DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 08/17/2023 which is a 371 of PCT/GB2022/051262 filed on 05/19/2022 which claims foreign priority to United Kingdom applications GB2107486.9 filed on 05/26/2021 and GB2116874.5 filed on 11/23/2021. Multiple dependent Claims 1 – 15 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2019/0219273A1) in view of Staun et al. (2020/0178732A1) in view of Karabin et al. (9,404,660).
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, the invention as claimed, including an oven (1) defining an oven cavity (3) for receiving a food product for heating (Para. [0012] “…closing the oven door (having loaded the food to be cooked)…”), the oven (1) comprising a door (4) for closing the oven cavity (3), means for heating [The “means for heating” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by cooking elements 5, 6, and 7.], means for providing air circulation [The “means for providing air circulation” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by fan 8.], means for measuring temperature [The “means for measuring temperature” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by Para. [0032].] and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.”), wherein the means for heating [The following structural elements knocks out 112(f) interpretation.] comprises an oven element (5) provided in a top section of the oven, a base element (7) provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source (6 – Para. [0023] “In other arrangements (including or omitting the base element) a microwave element, i.e. a magnetron, may be included, either in addition to the radiant oven element 6 or in place of the radiant oven element 6.”), the oven cavity (3) has a base (9) which is ceramic and defines a heating surface which is arranged to be heated by the base element in use of the oven (Para. [0022] “The base element is provided under a ceramic panel 9 that defines a base of the cooking chamber. … The base of the cooking chamber provides a cooking surface. It is particularly suited to the cooking of pizzas, as described in greater detail below.”), the base element (7) is at least one radiant element (Para. [0020]), the means for measuring temperature [The following structural elements knocks out 112(f) interpretation.] comprises a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.” Obviously measuring temperatures in two or three different locations would have required two or three temperature sensors.), and the controller is configured to control independently the temperature of the ceramic base and the temperature within the oven cavity (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.” and Claim 1 “…the cooking elements are operable independently of one another and a controller is provided for controlling the operation of the cooking elements…”).
Jackson is silent on a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element.
Staun teaches, in Figs. 17 and 18, a similar oven (100) defining an oven cavity (102) for receiving a food product for heating (Para. [0045]) having a metal body provided with apertures (130) is located in the base section (shown in Figs. 17 and 18) of the oven (100) and is located between a ceramic base (112) of the oven cavity (102) and a base element (124), the metal body (130) lies over at least part of the base element (124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson with the metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element, taught by Staun, because Staun teaches, in Para. [0056], that the metal body provided with apertures facilitated blocking microwave radiation from reaching the base element while the ceramic base facilitated protecting the base element from spills, food particles, and the like.
Jackson, i.v., Staun, is silent on the first temperature sensor is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the base element and the metal body, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the ceramic base.
Karabin teaches, in Figs. 1 – 17 and Col. 7, ll. 50 - 60, a similar oven (20) defining an oven cavity (32) for receiving a food product for heating, the oven (20) having a first temperature sensor (232 – Fig. 5B) is located in a base section (around 62 – Fig. 4 showed a side-view) of the oven (20) and is located between a base element (80) and a body (62), a second temperature sensor (230 – Fig. 4) is located in the oven cavity (32) remote from the base element (80). Fig. 5A was a top-view looking down on the base section/body (62) and Fig. 5B was a similar top-view looking down but with the base section/body (62) removed to reveal the first temperature sensor (232) over the base element (80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson, i.v., Staun, with the first temperature sensor is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the base element and the body, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the base section/body, taught by Karabin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the oven comprising a door for closing the oven cavity, means for heating, means for providing air circulation, means for measuring temperature and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature, wherein the means for heating comprises an oven element provided in a top section of the oven, a base element provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source, the oven cavity has a base which is ceramic, the base element is at least one radiant element, a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element, the means for measuring temperature comprises a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor, and the first temperature sensor is located in the base section of the oven and is located between a base element and a body, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the base element, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the first temperature sensor in the base section of the oven between the base element and the metal body would have facilitated measuring the temperature (base element heat output) in the region of the base element while locating the second temperature sensor in the oven cavity remote from the ceramic base would have facilitated measuring the oven cavity air temperature. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). As discussed above, Jackson taught, in Para. [0032], “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.”
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, the invention as claimed, including an oven (1) defining an oven cavity (3) for receiving a food product for heating (Para. [0012] “…closing the oven door (having loaded the food to be cooked)…”), the oven (1) comprising a door (4) for closing the oven cavity (3), means for heating [The “means for heating” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by cooking elements 5, 6, and 7.], means for providing air circulation [The “means for providing air circulation” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by fan 8.], means for measuring temperature [The “means for measuring temperature” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by Para. [0032].] and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.”), wherein the means for heating [The following structural elements knocks out 112(f) interpretation.] comprises an oven element (5) provided in a top section of the oven, a base element (7) provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source (6 – Para. [0023] “In other arrangements (including or omitting the base element) a microwave element, i.e. a magnetron, may be included, either in addition to the radiant oven element 6 or in place of the radiant oven element 6.”), the oven cavity (3) has a base (9) which is ceramic and defines a heating surface which is arranged to be heated by the base element in use of the oven (Para. [0022] “The base element is provided under a ceramic panel 9 that defines a base of the cooking chamber. … The base of the cooking chamber provides a cooking surface. It is particularly suited to the cooking of pizzas, as described in greater detail below.”), the base element (7) is at least one radiant element (Para. [0020]), the means for measuring temperature [The following structural elements knocks out 112(f) interpretation.] comprises a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.” Obviously measuring temperatures in two or three different locations would have required two or three temperature sensors.), and the controller is configured to control independently the temperature of the ceramic base and the temperature within the oven cavity (Para. [0032] “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.” and Claim 1 “…the cooking elements are operable independently of one another and a controller is provided for controlling the operation of the cooking elements…”).
Jackson is silent on a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element.
Staun teaches, in Figs. 17 and 18, a similar oven (100) defining an oven cavity (102) for receiving a food product for heating (Para. [0045]) having a metal body provided with apertures (130) is located in the base section (shown in Figs. 17 and 18) of the oven (100) and is located between a ceramic base (112) of the oven cavity (102) and a base element (124), the metal body (130) lies over at least part of the base element (124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson with the metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element, taught by Staun, because Staun teaches, in Para. [0056], that the metal body provided with apertures facilitated blocking microwave radiation from reaching the base element while the ceramic base facilitated protecting the base element from spills, food particles, and the like.
Jackson, i.v., Staun, is silent on the first temperature sensor is located inside or outside the oven cavity adjacent the ceramic base, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the ceramic base.
Karabin teaches, in Figs. 1 – 17 and Col. 7, ll. 50 - 60, a similar oven (20) defining an oven cavity (32) for receiving a food product for heating, the oven (20) having a first temperature sensor (232 – Fig. 5B) is located outside the oven cavity (32) adjacent a base section (around 62 – Fig. 4 showed a side-view) of the oven (20), a second temperature sensor (230 – Fig. 4) is located in the oven cavity (32) remote from the base section/body (62). Fig. 5A was a top-view looking down on the base section/body (62) and Fig. 5B was a similar top-view looking down but with the base section/body (62) removed to reveal the first temperature sensor (232) over the base element (80), i.e., located outside the oven cavity (32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson, i.v., Staun, with the first temperature sensor is located outside the oven cavity adjacent the base section/body, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the base section/body, taught by Karabin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the oven comprising a door for closing the oven cavity, means for heating, means for providing air circulation, means for measuring temperature and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature, wherein the means for heating comprises an oven element provided in a top section of the oven, a base element provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source, the oven cavity has a base which is ceramic, the base element is at least one radiant element, a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element, the means for measuring temperature comprises a first temperature sensor and a second temperature sensor, and the first temperature sensor is located outside the oven cavity adjacent the base section/body, the second temperature sensor is located in the oven cavity remote from the base section/body, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the first temperature sensor in the base section of the oven outside the oven cavity adjacent the ceramic base would have facilitated measuring the temperature (base element heat output) in the region of the base element while locating the second temperature sensor in the oven cavity remote from the ceramic base would have facilitated measuring the oven cavity air temperature. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). As discussed above, Jackson taught, in Para. [0032], “The controller preferably monitors the oven air temperature but could also or alternatively monitor the base temperature and top element temperatures.”
*** Dependent Claims 3 – 15 are multiple dependent claims that depend from Claim 1 or Claim 2. Accordingly, the claim rejections will follow MPEP608.01(n)(F) approved practice for identifying each multiple dependent claim. ***
Re Claim 3/1 and 3/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the metal body (130 – Staun Figs. 17 and 18) lies substantially over the region or regions of the base element (124) that are configured to radiate heat in use of the oven.
Re Claim 4/3/1 and 4/3/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the apertures (open spaces in the mesh grid) in the metal body (130 – Staun Figs. 17 and 18) are provided in one or more regions which are substantially aligned with the region or regions of the base element (124) that are configured to radiate heat in use of the oven.
Re Claim 5/1 and 5/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the ceramic base of the oven cavity is ceramic glass (Jackson – Para. [0022]).
Re Claim 7/1 and 7/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, including a housing (2) which comprises three wall sections (left-side, back, and right-side of oven cavity), a floor section (bottom of oven cavity) and a ceiling section (top of oven cavity), wherein the floor section (bottom of oven cavity) comprises the metal body (Para. [0023] “the base will be of conventional form, most likely formed from metal.”) provided with apertures (As discussed in the rejections of Claims 1 and 2).
Re Claim 8/7/1 and 8/7/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, including wherein the ceiling section (top of oven cavity) separates the top section (where fan 8 is located) of the oven from the oven cavity (3) and comprises a metal body provided with apertures. Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0023], “the base will be of conventional form, most likely formed from metal.” Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0021], “It is preferable that an air movement means is provided for moving air heated by the oven element within the cooking chamber. In the arrangement shown a fan 8 is provided for this purpose. … The airflow from the air movement means is preferably biased to compensate for door opening. In the case of the fan, vents into the oven cavity may be configured such that a greater airflow is provided at a front of the cooking chamber proximal the door than in a rear of the oven cavity distal the door.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, said ceiling section would have been a metal body provided with apertures, i.e., vents, to facilitate the fan circulating air from the rear of the oven cavity to the front of the oven cavity proximal to the door. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, said ceiling section would have made out of a metal.
Re Claim 9/1 and 9/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, wherein the means for providing air circulation [The following structural elements knocks out 112(f) interpretation.] comprises a fan (8) provided in the top section of the oven (1) and in fluid communication with the oven cavity (3) for moving air heated by the oven element within the oven cavity (3). Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0021], “It is preferable that an air movement means is provided for moving air heated by the oven element within the cooking chamber. In the arrangement shown a fan 8 is provided for this purpose. … The airflow from the air movement means is preferably biased to compensate for door opening. In the case of the fan, vents into the oven cavity may be configured such that a greater airflow is provided at a front of the cooking chamber proximal the door than in a rear of the oven cavity distal the door.”
Re Claim 10/9/1 and 10/9/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, wherein the oven element (6) is configured to surround the fan (8 – best seen in Fig. 2). Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0010], that the oven element can be both a radiant element and a magnetron.
MPEP2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts cited “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, to rearrange the oven element and the microwave source because shifting their positions would not have modified the operation of the oven. The microwave source would have still generated microwaves and the oven element would have still converted electricity into heat, i.e., radiated thermal energy.
Re Claim 11/1 and 11/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0021], wherein the oven element is at least one substantially circular element (“The oven element may be circular.”) or substantially annular element. Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0010], that the oven element can be both a radiant element and a magnetron.
Re Claim 12/1 and 12/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0020], wherein the oven element is at least one sheathed element (“…the oven element is a metal sheathed element”). Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0010], that the oven element can be both a radiant element and a magnetron.
Re Claim 14/1 and 14/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, in Paras. [0006], [0008], and [0025], wherein the controller is configured in any heating cycle either to use the heating means independently or sequentially or to use two or more of the heating means simultaneously. Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0006], “The controller is preferably configured to allow the simultaneous operation of the base element and/or the microwave element with either the grill element or the oven element.” Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0008], “By providing multiple cooking elements and controlling their use (both simultaneous and asynchronous) it is possible to optimise and accelerate cooking whilst reducing power consumption. Different types of food may be cooked in a reduced time with the phased use of the different cooking elements tailored to the food being cooked during any cooking cycle. Different combinations/sequences of the cooking elements may be used for different foods”. Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0025], “At least two of the cooking elements will preferably be used in any cooking cycle (simultaneously or asynchronously or a combination of both). The use of at least two different cooking elements allows for optimised/accelerated cooking”.
Claims 6/1 and 6/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2019/0219273A1) in view of Staun et al. (2020/0178732A1) in view of Karabin et al. (9,404,660) in further view of Millett (10,531,524).
Re Claim 6/1 and 6/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein microwaves are arranged to enter the oven cavity, in use of the oven, from a wall located opposite the door of the oven.
Millett teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar microwave oven having a magnetron (12 - Col. 3, ll. 1 - 5), i.e., source of microwave radiation, located above the oven cavity (26) with waveguides (dashed lines from 12 to 14 and 16 – Col. 2, ll. 55 - 65) that guided the microwaves from the magnetron (12) to feeding ports (14 and 16) that transmitted said guided microwaves into the oven cavity (26). Millett teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, “The microwave oven 10 includes a source of microwave radiation 12 connected to the feeding ports 14, 16. The feeding ports 14, 16 may be arranged on any aspect of the enclosing surface of the cooking cavity 26.”
MPEP2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts cited “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, with the microwaves are arranged to enter the oven cavity (via one or more feeding ports) on any aspect of the enclosing surface of the oven cavity, taught by Millett, because rearranging the non-disclosed location of the feeding port (where microwaves entered the oven cavity) in Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, to locating the feeding port in the wall located opposite the door of the oven, taught by Millett, was mere rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the microwave oven. The magnetron/microwave source would have still generated microwaves, one or more waveguides would have still guided the microwaves from the magnetron/microwave source to one or more feeding ports located in the wall located opposite the door of the oven, and said one or more feeding ports would have still transmitted said microwaves into the oven cavity where said microwaves would have heated, i.e., cooked, liquids or food items placed inside the oven cavity.
Claims 13/12/1 and 13/12/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2019/0219273A1) in view of Staun et al. (2020/0178732A1) in view of Karabin et al. (9,404,660) in further view of Moule et al. (2,898,571).
Re Claim 13/12/1 and 13/12/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Jackson further teaches, in Para. [0021], a plurality of tubular elements.
Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, as discussed above, is silent on said oven element is at least one tubular sheathed element.
Moule teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, Title, and Col. 1, ll. 15 – 20, tubular sheathed heating element (best seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, with the tubular sheathed element, taught by Moule, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the oven comprising a door for closing the oven cavity, means for heating, means for providing air circulation, means for measuring temperature and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature, wherein the means for heating comprises an oven element provided in a top section of the oven, a base element provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source, the oven cavity has a base which is ceramic, the base element is at least one radiant element, a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven, and the tubular sheathed heating element, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the tubular sheathed element, taught by Moule, for the oven element of Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., in operation, the tubular sheathed element would have converted electricity into heat, i.e., radiated thermal energy. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 15/1 and 15/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (2019/0219273A1) in view of Staun et al. (2020/0178732A1) in view of Karabin et al. (9,404,660) in further view of Millett (10,531,524) and Jakobsson (7,065,655).
Re Claim 15/1 and 15/2, Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the housing, the door and a waveguide provide a Faraday cage and the ceramic base of the oven cavity is located inside the Faraday cage.
Millett teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar microwave oven having a magnetron (12 - Col. 3, ll. 1 - 5), i.e., source of microwave radiation, located above the oven cavity (26) with waveguides (dashed lines from 12 to 14 and 16 – Col. 2, ll. 55 - 65) that guided the microwaves from the magnetron (12) to feeding ports (14 and 16) that transmitted said guided microwaves into the oven cavity (26). Millett teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 50 – 55, “The microwave oven 10 includes a source of microwave radiation 12 connected to the feeding ports 14, 16. The feeding ports 14, 16 may be arranged on any aspect of the enclosing surface of the cooking cavity 26.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, with the waveguide, taught by Millett, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the oven comprising a door for closing the oven cavity, means for heating, means for providing air circulation, means for measuring temperature and a controller for controlling the operation of the means for heating and the operation of the means for measuring temperature, wherein the means for heating comprises an oven element provided in a top section of the oven, a base element provided in a base section of the oven and a microwave source, the oven cavity has a base which is ceramic, the base element is at least one radiant element, a metal body provided with apertures is located in the base section of the oven and is located between the ceramic base of the oven cavity and the base element, the metal body lies over at least part of the base element, and the waveguide that guided microwaves generated by a magnetron located outside of the oven cavity to feeding ports that transmitted said guided microwaves into the oven cavity, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a waveguide into the oven of Jackson, i.v., Staun and Karabin, to facilitate guiding microwaves generated by a magnetron located outside of the oven cavity to feeding ports that transmitted said guided microwaves into the oven cavity. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Millett further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 1 – 15, “The electrically conductive glass panel 32 acts as a Faraday cage shield for the viewable window of the microwave oven door 30, while also providing a radiant heat barrier for the combination of the conventional cooking and microwave heating elements. A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity. A Faraday cage is an enclosure, all of whose external surfaces are electrically conducting.”
Jakobsson teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 55 – 60, “The principle of a Faraday's cage has also been used for micro-wave ovens to focus radiation on the food and to prevent harmful electromagnetic radiation from escaping the inside of the microwave oven. Micro-wave ovens typically have metal walls and a fine-masked metal grid attached to the window for this purpose.”
Thus, improving a particular device (oven), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Millett and Jakobsson, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the oven of Jackson, i.v., Staun, Karabin, and Millett, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that arranging the housing, the door and a waveguide provide a Faraday cage and the ceramic base of the oven cavity is located inside the Faraday cage would have facilitated using the microwaves inside the oven cavity to heat/cook liquids or food items placed on the ceramic base while preventing any of the generated microwaves from leaking outside of the Faraday cage where said leaked microwave would be harmful to human users of said oven. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741