Control Box for a Cooking Appliance and Cooking Appliance

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Claim 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR 102053776 B1), hereinafter Ryu, in view of Menominee (US 20170122570 A1), hereinafter Menominee, and further in view of Erickson (US 2686373 A), hereinafter Erickson. Regarding claim 21, Ryu discloses a control box for a cooking appliance, comprising a housing (“drain box 210” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference) in which at least one steam inlet (“The drain box is connected to the drain port 130 through the inlet”), a steam outlet (“External exhaust pipe (250)”), and at least one cleaning agent inlet are present (“Water (direct water) supplied for washing from 401”), the cleaning agent inlet being arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam (Figure 1), wherein an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a side wall of the control box. PNG media_image1.png 668 442 media_image1.png Greyscale Ryu does not disclose: at least one water nozzle; a deflecting member which is configured to deflect a cleaning agent flow exiting the outlet opening towards the ceiling being present at the outlet opening, wherein the deflection member is formed by a baffle plate arranged in the region of the outlet opening, wherein the baffle plate is arranged such that a jet of cleaning agent hits the baffle plate after exiting the outlet opening. However, Menominee teaches at least one water nozzle (“The liquid cleaner inlet port 80 provides for flow of concentrated liquid cleaner 92 into the reservoir chamber 22 through a conduit passing from a pump 94. Freshwater inlet port 83 provides for a flow of freshwater 96 from a freshwater source through a conduit and into the reservoir chamber 22” paragraph [0061]). PNG media_image2.png 266 450 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 426 438 media_image3.png Greyscale In view of Menominee’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include cleaning agent and water inlets as is taught in Menominee, in the control box disclosed by Ryu because a cleaning agent and water will be more effective at cleaning than water as a cleaning agent. Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose a deflecting member which is configured to deflect a cleaning agent flow exiting the outlet opening towards the ceiling being present at the outlet opening, wherein the deflection member is formed by a baffle plate arranged in the region of the outlet opening, wherein the baffle plate is arranged such that a jet of cleaning agent hits the baffle plate after exiting the outlet opening. However, Erickson teaches a deflecting member which is configured to deflect a cleaning agent flow exiting the outlet opening towards the ceiling being present at the outlet opening, wherein the deflection member is formed by a baffle plate arranged in the region of the outlet opening, wherein the baffle plate is arranged such that a jet of cleaning agent hits the baffle plate after exiting the outlet opening (“the jet nozzle 36 is productive of a stream of cool water that is projected through the air gap between the end of the nozzle 36 and the outer end of the opening 44 formed in the bushing 43 and thence through the hole 44 and the baffle 45 onto the target 48. The upstanding rodlike target 48 breaks up this stream of cool water into a spray within the condensing chamber 22, which spray is arranged in two diverging upstanding sheets 51, as indicated in Fig. 5. The two upstanding sheets 51 of the spray of cool water, as well as the side spray thereof, are directed generally from the rear of the condensing chamber 22 toward the front thereof so that the condensing chamber 22 is substantially completely filled with the spray of cool water from the rear end thereof to the front end thereof and between the baffle 18 and the bottom wall of the lower casing section 17 in order positively to insure cooling and thorough scrubbing of the current of air passing through the condensing chamber 22” column 5, line 43). PNG media_image4.png 416 368 media_image4.png Greyscale In view of Erickson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a baffle as is taught in Erickson, in the control box as modified because Erickson states that “the condensing chamber 22 is substantially completely filled with the spray.” Therefore, including the fanning arrangement taught by Erickson will better distribute flow in the control box as modified. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are allowed. Claim 1 has been amended to recited the limitations of claim 10 which were previously indicated as allowable. Claim 1 now recites the limitation “wherein a grid structure which serves to shield high-frequency radiation is present in the control box, wherein the grid structure is formed by a cast part in which a plurality of cleaning channels connected to a cleaning agent connection and opening at different points within the grid structure is formed, or wherein the grid structure is formed by a pipe packet.” The closest prior art of record to claim 10 is Smith (US 4250628 A) which discloses “A radiation trap 21 in the line 22 prevents the escape of radiation. The spray condenser 24 is comprised of a chamber which contains at the top a water spray nozzle 26 and lower down a vapor distribution plate 28” (column 6, line 41). There are differences between the limitations of claim 10 and the teachings of Smith. No other art was found such that further modification of Ryu and Menominee. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art. Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are allowable at least because they depend from claim 1. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Quiggle (US 1756992 A) PNG media_image5.png 464 742 media_image5.png Greyscale McMillan (US 3132005 A) PNG media_image6.png 224 410 media_image6.png Greyscale Deuringer (US 20030145847 A1) “at least one quenching nozzle is attached in the washing liquid reservoir, the condensation of entering steam being significantly accelerated with the assistance thereof” paragraph [0046] PNG media_image7.png 438 492 media_image7.png Greyscale Kulakowski (US 20130133638 A1) PNG media_image8.png 272 540 media_image8.png Greyscale Breinl (WO 2007098732 A2) “By selectively supplying further water via at least one of the fluid supply lines 45 or 49, the remaining first cleaning fluid collected in the condenser 11 can then be diluted to reach the maximum level within the condenser 11” PNG media_image9.png 700 470 media_image9.png Greyscale Lee (KR 20160126668 A) “a cleaning nozzle 600 for spraying high-pressure washing water may be provided inside the housing 100 so that the inside of the housing 100 in which the inside is emptied can be cleaned. The cleaning nozzle 600 may be configured to spray only the wash water, or may be configured to spray the wash water mixed with the detergent” PNG media_image10.png 424 646 media_image10.png Greyscale 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST. 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 at (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. /LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762