses it is known for an outer casing (Fig. 10, griddle 302) to be provided with an outer splash prevention portions (Fig. 10, trough 314) extending diagonally upward and outward from the lower edge of the outer intake opening (Fig. 10 and Par. 0063, “the trough 314 may define a sloped surface 370, sloping downward toward and to the through hole 316” Examiner notes trough 314 extends diagonally upward when the back of griddle 302 is the starting reference point and the front of griddle 302 is the ending reference point.
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 Arai, as modified above, to include the outer splash prevention portion and container portion 410 as disclosed by Dahle so the outer casing is provided with an outer splash prevention portion extending diagonally upward and outward from the lower edge of one of the outer intake openings and thereby remove contaminants (As suggested by Par. 0063 of Dahle: “funnel the grease rearward to the through hole 316”) for increased reliability and/or easier cleaning of the heating cooker.
Arai, as modified above, disclose the claimed invention except for an outer splash prevention portion for each outer intake opening. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize and arrive at [the duplicate modification of the outer splash prevention portion, recognizing that an outer splash prevention portion for each outer intake opening is directly correlated to increased reliability and/or easier cleaning of the heating cooker, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts 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 a new and unexpected result for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Arai, as modified above, discloses the heating cooker according to claim 14, wherein the side cover (Sim: Fig. 2, walls forming gas ignitor 50) is provided with an inclined plate inclined diagonally downward (Sim: Fig. 5, bottom wall forming gas ignitor 50 is an inclined plate that is inclined diagonally downward), a tip of the inclined plate (Sim: Fig. 5, right end of the bottom wall forming gas ignitor 50) being positioned above the outer splash prevention portion (Dahle: Fig. 10, trough 314) provided to the second outer sidewall (Arai: Fig. 2, front sidewall of dust collection box 7. Examiner notes Figs. 4-5 show the right end of the bottom wall forming gas ignitor 50 is positioned above air inlet 22a (i.e., outer intake opening). Given the outer splash prevention portion of Dahle originates at the lower edge of the outer intake opening, this necessarily means the right end of the bottom wall forming gas ignitor 50 of Sim (i.e., tip of inclined plate) is positioned above the through 314 (i.e., outer splash prevention portion) of Dahle in modified Arai).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tapaninaho (GB 2545929 A) discloses a cooking apparatus (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Tapaninaho further discloses it is known for a gas unit (Fig. 1, removable burner 11 and Pg. 17, lines 26-27, “The fuel burner may be configured to burn one or more of the following combustible fuels: wood chips, wood pellets, coal, split wood, twigs, gas, oil”) to be removably attached (Pg. 15, line 35 - Pg. 16, line 4, “The removable burner unit is releasably mountable to the oven such that the removable burner unit may be removed from the oven, thereby facilitating replacement of the burner unit, replacement of fuel, cleaning of the burner unit, cleaning of the cooking chamber of the oven, and/or safe storage of the removable burner unit separate from the oven. Removal of the removable burner unit also typically reduces the size (i.e. the external dimensions) of the oven, thereby permitting easier storage.”) to an outer surface of the second outer sidewall (Fig. 1, rear wall 12. Examiner notes the walls of oven 1 can be numbered such that rear wall 12 is a ‘second’ outer sidewall).
Heiman (US 3082758 A) discloses “pressures created at the stack air intake and air discharge are equal to one another, thus maintaining a substantially constant pressure across the fuel burner so as to insure a steady and constant volume of air for combustion under all wind conditions and without the use of any barometric draft regulator or draft hood” (Col. 1, lines 32-47)
Gadams et al. (US 20240142108 A1) discloses “The body of the steam generating unit 14 can include a lower surface or lower wall 24 for supporting the modular steam production system 10 in a home cooking appliance and one or more tapered or curved interior side walls 26 for promoting and/or guiding a flow of steam generated by the steam generating unit 14 from within the steam cavity 140 toward one or more steam vents 30, from which the steam can then exit to the exterior of the modular steam production system 10” (Par. 0042).
Vardy et al. (WO 2023183259 A1) discloses “the angled inner sidewall is angled to direct radiant thermal energy upwardly and inwardly towards the support structure” (Par. 0008).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm 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