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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 has been amended to include “a warming element which is a heat exhanger” which should be - a warming element which is a heat exchanger-.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the deflection element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the deflection element” will be interpreted as -the deflector-.
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, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20120027730 A), hereinafter Kim, in view of Nuttall (GB 370160 A), hereinafter Nuttall.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a food warming system comprising:
a fluid conveying element having a fluid passage and configured to connect to a cooking exhaust vent in order to receive heated fluid (The portion of fluid passage 542 leading from 52);
a pump positioned in or adjacent to the fluid conveying element, the fan configured to move the heated fluid through the fluid conveying element (543);
a warming element being a heat exchanger and positioned remote from the cooking exhaust vent, the warming element is configured to connect to the fluid conveying element to receive the heated fluid moved by the pump such that the heated fluid warm the warming element and the heated fluid becomes cooled a cooled fluid (541);
an outlet on the warming element configured to connect to a second fluid conveying element, the second fluid conveying element configured to allow the cooled fluid move back to the cooking exhaust vent (The portion of fluid passage 542 leading from 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim does not disclose:
wherein the heated fluid is exhaust gases;
wherein the pump is a fan;
wherein the cooled fluid is cooled exhaust gasses, wherein the cooled exhaust gasses move back to the cooking exhaust vent for exhaustion via the vent.
However, Nuttall teaches:
wherein the heated fluid is exhaust gases (“burnt gasses from the fire chamber 7… Where the burnt gases pass through a warming or heating box 9, the burnt gases serve to heat the said box” page 3, line 63);
wherein the pump is a fan (“a fan or blower 2” page 3, line 7);
wherein the cooled fluid is cooled exhaust gasses, wherein the cooled exhaust gasses move back to the cooking exhaust vent for exhaustion via the vent (“The delivery side of the fan or blower 2 is connected by suitable piping, for example a pipe 17, to a flue forming part of the building or to atmosphere” page 3, line 102).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
390
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
550
358
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Nuttall’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 heated fluid is exhaust gases as is taught in Nuttall, in the food warming system disclosed by Kim because Nuttall states “The burnt gases may be caused to pass through a cooked food warmer or heater before they arrive in contact with the steam, whereby the said gases efficiently heat the said warmer or heater” (page 2, line 98). Using the exhaust gasses directly instead of an intermediate heat exchanger 53 as in Kim will improve efficiency by preventing losses introduced by the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 8, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the system further comprises a cooking element (5) positioned below the exhaust vent and the exhaust vent comprises a vent hood (52) with the fluid conveying element connected to the vent hood (542).
Regarding claim 10, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the warming element includes a chamber with an inlet and an outlet, the inlet configured to connect to the fluid conveying element and the outlet configured to connect to the second fluid conveying element (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a method of warming food comprising:
moving heated fluid with a pump (543) from a cooking exhaust vent (52) via a fluid passage of a fluid conveying element (The portion of fluid passage 542 leading from 52) to a warming element which is a heat exchanger (541);
heating the warming element with the heated fluid by introducing the heated fluid into a chamber of the warming element to thereby allow the warming element to extract heat from the heated fluid such that the heated fluid become cooled fluid (The warming element 541 extracts heat from the heated fluid within thereby cooling the fluid);
returning the cooled fluid to the exhaust vent (Via the portion of fluid passage 542 leading from 52).
Kim does not disclose:
wherein the heated fluid is exhaust gasses and the pump is a fan;
wherein the cooled fluid is cooled exhaust gasses.
However, Nuttall teaches:
wherein the heated fluid is exhaust gasses and the pump is a fan (“burnt gasses from the fire chamber 7… Where the burnt gases pass through a warming or heating box 9, the burnt gases serve to heat the said box” page 3, line 63);
wherein the cooled fluid is cooled exhaust gasses (Via 5).
In view of Nuttall’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 heated fluid is exhaust gases as is taught in Nuttall, in the food warming system disclosed by Kim because Nuttall states “The burnt gases may be caused to pass through a cooked food warmer or heater before they arrive in contact with the steam, whereby the said gases efficiently heat the said warmer or heater” (page 2, line 98). Using the exhaust gasses directly instead of an intermediate heat exchanger 53 as in Kim will improve efficiency by preventing losses introduced by the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 15, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the cooled exhaust gasses are vented via the exhaust vent to an external environment (“The delivery side of the fan or blower 2 is connected by suitable piping, for example a pipe 17, to a flue forming part of the building or to atmosphere” page 3, line 102).
Regarding claim 18, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the fluid conveying element is a pipe (542).
Claims 2, 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Wallace (US 3362319 A), hereinafter Wallace.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose a screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan.
However, Wallace teaches a screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan (“a screen-filter unit 19, and a suction fan 25” column 2, line 25).
PNG
media_image6.png
268
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Wallace’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 screen positioned before the fan or a filter positioned before the fan as is taught in Wallace, in the system as presently modified because a filter will remove odor and contaminants which would foul portions of the system.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the method of claim 14.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose a screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan or a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan.
However, Wallace teaches a screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan and a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan (“a screen-filter unit 19, and a suction fan 25” column 2, line 25).
In view of Wallace’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 screen positioned such that the screen is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the screen prior to the fan and a filter positioned such that the filter is configured to have the exhaust gasses pass through the filter prior to the fan as is taught in Wallace, in the method as presently modified because a filter will remove odor and contaminants which would foul portions of the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Korsmeier (DE 3922090 A1), hereinafter Korsmeier.
Regarding claim 4, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to the exhaust gasses warming the warming element and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan.
However, Korsmeier teaches a controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses (“On the suction surface 6 of the extractor hood 1 , two extractor temperature sensors 12 and 13 are arranged” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference) and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan (“If the signal exceeds the setpoint of the first comparison stage, a power transistor is driven and a relay activated for the first fan speed. The fan is running with the first stage. If the temperature difference increases e.g. by switching on additional hotplates, this increases already amplified signal. If the signal exceeds the target value of the second comparison level (e.g. 8K), the lei control transistor of this stage and the relay for the second fan stage is activated. The fan runs with the second stage”).
PNG
media_image7.png
338
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Korsmeier’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 controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan as is taught in Korsmeier, in the system as modified because Korsmeier states “The invention has for its object the fan control tion for the extractor hood of the type mentioned at the beginning more reliable.” Therefore, including the automatic control of the fan will improve reliability in the system as modified.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, in view of Korsmeier, and further in view of Parvin (US 20130092148 A1), hereinafter Parvin.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, as modified by Nuttall and Korsmeier, discloses the system of claim 4.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall and Korsmeier, does not disclose wherein prior to activating the fan, the controller determines if the warming element is below a second threshold temperature and if below said second threshold temperature, the controller activates the fan.
However, Parvin teaches wherein prior to activating the pump, the controller determines if the warming element is below a second threshold temperature and if below said second threshold temperature, the controller activates the pump (“The controller device 1302 can further receive a signal from a temperature sensor 1302 in the hot water storage reservoir indicating the temperature of the water in the reservoir to regulate the pumping. For example, the controller device may be configured to compare the temperature of the water exiting each of the heat exchanger sets with the temperature of the water in the storage reservoir, and allow the circulating device including flow diverters to transfer water only from those heat exchanger sets for which the exiting water has a higher temperature than the temperature of the hot water storage reservoir. Thus exiting water having a higher temperature than the temperature of the water in the storage reservoir will be allowed to flow through diverters D1, D2, and D3 via pathways A to meet at a common point P from which the water is then circulated to the water storage reservoir” paragraph [0096]).
In view of Parvin’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 controller connected to a temperature sensor, the temperature sensor reading a temperature of the exhaust gasses prior to exhausting gasses and if the temperature is above a threshold value, the controller activating the fan as is taught in Parvin in the system as presently modified because the control of Parvin will ensure that the warming element is not cooled by the flow in the system as modified.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Hepner (US 4235220 A), hereinafter Hepner.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose a deflector positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan, a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning.
However, Hepner teaches a deflector positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan, a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning (“Secondary grease filter 56 is similar in construction to primary grease filter 52 and as such includes a number of layers of expanded metal screen immediately adjacent to one another, supported in a suitable frame structure. In the immediate vicinity of secondary grease filter 56, an access door 58 is provided through exhaust air conduit 54 for the purpose of allowing secondary grease filter 56 to be removed, cleaned and/or replaced at necessary intervals of time” column 5, line 13).
PNG
media_image8.png
182
488
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Hepner’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 deflection element positioned within the fluid conveying element and between the exhaust vent and the fan, a recess positioned below the deflection element, wherein the recess is configured to be opened for cleaning as is taught in Hepner, in the system as presently modified because including a deflection element will remove grease from the exhaust flow which would otherwise foul the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Bernstein (US 2857836 A), hereinafter Bernstein.
Regarding claim 9, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose wherein the fan is removable from the fluid conveying element so that blades of the fan can be exposed for cleaning.
However, Bernstein teaches wherein the fan is removable from the fluid conveying element so that blades of the fan can be exposed for cleaning (“It was previously indicated that it is often necessary to remove the blower from the housing for the purpose of cleaning or servicing the same. In order to facilitate such removal, simple but effective latching means is provided which comprises a retainer rod hail member 84 having the ends thereof pivotally mounted by means of brackets such as 86 to the end walls 26 and 28 respectively. The retainer rod bail 84 is adapted to cooperate with a pair of retainer clips 85 affixed to the housing of the blower 35, thereby locking the blower unit within the housing. By merely swinging the hail away from engagement with the retainer clips 85, the blower unit is freed for removal from the housing” column 5, line 20).
In view of Bernstein’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 fan is removable from the fluid conveying element so that blades of the fan can be exposed for cleaning as is taught in Bernstein, in the system as presently modified because Bernstein states “A further object of the invention is to provide an exhaust fan housing in which the blower may be readily removed and disassembled for cleaning and servicing without requiring the use of special tools or skills” (column 2, line 21). Therefore, including a removable fan will simplify cleaning and servicing in the system as modified.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Koch (US 2275772 A), hereinafter Koch.
Regarding claim 11, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose wherein the warming element includes one or more dividers which separate one or more food items placed on the warming element from other food items placed on the warming element.
However, Koch teaches wherein the warming element includes one or more dividers which separate one or more food items placed on the warming element from other food items placed on the warming element (“The bottom 9 and the back wall 7 of course become heated, and as the shelves 11 and 11a are secured to these parts, said shelves also become heated to quite an extent. Therefore, the cabinet may be effectively used to keep food warm before serving” page 1, column 2, line 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
728
505
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of Koch’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 warming element includes one or more dividers which separate one or more food items placed on the warming element from other food items placed on the warming element as is taught in Koch, in the system as presently modified because including dividers increases the number of warmable items that may be stacked within the space thereby increasing capacity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, and further in view of Cachot (EP 2436991 A1), hereinafter Cachot.
Regarding claim 12, Kim, as modified by Nuttall, discloses the system of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall, does not disclose a controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the exhaust gasses are below a threshold temperature.
However, Cachot teaches a controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the gasses are below a threshold temperature (“auxiliary heating means (70, 72, 82, 84) adapted to optionally heat the blown air as a function of the outside air temperature measurement. (S62) and / or a supply air temperature measurement (S50)”).
PNG
media_image10.png
424
604
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
324
404
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In view of Cachot’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 controller configured to activate a second heating element which is an electric or combustion heating element adjacent the warming element when a temperature of the gasses are below a threshold temperature as is taught in Cachot, in the system as presently modified because including an auxiliary heater will improve the steadiness and reliability of the heat delivered to the target.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Nuttall, in view of Cachot, and further in view of Galtz (WO 2008095466 A1), hereinafter Galtz.
Regarding claim 13, Kim, as modified by Nuttall and Cachot, discloses the system of claim 12.
Kim, as modified by Nuttall and Cachot, does not disclose wherein the second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits.
However, Galtz teaches wherein the second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits (“The temperature control is heated by the waste heat of the drive motor 12. If necessary, the temperature control can be additionally heated by means of the auxiliary heater 22, wherein the heater 22 is controlled by a control unit 30, as shown by the dashed control line 32. The control unit 30 includes a timer 34, with which the operating time of the auxiliary heater 22 is monitored” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of the teachings of Galtz, 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 second heating element is activated based on one or more time limits as is taught in Galtz, in the system as presently modified because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, providing a timer to automatically terminate the secondary heater is not sufficient to distinguish over Kim as modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Han (CN 104359131 A)
PNG
media_image12.png
420
468
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Gui (CN 108542145 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
376
600
media_image13.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
Prosecution Insights