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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 22 January 2016 is acknowledged. This election is Final.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 recites “The cooking device of claim 2, further comprising a controller connected for controlling the transducer, the fan and the heater”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fan” limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is understood “a fan”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020).
Regarding claim 1, Frock discloses a cooking device, comprising: a cooking chamber (Frock, Fig. 1, cooking chamber 14); 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; and a heater (Frock, 90) located along the line for selectively heating the mist prior to delivery into the cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a cooking device wherein the mist generator comprises a reservoir (¶15 water is in the heating chamber 18), , and a transducer (¶19, vibratory mechanism 80 may be in the form of a transducer) submerged (Figs. 1-2) within water in the reservoir for vibrationally producing mist from the water.
Regarding claim 5, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further discloses 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 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; and a heater (Frock, element 90) located along the line for selectively heating the mist prior to delivery into the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 14, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further disclose 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).
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.
Claim(s) 3 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).
Regarding claim 3, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further disclose a cooking device wherein the mist generator further comprises a fan positioned for delivering air into the reservoir and moving mist along the line to the inlet of the cooking chamber. 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 delivering 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). 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 and pushes the steam into the line leading to the heating chamber, 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.
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 Tippman (U.S. Patent 6,152,024).
Regarding claim 4, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further disclose 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) 6, 7 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 Vasan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0330642).
Regarding claim 6, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further discloses a cooking device further comprising a controller (50) connected for controlling the transducer (80, the heating elements), (Frock, 20, ¶¶18-19). However, Frock does not disclose a fan. However, Vasan in his convection heating apparatus, teaches a fan (or blower, 108, ¶0008), and further describes the benefit of having a steam cooker in connection with his convection oven (¶0045 a “combi (sic) oven [that] combines the abilities of a convection oven and a steam cooker”). 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 Vasan, to include a convection oven with a steam cooker, including a fan, in order to regulate the humidity within the cooking chamber as well as the temperature, in order to achieve a better and more efficient cooking process (Vasan, ¶0045).
Regarding claim 7, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses a cooking device wherein the controller is configured for selectively heating the mist to a set temperature (Frock, ¶0027, steam is increased above 212 degrees) .
Regarding claim 12, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a cooking device wherein the cooking device comprises a steam cooker or a combination oven that also includes a convection heating system. However, Vasan teaches a convection oven (Vasan, title, abstract) and also that his invention could be a “combi (sic) oven [that] combines the abilities of a convection oven and a steam cooker (¶0045). 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 Vasan, to include a convection oven with a steam cooker, in order to regulate the humidity within the cooking chamber as well as the temperature, in order to achieve a better and more efficient cooking process (Vasan, ¶0045).
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0282020) in view of Vasan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0330642) and Forney (U.S. Patent 4737373).
Regarding claim 8, Frock in view of Vasan teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further disclose 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 Vasan with the teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
Regarding claim 9, Frock in view of Vasan teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further disclose 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 Vasan with the teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
Regarding claim 10, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 7, 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 Vasan with the teaching of Forney, to heat the chamber and the boiler according to the claimed temperatures.
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 Vasan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0330642) and further in view of Meng (U.S. Patent 2022/ 0296027))
Regarding claim11, Frock discloses all the limitations of claim 7, 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 Vasan 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892.
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