DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 1 July 2026. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, and 13 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 15 are cancelled. No claims are added. This is a Final Office Action.
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 (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 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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference doe not disclose that limitation]
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020) in view of Forney (U.S. Patent 4,737,373) and Cocuzza (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0080446).
Regarding claim 1, Frock discloses a cooking device, comprising:
a cooking chamber (Frock, Fig. 1, cooking chamber 14) having an inlet;
a mist generator (12) external of the cooking chamber and plumbed via a line (70) to an inlet (point where line enters the chamber) of the cooking chamber, wherein the mist generator comprises a reservoir (¶15 water is in the heating chamber 18), a transducer (Frock, figs. 1-2, ¶19, vibratory mechanism 80 may be in the form of a transducer) submerged within water in the reservoir and operable to vibrationally produce mist from the water, and
a heater (Frock, 90) located along the line for selectively heating the mist prior to delivery into the cooking chamber;
a controller (50) connected for controlling the transducer (¶0018), (¶0018), the controller connected to receive the mist temperature indicative output from the temperature sensor, the controller configured to control the heater for selectively heating the mist to a set temperature prior to delivery of the mist into the cooking chamber (Frock, ¶0027).
However, Frock does not disclose a fan positioned and operable for moving air into the reservoir and along the line so as to move mist along the line to the inlet of the cooking chamber and wherein the controller connected for controlling the fan, nor
a temperature sensor located along the line and providing a mist temperature indicative output.
However, Forney, in his apparatus for a cooking chamber heated sending steam from a boiler into a heating chamber (Forney, fig. 1) teaches a fan (Forney, 37) positioned for moving air into the reservoir and moving mist along the line to the inlet of the cooking chamber (fig. 1, the fan blowing air into the boiler area which is then pushed up steam line 52) wherein the controller also controls the fan (Forney, . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock with the teachings of Forney, to have a fan blow air over the reservoir, to have air moving in the system, and to push the steam into the line leading to the heating chamber, and to have the controller control the fan, in order to control the heating, and the amount of steam that gets pushed into the chamber as well as to, potentially recycle hot exhaust air from the cooker in order to efficiently use the heated air to heat more water and create steam, which creates a more efficient thermal cycle.
And while Frock in view of Forney teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach a temperature sensor located along the line and providing a mist temperature indicative output.
However, Cocuzza, in his heating mist apparatus, teaches a temperature sensor (9) located along the line and providing a mist temperature indicative output (Cocuzza, fig. 1, temperature sensor 9). Now, Frock already teaches an inline heater that needs to be controlled (Frock, 90), and that this heater may super-heat the mist (Frock, ¶27), though Frock does not specifically disclose how to measure the temperature. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock in view of Forney with the teaching of Cocuzza, to have an in-line temperature sensor to control the heater to make sure the air and mist is heated to the proper and desired temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a cooking device wherein the mist generator further comprises an input line connected to selectively receive, into the reservoir, detergent and/or delime agent from a detergent and/or delime agent supply (Frock, ¶0036 “delime agent”).
Regarding claim 8, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a cooking device wherein the set temperature is below 212 °F. However, Forney teaches, in his cooking device that heats a cooking chamber via a boiler, “wherein the set temperature is below 212 °F” (Forney, column 4, lines 19-23, “is in a range of about 160°F to 225 °F but most preferably the temperature is at or above 212 °F”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza with the teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
Regarding claim 9, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a cooking device wherein the set temperature is 212 °F. However, Forney teaches, in his cooking device that heats a cooking chamber via a boiler, “wherein the set temperature is 212 °F” (Forney, column 4, lines 19-23, “is in a range of about 160°F to 225 °F but most preferably the temperature is at or above 212 °F”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza with the further teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
Regarding claim 10, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, does not further disclose a cooking device wherein the set temperature is above 212 °F. However, Forney teaches, in his cooking device that heats a cooking chamber via a boiler, “wherein the set temperature is above 212 °F” (Forney, column 4, lines 19-23, “is in a range of about 160°F to 225 °F but most preferably the temperature is at or above 212 °F”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza with the further teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
Regarding claim 12, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a cooking device wherein the cooking device comprises a steam cooker (Frock, fig. 1) or a combination oven that also includes a convection heating system.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020) in view of Forney (U.S. Patent 4737373) and Cocuzza (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0080446) and further in view of Tippman (U.S. Patent 6,152,024).
Regarding claim 4, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a cooking device wherein the mist generator further comprises an input line connected to selectively receive, into the reservoir, a flavoring liquid from a flavor supply. However, Tippmann, in his steam cooking device, teaches putting in flavoring liquid (Tippman, column 5 lines 44-54, “addition of a flavoring ingredient to the water which is used for generating the steam”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock with the teachings of Vasan, to add flavoring to the reservoir water, in order to cook and flavor the food product which with absorb the flavoring, in order to create a better and conventional way of flavorfully cooking the meat so as to flavor the meat while it is being cooked (Tippman, column 5 lines 48-51).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020) in view of Forney (U.S. Patent 4737373) and Cocuzza (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0080446) and further in view of Meng (U.S. Patent 2022/ 0296027))
Regarding claim 11, Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a cooking device wherein the controller is configured such that the set temperature is defined by a cooking program of the cooking device or a cooking setting established for a cooking operation. However, Meng, in his cooking operation, which may include steam cooking (¶101, “steam ovens”), teaches that “wherein the controller is configured such that the set temperature is defined by a cooking program of the cooking device or a cooking setting established for a cooking operation” (Meng, ¶¶83-89, “system predicts the outcomes of multiple temperature set points…search algorithm can be used to search the set point temperatures to select the set point temperature that fulfills the optimized cooking program requirement”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock in view of Forney and Cucozza with the teachings of Meng, to have a program set the cooking temperature, in order to optimally cook the food depending on the food and the desired cooking time and the degree desired cooked for instance.
Claims 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020) in view of Forney (U.S. Patent 4,737,373), and Swayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0343221).
Regarding claim 13, Frock discloses an apparatus, comprising: a processing chamber (Frock, Fig. 1, cooking chamber 14);
a mist generator (12) external of the processing chamber and plumbed via a line (70) to an inlet of the processing chamber, wherein the mist generator comprises a reservoir (¶15 water is in the heating chamber 18), a transducer (Frock, 80, fig. 1-2) submerged within water in the reservoir and operable to vibrationally produce mist from the water (Frock, vibration, at least ¶19), ; and
a heater (Frock, element 90) located along the line for selectively heating the mist prior to delivery into the processing chamber; and
a controller (50) connected for controlling the transducer, (Frock, 20, ¶¶18-19).
Frock does not disclose and a fan positioned and operable for moving air into the reservoir and along the line so as to move mist along the line to the inlet of the processing chamber nor a controller connected for controlling the fan.
However, Forney, in his apparatus for a cooking chamber heated sending steam from a boiler into a heating chamber (Forney, fig. 1), teaches a fan (Forney, 37) positioned for moving air into the reservoir and moving mist along the line to the inlet of the cooking chamber (fig. 1, the fan blowing air into the boiler area which is then pushed up steam line 52). Further, it would be obvious to control this fan, to turn on when in operation, such as in Swayne’s steam cooker (Swayne, fig. 2, ¶¶36-37, controller 122, fan 44), to make sure air properly enters the reservoir. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Frock with the teachings of Forney, to have a fan blow air over the reservoir, to have air moving in the system, and to push the steam into the line leading to the heating chamber, and to have the controller control the fan, in order to control the heating, and the amount of steam that gets pushed into the chamber as well as to, potentially recycle hot exhaust air from the cooker in order to efficiently use the heated air to heat more water and create steam, which creates a more efficient thermal cycle.
Regarding claim 14, Frock in view of Forney and Swayne teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further teaches an apparatus wherein: (i) the apparatus is an oven and the processing chamber is a cooking chamber for food (Frock, Abstract, (cooking chamber”); or (ii) the apparatus is a warewasher and the processing chamber is a chamber for cleaning wares (Frock, Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose that the transducer should be submerged if placed within the steam generator. Examiner disagrees. The transducer is submerged in the reservoir (fig. 1, 80 is submerged in the reservoir).
Applicant also argues that the art does not teach “a fan positioned and operable for moving air into the reservoir and along the line so as to move mist along the line to the inlet of the cooking chamber”. Examiner disagrees. It is apparent that in Forney, the fan 37 forces air into the reservoir which is then pushed out through the line leading to the cooking chamber. Although applicant argues that the reference discloses the fan in its location for other purposes, it also forces the air into the reservoir which is then heated up and the mist/steam is pushed through the line. The arrangement of the heat exchanger 18, in Forney is not relevant to the present combination, as Frock has his own reservoir, but the moving of air, and of even hot air making for a more efficient thermal cycle, would be obvious. Regarding the temperature sensor, a new reference was added and combined.
All the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights