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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “;” in the last line must be replaced with a --.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Del Fabbro (EP 0526768), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Del Fabbro shows:
1. A combination oven comprising: an insulated housing 7 including a door 8 configured to close to define an interior cooking cavity 5 and an opening 10 to provide access to the cooking cavity (fig. 1,2); a steam generator 33 for producing steam within the cooking cavity according to a steam production signal (col. 4, lines 46-54); a cooking cavity heater system 15 communicating with the cooking cavity to heat the cooking cavity and comprising: a blower 26 adapted to receive air and gas and deliver mixed air and gas downstream to the at least one combustion tube 15 (fig. 1-3); a gas burner 19 producing a flame to heat the mixed air and gas (fig. 1-3); and an internal baffle 47 positioned within the at least one combustion tube to conduct heat from heated air and gas passing through the combustion tube to walls of the combustion tube and extending from an inlet to an outlet of the combustion tube along a longitudinal axis extending along a length of the combustion tube (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2)[[;]].
2. The combination oven of claim 1 wherein the internal baffle is thermally conductive and in contact with an inner surface of the combustion tube to conduct heat thereto (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
3. The combination oven of claim 1 wherein the internal baffle extends across a diameter of the combustion tube in at least two perpendicular directions (fig. 1,4).
4. The combination oven of claim 3 wherein the internal baffle extends across a diameter of the combustion tube in at least four perpendicular directions (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
5. The combination oven of claim 1 wherein an internal volume of the combustion tube is at least 60% filled by a volume of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
6. The combination oven of claim 5 wherein an internal volume of the combustion tube is at least 70% filled by a volume of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
7. The combination oven of claim 6 wherein an internal volume of the combustion tube is at least 80% filled by a volume of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
8. The combination oven of claim 1 wherein the length of the combustion tube is at least 60% filled by a length of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
9. The combination oven of claim 8 wherein the length of the combustion tube is at least 70% filled by a length of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
10. The combination oven of claim 9 wherein the length of the combustion tube is at least 80% filled by a length of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4; col. 6, lines 40-58; claims 1,2).
17. The combination oven of claim 1 wherein an outer footprint of the combustion tube is cylindrical (fig. 1,2).
19. The combination oven of claim 1 further comprising first and second end plates attached to opposed ends of the internal baffle respectively and form attachment collars 24,25 at the opposed end of the internal baffle (fig. 1,4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Fabbro (EP 0526768) in view of Modzinski (US 4,501,390).
Del Fabbro discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, but fails to explicitly teach the baffle having a helical configuration.
Modzinski, in the same or related field of endeavor, teaches that it is known in the art to provide a combustion tube 26 including a helical baffle 27 (col. 3, lines 32-41).
Such an arrangement provides for effective heat transfer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the helical baffle as taught by Modzinski into the invention disclosed by Del Fabbro, so as to provide for effective heat transfer.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Fabbro (EP 0526768), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Del Fabbro fails to specifically recite the claimed ranges.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Del Fabbro, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Fabbro (EP 0526768), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Del Fabbro fails to specifically recite the claimed materials.
However, the particular material used is simply a matter dependent on availability and cost.
These materials are well within the knowledge and ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, applicant has failed to particularly point out any criticality that would require this material over other such materials also well known for use as claimed other than the evident manufacturing considerations of availability and cost.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the claimed material into the invention disclosed by Del Fabbro, so as to satisfy considerations of availability and cost.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
July 28, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights