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 4/24/26 response to the Office Action dated 1/27/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s clarifying remarks on Pg. 10 and amendments to the claims overcome the previously set forth drawing objections and 112(b) rejections, so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments on Pg. 20 of the Remarks regarding the mapping of Pticar’s gas collector 66 to a ‘suction box’ have been fully considered and are persuasive. To elaborate, Examiner agrees that taken alone, i.e., individually, Pticar does not teach a ‘suction box’. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 18 using Zapata et al (US 20030042244 A1, hereafter Zapata) in view of Pticar et al (DE 102018122053 A1, hereafter Pticar) have been withdrawn. As a result, the present office action is a second non-final because it make a new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 11, 18 and their dependents. See the prior art section below for more details.
NOTE: After further consideration, the new grounds of rejection has been modified from what was discussed in the interview. Regarding claim 1, an additional 102 rejection has been made for claim 1 and corresponding rejections are made for applicable dependents. Regarding claim 18, a different tertiary reference has been used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6, line 2 recites "the coupler" and "the first coiled air passage" (emphasis added) which both lack antecedent basis. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the coupler and first coiled air passage as recited in claim 6 are interpreted as the same coupler and first coiled air passage as recited in claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 6.
NOTE: Amending claim 6 to depend from claim 3 would overcome the above 112b rejection.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Caridis et al. (US 5322007 A, hereafter Caridis).
Regarding claim 1, Caridis discloses a conveyor oven (Abstract) for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising:
an oven chamber (Figs. 3-4, baffles 52, baffle plate 46, and bottom wall 11e);
a conveyor (Figs. 3-4, conveyor belt 25, which is located within conveyor frame 38) moveable to convey the food within the oven chamber (Fig. 4, food products 41);
a burner assembly (Figs. 5, burner 61; Fig. 5, tube array 62 and stack assembly 62; and Fig. 3, oven housing 11, which is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via fan 14; therefore, it is a ‘suction box’) operable to heat air for convection cooking of the food moving within the oven chamber on the conveyor (Col. 1, lines 14-17, “The oven permits a process vapor flow which maximizes heat transfer to the products with uniformity while minimizing the disturbance to the products carried on the conveyor belt.”), the burner assembly including a heat source (Fig. 5, burner 61), a coiled air passage (Fig. 5, tube array 62), and a suction box (Fig. 3, oven housing 11), the coiled air passage providing a heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box (Figs. 3-5 and Col. 6, lines 33-37, “products of combustion are propelled through the tube array 62 giving off heat, into the stack system 63 thereby supplying heat in the plenum 53 wherein the tube array is located.”),
and a fan (Fig. 3, fan 14) configured to draw heated air from the suction box and exhaust the heated air into the oven chamber (Figs. 3-4, cooking vapor distribution nozzles 54) for convection cooking of the food moving through the oven chamber on the conveyor (Col. 6, lines 33-37, as quoted above).
Regarding claim 2, Caridis discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the heat source includes a burner box (Fig, 5, walls forming burner 61) having a gas burner mounted therein (Col. 6, lines 26-28, “Shown in FIG. 5 of the drawings is a gas burner heating system including a gas/air burner 61”).
Regarding claim 6, Caridis, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the coiled air passage (Fig. 5, tube array 62) includes an inlet (Fig. 5, an inlet must necessarily be present at the end of tube array 62 that mates with burner 61) at the coupler (Fig. 5, component connecting tube array 62 and burner 61) and an outlet at the suction box (Fig. 3, oven housing 11. Note an outlet must necessarily be present at the end of tube array 62 that mates with the component embedded in top wall 11f), wherein the first coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the first coiled air passage and the outlet of the first coiled air passage (Fig. 5).
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 1-8, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellas et al. (WO8900393A1, hereafter Bellas) in view of Kleva et al. (US 5845631 A, hereafter Kleva).
Regarding claim 1, Bellas discloses a conveyor oven (Abstract) for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising:
an oven chamber (Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15) in which the food is cooked (Fig. 4, food product 15 and Pg. 9, line 16, “to heat or cook food product 15”);
a conveyor (Fig. 3, conveyor 30) moveable to convey the food within the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via endless belt 31);
a burner assembly (Fig. 2, burner 85; annotated Fig. A, the structure identified as a ‘suction box’ is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via at least the blower associated with lower blower fan 67 - therefore, it is a ‘suction box’; and annotated Fig. A, the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box) operable to heat air for convection cooking of the food moving within the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4), the burner assembly including a heat source (Figs. 2-3, burner 85), an air passage (annotated Fig. A, air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box), and a suction box (annotated Fig. A, suction box, as explained above), the air passage providing a heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box (annotated Fig. A and Pg. 12, lines 25-28, “Recirculated processing gases enter the heating chambers 81 and 86 through inlets 83 and 88, respectively, and are heated by the flames of the burners therewithin”. Heat must necessarily pass through the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box in order for the flame of the burner to heat the gases entering heating chamber 86),
and a fan (Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”) configured to draw heated air from the suction box and exhaust the heated air into the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via conduit 89 and air duct 69) for convection cooking of the food moving through the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Suction box)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Air passage)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 3 from Bellas showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Bellas does not disclose the burner assembly including a heat source, a coiled air passage, and a suction box, the coiled air passage providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box.
Kleva discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kleva further discloses it is known to have a burner assembly (Fig. 3, burner 4, heat exchange tubes 6, and conventional passageway 23) including a heat source (Fig. 3, burner 4), a coiled air passage (Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6), and a box (Fig. 3, walls of conventional passageway 23), the coiled air passage providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the box (Fig. 4).
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 conveyor oven with the coiled air passages as taught by Kleva in order to have a coiled air passage and a coupler (Fig. 3, brackets 21), the coiled air passage providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box and thereby better compensating for expansion and contraction of the coiled air passage (As suggested by Col. 5, lines 44-59 of Kleva: “each heat exchange tube 6 forms a curved configuration and the length of each heat exchange tube is greater than the distance X between the brackets 20, 21. The curved configuration of each tube is less than the distance X, as shown in the drawings. With this arrangement, each heat exchange tube is independently free to expand and contract with heating and cooling of the heat exchange tubes without significant force being placed on the brackets 20, 21. With the avoidance of such force being placed on brackets 20, 21, the intake ends 8 and the discharge ends 10 need not be ruggedly attached to brackets 20, 21 and may be attached simply by a frictional fit in bores 28 of brackets 20, 21. This also means that brackets 20, 21 need not be ruggedly constructed, but may be made of very light weight and inexpensive materials, such as conventional steel plate or angle”). It’s also noted that reducing the force applied to the coiled air passages and their mating parts would increase reliability by decreasing the risk that the attachment between the coiled air passages and their mating parts will fatigue over time.
Regarding claim 2, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the heat source includes a burner box (Fig. 5, walls forming burner 85).
However, Bellas, as modified above, does not disclose a gas burner mounted therein.
NOTE: Bellas discloses the burners create flames (Pg. 12, lines 27-28).
Kleva further discloses a gas burner (Col. 4, lines 21-24, “There are a plurality of burners 4 exterior of the baking cabinet 2 for combusting a fuel, e.g. natural gas, synthetic gas, oil, propane, etc., to hot combustion gases 5”).
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 burner of Bellas, as modified above, to be a gas burner. Bellas, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except Liu, as modified above, is silent regarding the specific type of fuel for the burner. Kleva shows that a gas burner is an equivalent burner known in the art. Therefore, because the burners were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the burner of Bellas, as modified above, with the gas burner of Neal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely generating heat, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 3, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the burner box (Bellas: Fig. 5, walls forming burner 85) is coupled to the coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6) via a coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, brackets 21), wherein the coiled air passage is a first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom instance of heat exchange tubes 6), the conveyor oven (Abstract) further comprising a second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top instance of heat exchange tubes 6), and wherein the coupler includes an inlet (Kleva: Fig. 3, inlets in left side of brackets 21) for receiving heated air from the burner box (Bellas: Fig. 5, walls forming burner 85), a first outlet coupling the burner box to the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom outlet in right side of brackets 21 which mates with the bottom instance of heat exchange tubes 6), and a second outlet coupling the burner box to the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top outlet in right side of brackets 21 which mates with the top instance of heat exchange tubes 6).
Regarding claim 4, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 3, wherein each of the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom instance of heat exchange tubes 6) and the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top instance of heat exchange tubes 6) includes an inlet at the coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, inlets in ends mating with the right side of brackets 21) and an outlet at the suction box (annotated Fig. A from Bellas in view of the outlets in the ends of the heat exchange tubes 6 that mate with brackets 20 of Kleva), wherein the first coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the first coiled air passage and the outlet of the first coiled air passage, and wherein the second coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the second coiled air passage and the outlet of the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 4, wherein the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom instance of heat exchange tubes 6) is coiled in a clockwise direction (Kleva: Fig. 3, when starting at the end with arrow 44) and the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top instance of heat exchange tubes 6) is coiled in a counterclockwise direction, opposite a clockwise direction (Fig. 5, tube array 62 is coiled in a counterclockwise direction when starting at the end with arrow 32, which is opposite a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 6, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6) includes an inlet at the coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, inlet in end mating with the right side of brackets 21) and an outlet at the suction box (annotated Fig. A from Bellas in view of the outlet in the end of the bottom heat exchange tube 6 that mates with bracket 20 of Kleva), wherein the first coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the first coiled air passage and the outlet of the first coiled air passage (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 6, wherein the coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6) coils about a central axis (Kleva: axis running between brackets 21 and 20), wherein the central axis is parallel to the direction in which the food on the conveyor moves (Bellas: Fig. 3, food products 15 move on conveyor 30) within the oven chamber (Bellas: Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15).
Regarding claim 8, Bellas discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the conveyor (Figs. 2-3, conveyor 30) is movable along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 3), wherein the suction box (annotated Fig. A, suction box) includes a first chamber (Fig. 2, portion of heating chamber 86 above baffle plate 62), a second chamber (Fig. 2, portion of heating chamber 86 below baffle plate 62) coupled to the first chamber via an aperture (Fig. 2, aperture on either side of baffle plate 62), an inlet coupled to the coiled air passage (Fig. 2, inlet that must necessarily be present at dashed portion within the suction box that is connected to burner 85), and an outlet positioned at an inlet of the fan (Fig. 2, outlet of suction box that leads to the inlet of lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”), wherein the aperture is offset from the inlet of the suction box and the outlet of the suction box along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Bellas discloses a conveyor oven (Abstract) for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising:
an oven chamber (Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15) in which the food is cooked (Fig. 4, food product 15 and Pg. 9, line 16, “to heat or cook food product 15”);
a conveyor (Fig. 3, conveyor 30) moveable to convey the food within the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via endless belt 31);
a burner assembly (Fig. 2, burners 85, 80; annotated Fig. A, the structure identified as a ‘suction box’ is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via the blowers- therefore, it is a ‘suction box’; annotated Fig. A, the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box; Fig. 2, the air passage connecting burner 89 to the suction box; and Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80) operable to heat air for convection cooking of the food moving within the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4), the burner assembly including burners (Fig. 2, burners 85, 80) mounted within burner boxes (Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80) a first air passage (annotated Fig. A, air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box), a second air passage separate from the first coiled air passage (Fig. 2, air passage connecting burner 80 to the suction box. Reference annotated Fig. A) and a suction box (annotated Fig. A, suction box, as explained above), each of the first and second coiled air passages providing a heated air passage between the burner assembly and the suction box (annotated Fig. A and Pg. 12, lines 25-28, “Recirculated processing gases enter the heating chambers 81 and 86 through inlets 83 and 88, respectively, and are heated by the flames of the burners therewithin”. Heat must necessarily pass through the air passages connecting burners 85, 80 to the suction box in order for the flame of the burner to heat the gases entering heating chamber 86), and
a first fan (Figs. 2-4, blower fan associated with upper blower motor 60) and a second fan (Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”), each of the first and second fans configured to draw heated air from the suction box (Pg. 12, lines 21-25, “The processing air or gases will be pulled by the blower fans through circulation inlets 83 and 88, respectively, through heating chambers 81 and 86 and then dispersed to upper and lower plenums 53 and 54, respectively.”) and exhaust the heated air into the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via supply conduit 84 (for the first fan) and via conduit 89 and air duct 69 (for the second fan)) for convection cooking of the food moving through the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4),
wherein the first fan is configured to deliver heated air to the oven chamber above the conveyor (Fig. 4), and
wherein the second fan is configured to deliver heated air to the oven chamber below the conveyor (Fig. 4).
However, Bellas does not disclose the burner assembly including a gas burner mounted within a burner box, a first coiled air passage, a second coiled air passage separate from the first coiled air passage, each of the first and second coiled air passages providing a circuitous heated air passage between the burner assembly and the suction box.
Kleva discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kleva further discloses it is known to have a burner assembly (Fig. 3, burners 4, heat exchange tubes 6, conventional passageway 23, and enclosure above structural wall 16) with a gas burner (Col. 4, lines 21-24, “There are a plurality of burners 4 exterior of the baking cabinet 2 for combusting a fuel, e.g. natural gas, synthetic gas, oil, propane, etc., to hot combustion gases 5”) mounted within a burner box (Fig. 3, enclosure above structural wall 16), a first coiled air passage (Fig. 3, bottom heat exchange tube 6), a second coiled air passage separate from the first coiled air passage (Fig. 3, top heat exchange tube 6) and a box (Fig. 3, walls of conventional passageway 23), each of the first and second the coiled air passages providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the box (Fig. 4).
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 conveyor oven with the coiled air passages as taught by Kleva in order to have a coiled air passage and a coupler (Fig. 3, brackets 21), the coiled air passage providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box and thereby better compensating for expansion and contraction of the coiled air passage (As suggested by Col. 5, lines 44-59 of Kleva: “each heat exchange tube 6 forms a curved configuration and the length of each heat exchange tube is greater than the distance X between the brackets 20, 21. The curved configuration of each tube is less than the distance X, as shown in the drawings. With this arrangement, each heat exchange tube is independently free to expand and contract with heating and cooling of the heat exchange tubes without significant force being placed on the brackets 20, 21. With the avoidance of such force being placed on brackets 20, 21, the intake ends 8 and the discharge ends 10 need not be ruggedly attached to brackets 20, 21 and may be attached simply by a frictional fit in bores 28 of brackets 20, 21. This also means that brackets 20, 21 need not be ruggedly constructed, but may be made of very light weight and inexpensive materials, such as conventional steel plate or angle”). It’s also noted that reducing the force applied to the coiled air passages and their mating parts would increase reliability by decreasing the risk that the attachment between the coiled air passages and their mating parts will fatigue over time.
In addition, 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 burner of Bellas to be a gas burner. Bellas discloses the claimed invention except Bellas, as modified above, is silent regarding the specific type of fuel for the burner. Kleva shows that a gas burner is an equivalent burner known in the art. Therefore, because the burners were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the burner of Bellas, as modified above, with the gas burner of Neal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely generating heat, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the individual burner boxes of Bellas to be a single burner box as taught by Kleva. The court has held that making several parts integral is 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 V-B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance for a single burner box rather than a plurality of burner boxes.
Regarding claim 14, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 11, wherein the burner box (Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80 of Bellas as modified by Fig. 3, enclosure above structural wall 16 of Kleva in claim 11) is coupled to the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom heat exchange tube 6) and the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top heat exchange tube 6) via a coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, brackets 21), and wherein the coupler includes an inlet for receiving heated air from the burner box (Kleva: Fig. 3, inlets in left side of brackets 21), a first outlet coupling the burner box to the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom outlet in right side of brackets 21 which mates with the bottom instance of heat exchange tubes 6), a second outlet coupling the burner box to the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top outlet in right side of brackets 21 which mates with the top instance of heat exchange tubes 6), and a diverter positioned between the first and second outlets to direct heated air from the inlet towards the first and second outlets (Kleva: Fig. 3, horizontal portion of brackets 21, which connects the vertical portions that element numbers 21 point to).
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 4above. Note that the ‘first end’ limitation of claim 15 is considered to encompass the corresponding ‘coupler’ limitation of claim 4 and the ‘second end’ limitation of claim 15 is considered to encompass ‘the suction box’ limitation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 11, further comprising air returns configured to provide air (Bellas: Fig. 4 and Pg. 13, lines 17-21, “provide appropriate recirculation structure (e.g. return air ducts 61 and 64) to enable such impinged processing gases to be appropriately recirculated to the respective blower motors”) from the oven chamber (Bellas: Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15) to an inlet of the first fan (Bellas: Figs. 2-4, inlet of blower fan associated with upper blower motor 60) and an inlet of the second fan (Bellas Figs. 3-4, inlet of lower blower fan 67), wherein the first (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom heat exchange tube 6) and second coiled air passages (Kleva: Fig. 3, top heat exchange tube 6) function as heat exchangers and are configured to facilitate heat transfer with the air from the oven chamber (Kleva: Col. 6, lines 34-41, “This means that the air returned from the baking cabinet 2, at the bottom 35 of oven 1 will flow in an upwardly direction 38 and that cooler air returned from the baking cabinet will first contact the first portion 32, which is hotter by virtue of being next to burners 4, and the temperature difference (.DELTA.T) between that return air and the temperature of the tube 6 at first portion 32 will be greater for increased heat transfer”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caridis et al. (US 5322007 A, hereafter Caridis) in view of MPEP 2144.04 V-B.
Regarding claim 3, Caridis discloses the burner box (Fig, 5, walls forming burner 61) is coupled to the coiled air passage (Fig. 5, tube array 62) via a coupler (Fig. 5, component connecting tube array 62 and burner 61), wherein the coiled air passage is a first coiled air passage (Fig. 5), the conveyor oven (Abstract) further comprising a second coiled air passage (Fig. 4, which shows four instances of tube array 62. One of these other instances is a ‘second coiled air passage’), and wherein the coupler includes an inlet for receiving heated air from the burner box (Fig. 5, an inlet must necessarily be present at the end that mates with burner 61), a first outlet coupling the burner box to the first coiled air passage (Fig. 5, an outlet must necessarily be present at the end that mates with tube array 62).
However, Caridis, as modified above, does not disclose the coupler includes…a second outlet coupling the burner box to the second coiled air passage.
NOTE: One of ordinary skill in the art would understand each of the four instances of tube array 62 shown in Fig. 4 would have their own couplers in light of Fig. 5.
The court has held that making several parts integral is 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 V-B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the first and second outlet being formed within a single coupler.
Regarding claim 4, Caridis, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 3, wherein each of the first coiled air passage (Fig. 5, tube array 62) and the second coiled air passage (Fig. 4, which shows four instances of tube array 62. One of these other instances is a ‘second coiled air passage’) includes an inlet at the coupler (Fig. 5, an inlet must necessarily be present at the end that mates with burner 61, as modified in claim 3) and an outlet at the suction box (Fig. 3, oven housing 11. Note an outlet must necessarily be present at the end of tube arrays 62 that mate with the component embedded in top wall 11f), wherein the first coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the first coiled air passage and the outlet of the first coiled air passage (Fig. 5), and wherein the second coiled air passage is coiled at least one full rotation between the inlet of the second coiled air passage and the outlet of the second coiled air passage (Figs. 4-5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caridis et al. (US 5322007 A, hereafter Caridis) in view of MPEP 2144.04 V-B and further in view of Comstock (US 1663115 A).
Regarding claim 5, Caridis, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 4, wherein the second coiled air passage (Fig. 4, which shows four instances of tube array 62. One of these other instances is a ‘second coiled air passage’) is coiled in a counterclockwise direction, opposite a clockwise direction (Fig. 5, tube array 62 is coiled in a counterclockwise direction when starting at burner 31 and ending at top wall 11f, which is opposite a clockwise direction).
However, Caridis, as modified above, does not disclose the first coiled air passage is coiled in a clockwise direction.
Comstock discloses an oven (Pg. 1, lines 1-3) similar to the present invention and Comstock further discloses it is known to have a first coiled air passage (Fig. 5, instance of pipe 41’ furthest from valve 50, which is a coiled structure that is connected to an air inlet (per Pg. 2, lines 101-111) and has air passing through it / is a passage; therefore the aforementioned instance of pipe 41’ is a ‘second coiled air passage’. Note that pipe 41’ appears to be mislabeled as 41 in Fig 5) coiled in a clockwise direction (Fig. 5, arrows representing airflow in the instance of pipe 41’ furthest from valve 50 move in a clockwise direction) and a second coiled air passage (Fig. 5, instance of pipe 41’ closest to valve 50, which is a second instance of a coiled structure that is connected to an air inlet (per Pg. 2, lines 101-111) and has air passing through it / is a passage; therefore the aforementioned instance of pipe 41’ is a ‘second coiled air passage’) coiled in a counterclockwise direction, opposite the clockwise direction (Fig. 5, arrows representing airflow in the instance of pipe 41’ furthest closest to 50 move in a counterclockwise direction, which is opposite the clockwise direction).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to suitably modify the direction in which the first coiled air passages is coiled in view of Comstock, 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 coiled air passages 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., clockwise, counterclockwise). One could have expected the first coiled air passages to perform substantially equally well, whether coiled in a counterclockwise direction or in its original position.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caridis et al. (US 5322007 A, hereafter Caridis) and further in view of Jones et al. (US 20050109216 A1, hereafter Jones).
Regarding claim 7, Caridis, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 6, wherein the coiled air passage (Fig. 5, tube array 62) coils about a central axis (Fig. 5, axis perpendicular to direction show by arrow 66).
However, Caridis, as modified above, does not disclose the central axis is parallel to the direction in which the food on the conveyor moves within the oven chamber.
Jones discloses a cooking device with a conveyor assembly (Par. 0014) similar to the present invention and Jones further discloses it is known for a coiled air passage (Fig. 4, supply duct section 130 which has a loop / is coiled and is a channel through which air passes / is an air passage; therefore, supply duct section 130 is a ‘first coiled air passage’) to coil about a central axis (annotated Fig. B), wherein the central axis is parallel to the direction in which food on a conveyor (Fig. 4, conveyor belt loop 136) moves within a oven chamber (Figs 1-2, chamber within cooking device 11 that contains the conveyor assembly 13 and electrical heater 19B, which is used to provide heat for cooking food).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the coiled air passage of Caridis, as modified above, in view of the same of Jones, 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 central axis as claimed 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. central axis parallel, central axis perpendicular). One could have expected the coiled air passage to perform substantially equally well, whether perpendicular to the direction in which food on the conveyor moves within the oven chamber or in its original position.
PNG
media_image3.png
287
305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central
axis)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Jones showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellas et al. (WO8900393A1, hereafter Bellas) in view of Kleva et al. (US 5845631 A, hereafter Kleva) and further in view of Paller et al. (US 20030205222 A1, hereafter Paller).
Regarding claim 9, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 1, wherein the coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6) is a heat exchanger configured to facilitate heat transfer with air (Kleva: Col. 6, lines 34-41, “This means that the air returned from the baking cabinet 2, at the bottom 35 of oven 1 will flow in an upwardly direction 38 and that cooler air returned from the baking cabinet will first contact the first portion 32, which is hotter by virtue of being next to burners 4, and the temperature difference (.DELTA.T) between that return air and the temperature of the tube 6 at first portion 32 will be greater for increased heat transfer”).
However, Bellas, as modified above, does not disclose the coiled air passage is a heat exchanger configured to facilitate heat transfer with air within a heat exchange chamber at least partially housing the burner assembly.
Paller discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Paller further discloses it is known for a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, heat exchanger 18) to be configured to facilitate heat transfer with air (Par. 0043, “a baffle system includes a substantially vertical baffle member or panel member 74 provided in the region 72 to increase the air velocity past or in proximity to the tube segments 54 and 58 and the bends 60, thereby increasing the amount of heat transferred to the air.”) within a heat exchange chamber (Fig. 2, left chamber formed by the walls of the oven 10 and the vertical wall that has slot 28) at least partially housing a burner assembly (Fig. 12, components shown, including gas burners 112. See Par. 0046, “Each of the plurality of gas burners is associated with a respective input end 52 of a respective heat exchange tube 50”).
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 device of Bellas, as modified above, with the heat exchange chamber of Paller in order to have the a heat exchange chamber at least partially housing the burner assembly and thereby better protect the coiled air passage and burner assembly from contaminants and/or damage, increasing long-term reliability and reducing maintenance requirements.
Regarding claim 10, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 9, wherein the coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, heat exchange tubes 6) is configured to facilitate heat transfer (Kleva: Col. 6, lines 34-41, “This means that the air returned from the baking cabinet 2, at the bottom 35 of oven 1 will flow in an upwardly direction 38 and that cooler air returned from the baking cabinet will first contact the first portion 32, which is hotter by virtue of being next to burners 4, and the temperature difference (.DELTA.T) between that return air and the temperature of the tube 6 at first portion 32 will be greater for increased heat transfer”) with air drawn from the oven chamber (Bellas: Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15. See Pg. 12, lines 25-26, “Recirculated processing gases enter the heating chambers 81 and 86 through inlets 83 and 88, respectively, and are heated by the flames of the burners therewithin.” and Fig. 2, which shows the dashed portion of the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box. At least the dashed portion of the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box would be configured to facilitate heat transfer with recirculated air drawn from the chamber that surrounds food product 15 and expelled through inlet 83. Reference Pg. 13, lines 5-21).
Claims 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellas et al. (WO8900393A1, hereafter Bellas) in view of Kleva et al. (US 5845631 A, hereafter Kleva) and further in view of Dillender (US 20030066204 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 11.
However, Bellas, as modified above, does not disclose the suction box mixes heated air from the first coiled air passage with heated air from the second coiled air passage in a common passage.
NOTE: Bellas discloses turbulency within the heating chamber is preferable: “While it is contemplated that it may not always be necessary or desirable to include this baffle plate 62, such is generally preferred to protect the oppositely 20 disposed blower fans and help establish a turbulence within the heating chamber” (Pg. 12, lines 16-21).
Dillender discloses a conveyor and tunnel oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Dillender further discloses it is known for a suction box (annotated Fig. C, the structure identified as a ‘suction box’ is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via at least the blowers 20, 21; therefore, it is a ‘suction box’) to mix heated air from a first coiled air passage (Fig. 4, entrance line 25, return line 27, and U-joint connector 29 and Par. 0029, “The actual ductwork for the heater arrangement can be seen in FIG. 4…The illustrated embodiment shows the ductwork comprising two loops, however, any type of circuitous path could be used for the ductwork, of any configuration, or junctions at their ends, such as the junction box, designed to provide for the continuous flow without obstruction of the heated air through the ductwork, to attain the amount of heating required, for the conveyor system.”) with heated air from a second coiled air passage (Fig. 4, entrance line 26, return line 28, and U-joint connector 30 and Par. 0029, as quoted above) in a common passage (Fig. 3, plenum 22 and Par. 0035, “Then, as the blowers 20 and 21 attract the heated air through the ductwork, and convey it to the plenum 22, that heated air will be injected back into the vicinity of the conveyor”).
PNG
media_image5.png
326
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Suction box)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Dillender showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
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 suction box of Bellas, as modified above, to mix heated air from the first coiled air passage with heated air from the second coiled air passage in a common passage as taught by Dillender and thereby increase the turbulency within the heating chamber (Which is preferable per Pg. 12, lines 16-21 of Bellas, as quoted above). Furthermore, the court has held that making several parts integral is 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 V-B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance for a common passage rather than a plurality of heating chambers.
Regarding claim 13, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 12, wherein each of the first fan (Bellas: Figs. 2-4, blower fan associated with upper blower motor 60) and the second fan (Bellas: Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”) draws heated air from the common passage (Fig. 2, heating chambers 81 and 83 of Bellas as modified by of Fig. 3, plenum 22 and Par. 0035, “Then, as the blowers 20 and 21 attract the heated air through the ductwork, and convey it to the plenum 22, that heated air will be injected back into the vicinity of the conveyor” of Dillender in claim 12).
Regarding claim 18, Bellas discloses a conveyor oven (Abstract) for cooking food, the conveyor oven comprising:
an oven chamber (Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15) in which the food is cooked (Fig. 4, food product 15 and Pg. 9, line 16, “to heat or cook food product 15”);
a conveyor (Fig. 3, conveyor 30) moveable to convey the food within the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via endless belt 31);
a burner assembly (Fig. 2, burners 85, 80; annotated Fig. A, the structure identified as a ‘suction box’ is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via the blowers- therefore, it is a ‘suction box’; annotated Fig. A, the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box; Fig. 2, the air passage connecting burner 89 to the suction box; and Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80) operable to heat air for convection cooking of the food moving within the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4), the burner assembly including burners (Fig. 2, burners 85, 80) mounted within burner boxes (Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80), a first air passage (annotated Fig. A, air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box), a second air passage separate from the first coiled air passage (Fig. 2, air passage connecting burner 80 to the suction box. Reference annotated Fig. A), and a suction box (annotated Fig. A, suction box, as explained above), each of the first and second coiled air passages providing a heated air passage between the burner assembly and the suction box (annotated Fig. A and Pg. 12, lines 25-28, “Recirculated processing gases enter the heating chambers 81 and 86 through inlets 83 and 88, respectively, and are heated by the flames of the burners therewithin”. Heat must necessarily pass through the air passages connecting burners 85, 80 to the suction box in order for the flame of the burner to heat the gases entering heating chamber 86), and
a fan (Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”) configured to draw heated air from the suction box (Pg. 12, lines 21-25, “The processing air or gases will be pulled by the blower fans through circulation inlets 83 and 88, respectively, through heating chambers 81 and 86 and then dispersed to upper and lower plenums 53 and 54, respectively.”) and exhaust the heated air into the oven chamber (Fig. 4, via conduit 89 and air duct 69) for convection cooking of the food moving through the oven chamber on the conveyor (Fig. 4; Pg. 10, lines 8-10, “Product 15 placed upon belt 31 first enters tempering zone 40 within which product 15 is subjected to processing gases such as heated air”; and Pg. 11, line 23 - Pg. 13, line 4),
wherein a first heated airflow path is defined from one of the burner boxes, through the first coiled air passage, through the suction box, through the fan, and into the oven chamber (Figs. 2 and 4),
wherein a second heated airflow path is defined from the other burner box, through the second coiled air passage, through the suction box, through another fan, and into the oven chamber (Figs. 2 and 4), and
However, Bellas does not disclose the burner assembly including a gas burner mounted within a burner box, a first coiled air passage, a second coiled air passage separate from the first coiled air passage, each of the first and second coiled air passages providing a circuitous heated air passage between the burner assembly and the suction box, and
wherein a second heated airflow path is defined from the burner box, through the second coiled air passage, through the suction box, through the fan, and into the oven chamber, and
wherein the first and second heated airflow paths converge and intermix at the suction box.
Kleva discloses an oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kleva further discloses it is known to have a burner assembly (Fig. 3, burners 4, heat exchange tubes 6, conventional passageway 23, and enclosure above structural wall 16) with a gas burner (Col. 4, lines 21-24, “There are a plurality of burners 4 exterior of the baking cabinet 2 for combusting a fuel, e.g. natural gas, synthetic gas, oil, propane, etc., to hot combustion gases 5”) mounted within a burner box (Fig. 3, enclosure above structural wall 16), a first coiled air passage (Fig. 3, bottom heat exchange tube 6), a second coiled air passage separate from the first coiled air passage (Fig. 3, top heat exchange tube 6) and a box (Fig. 3, walls of conventional passageway 23), each of the first and second the coiled air passages providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the box (Fig. 4).
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 conveyor oven with the coiled air passages as taught by Kleva in order to have a coiled air passage and a coupler (Fig. 3, brackets 21), the coiled air passage providing a circuitous heated air passage between the heat source and the suction box and thereby better compensating for expansion and contraction of the coiled air passage (As suggested by Col. 5, lines 44-59 of Kleva: “each heat exchange tube 6 forms a curved configuration and the length of each heat exchange tube is greater than the distance X between the brackets 20, 21. The curved configuration of each tube is less than the distance X, as shown in the drawings. With this arrangement, each heat exchange tube is independently free to expand and contract with heating and cooling of the heat exchange tubes without significant force being placed on the brackets 20, 21. With the avoidance of such force being placed on brackets 20, 21, the intake ends 8 and the discharge ends 10 need not be ruggedly attached to brackets 20, 21 and may be attached simply by a frictional fit in bores 28 of brackets 20, 21. This also means that brackets 20, 21 need not be ruggedly constructed, but may be made of very light weight and inexpensive materials, such as conventional steel plate or angle”). It’s also noted that reducing the force applied to the coiled air passages and their mating parts would increase reliability by decreasing the risk that the attachment between the coiled air passages and their mating parts will fatigue over time.
In addition, 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 burner of Bellas to be a gas burner. Bellas discloses the claimed invention except Liu, as modified above, is silent regarding the specific type of fuel for the burner. Kleva shows that a gas burner is an equivalent burner known in the art. Therefore, because the burners were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the burner of Bellas, as modified above, with the gas burner of Neal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely generating heat, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the individual burner boxes of Bellas to be a single burner box as taught by Kleva. The court has held that making several parts integral is 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 V-B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance for a single burner box rather than a plurality of burner boxes.
However, Bellas, as modified above, does not disclose wherein a second heated airflow path is defined from the burner box, through the second coiled air passage, through the suction box, through the fan, and into the oven chamber, and
wherein the first and second heated airflow paths converge and intermix at the suction box.
NOTE: Bellas discloses turbulency within the heating chamber is preferable: “While it is contemplated that it may not always be necessary or desirable to include this baffle plate 62, such is generally preferred to protect the oppositely 20 disposed blower fans and help establish a turbulence within the heating chamber” (Pg. 12, lines 16-21).
Dillender discloses a conveyor and tunnel oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Dillender further discloses it is known for a first heated airflow path is defined through the first coiled air passage (Fig. 4, entrance line 25, return line 27, and U-joint connector 29 and Par. 0029, “The actual ductwork for the heater arrangement can be seen in FIG. 4…The illustrated embodiment shows the ductwork comprising two loops, however, any type of circuitous path could be used for the ductwork, of any configuration, or junctions at their ends, such as the junction box, designed to provide for the continuous flow without obstruction of the heated air through the ductwork, to attain the amount of heating required, for the conveyor system.”), through the suction box (annotated Fig. C, the structure identified as a ‘suction box’ is an enclosure or box from which gases are sucked via at least the blowers 20, 21; therefore, it is a ‘suction box’) through a fan (Fig. 4, either blower 20 or 21, appears to be blower 20) and to the conveyor (Par. 0035, “Then, as the blowers 20 and 21 attract the heated air through the ductwork, and convey it to the plenum 22, that heated air will be injected back into the vicinity of the conveyor”), and
a second heated airflow path is defined through the second coiled air passage (Fig. 4, entrance line 26, return line 28, and U-joint connector 30 and Par. 0029, as quoted above), through the suction box (annotated Fig. C), through another fan (Fig. 4, the other of blower 20 or 21, appears to be blower 21), and to the conveyor (Par. 0035, as quoted above), and
wherein the first and second heated airflow paths converge and intermix at the suction box (Fig. 3, plenum 22 and Par. 0035, as quoted above).
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 suction box of Bellas, as modified above, so the first and second heated airflow paths converge and intermix at the suction box as taught by Dillender and thereby increase the turbulency within the heating chamber (Which is preferable per Pg. 12, lines 16-21 of Bellas, as quoted above). Furthermore, the court has held that making several parts integral is 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 V-B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance for the first and second heated airflow paths converging and intermixing at the suction box rather having each heated airflow separately flowing through its own heating chamber.
NOTE: It’s understood that the limitation “a second heated airflow path is defined from the burner box, through the second coiled air passage, through the suction box, through the fan, and into the oven chamber” (emphasis added) is necessarily met by modified Bellas. To elaborate, Bellas in view of Kleva teaches the claimed limitation except the second heated airflow path routes through a second fan, rather than the first fan located in the first heated airflow path. This is due to the separate heating chambers of Bellas. Dillender discloses the first and second heated airflow paths converge and intermix at the suction box, so when Bellas, as modified above, is further modified by Dillender or MPEP 2144.04 V-B, the first and second heated airflow paths will be able to route through either the first or second fan. Therefore, the second heated airflow path will be able to flow from the burner box, through the second coiled air passage, through the suction box, through the fan, and into the oven chamber as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 18, the burner assembly (Fig. 2, burners 85, 80; annotated Fig. A, suction box; annotated Fig. A, the air passage connecting burner 85 to the suction box; and Fig. 2, the air passage connecting burner 89 to the suction box of Bellas) further comprising a coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, brackets 21) configured to couple the first coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, bottom heat exchange tube 6) to the burner box (Fig. 5, walls forming burners 85, 80 of Bellas) and configured to couple the second coiled air passage (Kleva: Fig. 3, top heat exchange tube 6) via a coupler (Kleva: Fig. 3, brackets 21) to the burner box, wherein the coupler is common to both the first heated airflow path (Bella in view of Kleva and Dillender, as explained in claim 18) and the second heated airflow path (Bella in view of Kleva and Dillender, as explained in claim 18. See Fig. 3 of Kleva).
Regarding claim 20, Bellas, as modified above, discloses the conveyor oven of claim 18, wherein the fan is a first fan (Bellas: Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”) configured to deliver heated air (Bellas: Fig. 12, lines 21-25, “The processing air or gases will be pulled by the blower fans through circulation inlets 83 and 88, respectively, through heating chambers 81 and 86 and then dispersed to upper and lower plenums 53 and 54, respectively.”) to the oven chamber (Bellas: Fig. 4, chamber that surrounds food product 15) at a location above the conveyor (Bellas: Figs. 3-4, conveyor 30), the conveyor oven further comprising a second fan (Bellas: Figs. 3-4, lower blower fan 67 and Pg. 24, lines 5-6, “conduit 89 connects the output channel 68 adjacent lower blower fan 67 with an input manifold 69 of lower plenum 54”) configured to deliver heated air from the suction box (annotated Fig. A, suction box) to the oven chamber at a location below the conveyor (Fig. 4), wherein each of the first (Bella in view of Kleva and Dillender, as explained in claim 18) and second heated airflow paths (Bella in view of Kleva and Dillender, as explained in claim 18) diverges at the suction box to pass through the first fan and the second fan (Bellas: Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baker et al. (US 20110139140 A1) discloses a burner assembly operable to heat air for convection cooking of the food moving within the oven chamber on the conveyor, the burner assembly including a gas burner mounted within a burner box, a first coiled air passage, a second coiled air passage separate from the first coiled air passage, and a suction box, each of the first and second coiled air passages providing a circuitous heated air passage between the burner assembly heat source and the suction box.
Wiker (US6655373B1) discloses each of the first fan and the second fan draw heated air from a common passage.
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