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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, and 15 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ryu does not disclose at least one water nozzle (Ryu does not disclose separate water and cleaning agent inlets).
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.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the control box according to claim 1.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose wherein a plurality of cleaning agent inlets arranged on different walls of the control box is provided. However, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Additional cleaning agent inlets at additional locations will, as expected, admit additional cleaning agent at additional locations.
Regarding claim 9, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the control box according to claim 1, wherein a water outlet is provided, through which waste water is discharged from the control box (“a first drain pipe 231”).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the cooking appliance having a control box as claimed in claim 1, wherein a line branches off from a cleaner pipe and runs towards the cleaning agent inlet (401 branches off from a main pipe in figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the cooking appliance according to claim 12.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose wherein a plurality of cleaning agent inlets arranged on different walls of the control box is provided. However, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Additional cleaning agent inlets at additional locations will, as expected, admit additional cleaning agent at additional locations.
Claims 2, 4, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, in view of Menominee, and further in view of Obata (US 5042171 A), hereinafter Obata.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the control box according to claim 1.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose:
wherein the at least one cleaning agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box, or in that the outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a side wall of the control box, 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 at least one cleaning agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box
However, Obata teaches:
wherein the at least one agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box;
wherein the at least one agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box (“Reference numeral 96 denotes a nozzle that is provided on the bottom of the cooling water-containing portion 77 with its jet 96a being upwardly directed maintaining a height lower than the height of opening 78a of the water drain pipe 78. The nozzle 96 injects the cooling water that is fed through the pouring hose 29 via solenoid valve 27. The gushing flow E agitates the cooling water C and causes part of the cooling water to be scattered into the condensation unit 73. Due to the gushing flow E from the nozzle 96, the water contained in the humid air is condensed as it passes through the condensation unit 73” column 11, line 60).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Obata’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:
wherein the at least one agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box;
wherein the at least one cleaning agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box as is taught in Obata, in the control box disclosed by Ryu because Obata states “Due to the gushing flow E from the nozzle 96, the water contained in the humid air is condensed as it passes through the condensation unit 73.” Therefore, including the nozzle arrangement of Obata will dehumidify the air leaving the oven of Ryu which will prevent the air from condensing on surfaces of a kitchen.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the control box according to claim 12.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose:
wherein the at least one cleaning agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box, or in that the outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a side wall of the control box, 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 at least one cleaning agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box
However, Obata teaches:
wherein the at least one agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box;
wherein the at least one agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box (“Reference numeral 96 denotes a nozzle that is provided on the bottom of the cooling water-containing portion 77 with its jet 96a being upwardly directed maintaining a height lower than the height of opening 78a of the water drain pipe 78. The nozzle 96 injects the cooling water that is fed through the pouring hose 29 via solenoid valve 27. The gushing flow E agitates the cooling water C and causes part of the cooling water to be scattered into the condensation unit 73. Due to the gushing flow E from the nozzle 96, the water contained in the humid air is condensed as it passes through the condensation unit 73” column 11, line 60).
In view of Obata’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:
wherein the at least one agent inlet is configured such that an outlet opening of the cleaning agent inlet in the control box is directed towards a ceiling of the control box;
wherein the at least one cleaning agent inlet is formed by a pipe which extends through a bottom or a side wall of the control box as is taught in Obata, in the control box disclosed by Ryu because Obata states “Due to the gushing flow E from the nozzle 96, the water contained in the humid air is condensed as it passes through the condensation unit 73.” Therefore, including the nozzle arrangement of Obata will dehumidify the air leaving the oven of Ryu which will prevent the air from condensing on surfaces of a kitchen.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, in view of Menominee, in view of Obata, and further in view of Erickson (US 2686373 A), hereinafter Erickson.
Regarding claim 5, Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, discloses the control box according to claim 4.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, does not disclose wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet.
However, Erickson teaches wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet (“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_image5.png
416
368
media_image5.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 wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet 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.
Regarding claim 17, Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, discloses the cooking appliance according to claim 16.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, does not disclose wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet.
However, Erickson teaches wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet (“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).
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 wherein the pipe has a fanning structure at the outlet 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.
Claims 6-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, in view of Menominee, in view of Obata, and further in view of Bommels (US 20130255097 A1), hereinafter Bommels.
Regarding claims 6-8, Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, discloses the control box according to claim 4,
Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, does not disclose:
wherein the pipe has a plurality of distributing bores in its section arranged inside the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box over at least one third of a length of the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box up to a center of the control box.
However, Bommels teaches:
wherein the pipe has a plurality of distributing bores in its section arranged inside the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box over at least one third of a length of the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box up to a center of the control box (“by pressing condensate (water) C through the fluid pipe 24, the condensate C flows to the water splashing unit 22 and is forced through the water outlet openings 23 with a high momentum to create sprays or splash jets of condensate/water to clean the condenser 16 from lint. For a particularly high effectiveness, the water splashing unit 22 extends at least substantially over the area below the condenser 16” paragraph [0063]).
PNG
media_image6.png
534
422
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Bommels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the arrangement as is taught in Bommels, in the control box as presently modified because Bommels states “splash jets of condensate/water to clean the condenser 16.” Therefore, including the arrangement of Bommels will maintain the cleanliness of the control box as modified.
Regarding claims 18-20, Ryu, as modified by Menominee and Obata, discloses the cooking appliance according to claim 16.
wherein the pipe has a plurality of distributing bores in its section arranged inside the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box over at least one third of a length of the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box up to a center of the control box.
However, Bommels teaches:
wherein the pipe has a plurality of distributing bores in its section arranged inside the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box over at least one third of a length of the control box;
wherein the pipe extends from a side wall of the control box up to a center of the control box (“by pressing condensate (water) C through the fluid pipe 24, the condensate C flows to the water splashing unit 22 and is forced through the water outlet openings 23 with a high momentum to create sprays or splash jets of condensate/water to clean the condenser 16 from lint. For a particularly high effectiveness, the water splashing unit 22 extends at least substantially over the area below the condenser 16” paragraph [0063]).
In view of the teachings of Bommels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the arrangement as is taught in Bommels, in the control box as presently modified because Bommels states “splash jets of condensate/water to clean the condenser 16.” Therefore, including the arrangement of Bommels will maintain the cleanliness of the control box as modified.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, in view of Menominee, and further in view of Sinnotec (DE 202006003349 U1), hereinafter Sinnotec.
Regarding claim 13, Ryu, as modified by Menominee, discloses the cooking appliance having a control box as claimed in claim 1.
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose wherein a line branches off from a fresh water connection and runs towards the cleaning agent inlet.
However, Sinnotec teaches wherein a line branches off from a fresh water connection and runs towards the cleaning agent inlet (“device drip tray ( 14 ), Detergent Tub ( 11 ) with attached suction lever ( 12 ) and fillable by a water supply ( 15 )” All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image7.png
532
738
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ryu, as modified by Menominee, does not disclose the claimed cleaning agent arrangement. Sinnotec teaches the claimed cleaning agent arrangement. The substitution of one known element (the cleaning agent arrangement of Menominee) for another (The cleaning agent of Sinnotec) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the cleaning agent taught in Sinnotec would have yielded predictable results, namely, introduction of cleaning agent into the control box Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a control box with all of the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 10 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 claims from the prior art.
Claim 11 is objected to at least because it depends from claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Quiggle (US 1756992 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
464
742
media_image8.png
Greyscale
McMillan (US 3132005 A)
PNG
media_image9.png
224
410
media_image9.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_image10.png
438
492
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Kulakowski (US 20130133638 A1)
PNG
media_image11.png
272
540
media_image11.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_image12.png
700
470
media_image12.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_image13.png
424
646
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights