DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2 line 1, “claim1” needs to be changed to “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ cooling device ” in claim s 1 and 12 ; “ automatic opening device ” in claim 2 ; “ actuating drives ” in claim 5; “ automatic closing device ” in claim 11; “ switching device ” in claim 15 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2-7 and 20 are 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 2 recites “a cooling fan”, “a further cooling fan”, “an adjustable first flap unit”, “an adjustable second flap unit”, and “automatic opening device” being part of the method steps executed by the cooling device. It’s not clear as to if those fans and flap units are part of the cooling device, or if those structures are from different system that is in communication with the cooling device. Claim 2 recites “opening, by a gap,… ” It is unclear as to if “gap” is a structure that performs “opening” function. Claim 20 recites “the cooking device of claim 1”, but claim 1 states “a method”. It is unclear as to if claim 20 is trying to claim a method or device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 , and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagwell (US 10215421) . Regarding claim 1, Bagwell teaches a method for cooling vapor or steam escaping from “ a cooking chamber of a cooking device equipped with a cooking chamber, a door for closing a front-side loading opening of the cooking chamber, a cooling device for replacing some of the vapor or steam in the cooking chamber by with cold air, and a control device for actuating the cooling device as a function of a control command ” (This is intended use) , the method comprising: t riggering (by sending signal from proximity sensor 502 shown in fig 7) the control command (control command is inherently sent by controller 505 to fan speed controller 512 or damper 510, shown in fig 7) by a signal or measured value of a proximity sensor (502, fig 7) arranged on the cooking device, the signal or measured value is being generated by the proximity sensor as a result of an individual approaching the cooking device (col 7 lines 2-3, “ one or more proximity sensors 502 located to detect the presence of a person approaching an oven 112 ”) . Regarding claim 2, Bagwell teaches the cooling device executes at least one of the following method steps as a result of the control command of the control device (NOTE: claim limitation only requires one of the following step ) : increasing a blow-out air flow of a cooling fan, the blow-out air flow picking up some of the vapor or steam from the cooking chamber via a first opening in a ceiling of the cooking chamber and transporting it away from the cooking device via a flow line; generating a suction air flow by the cooling fan (col 3 lines 28-30, “ receiving at a digital controller at least one signal pertaining to a state of an oven, controlling an exhaust flow to increase responsively to the at least one signal ”) or by a further fan, the suction air flow being drawn in by the cooling fan or the further fan via a flow line (the flow line is shown in arrows 265 or 210, fig 3) extending at least from the cooling fan or the further fan up to a blow-out/suction opening (flow line is from suction openings 114, 116, 118, 120 to exhaust collar 204. Col 2 line 17 says “exhaust fan”. Exhaust fan is provided to draw fumes to exhaust collar 204) above the cooking chamber; increasing the first opening in the ceiling by moving an adjustable first flap unit; opening a second opening in one cooking chamber wall by moving an adjustable second flap unit; opening, by a gap, the door by an automatic opening device. Regarding claim 3 , Bagwell teaches the air flow of the cooling fan is increased by an increase in fan speed by the control device (see claim 2 explanation) . Regarding claim 20, Bagwell teaches the cooking device comprises an oven or steam cooker. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagwell (US 10215421) . Regarding claim 12, Bagwell teaches a cooking device, comprising: a cooking chamber ( inside oven 112, fig 1) , with a door (col 4 lines 11-12, “… when the oven door is opened ”) for closing a front loading opening of the cooking chamber; a cooling device (col 2 lines 16-17, “ an exhaust connection connected to an exhaust fan to generate the negative pressure ”) configured to replace some vapor or steam in the cooking chamber with cold air (cold air from the environment inherently would flow to the oven to replace steam when exhaust system draws steam away from cooking chamber) ; a control device (505, fig 7) configured to actuate the cooling device as a function of a control command (see fig 7) ; and a proximity sensor (502, fig 7) configured to generate a signal or measured value as a result of an individual approaching the cooking device, wherein the control device is configured to carry out the control command for performing the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection) . Regarding claim 13, Bagwell teaches a flow line configured to guide a blow-out air flow (210, fig 3) or suction air flow, which extends at least from a cooling fan or a further fan up to a blow-out/suction opening above the cooking chamber (flow line extends from inlet 114 that is above cooking chamber to the fan). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-11 and 14-19 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. Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7675 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steve McAllister can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6785 . 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. /KO-WEI LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762