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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the non-solid flow separator recited in Claims 13-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “mechanically actuation” should be amended to: “mechanically . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200025389 A1 (hereinafter “ERBE”).
PNG
media_image1.png
914
1175
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1-7, 9 and 16, ERBE discloses a cooling system for sensitive electronics, comprising:
the sensitive electronics (10) adjacent to a heating chamber (2), and within an electronics chamber (defined by the interior space of door 4);
a flow separator (16) axially extending through the electronics chamber; and
an air intake (see the bottom of door 4 which defines said electronics chamber) that flows air external to the heating chamber and electronics chamber into the electronics chamber axially to the flow separator, such that the flow forms a thermal break zone (the space between said flow separator and the inner pane 12) adjacent the heating chamber on one side of the flow separator, and a cooling zone (the space between said flow separator and the outer pane 13) on an other side of the flow separator about the sensitive electronics;
wherein the sensitive electronics are optical electronics (see para. [0028]: “In the exemplary embodiment shown, the sensor 10 is embodied as an optical sensor, in order to capture image information, particularly in the form of a digital image or a video stream.”);
wherein the optical electronics comprise a camera system (see again para. [0028]: “In the exemplary embodiment shown, the sensor 10 is embodied as an optical sensor, in order to capture image information, particularly in the form of a digital image or a video stream.”);
wherein the heating chamber (2) comprises an oven chamber (2);
wherein the thermal break zone (the space between said flow separator and the inner pane 12) provides a region of low thermal conductivity that reduces or substantially prevents thermal energy from reaching the flow separator (16);
wherein the flow separator separates the flow into two or more partial flows (i.e., a first partial flow between said inner pane 12 and said flow separator 16; and a second partial flow between said outer pane 13 and said flow separator 16);
wherein the partial flows on either side of the flow separator are uni-directional (the partial flows proceed in the same direction towards the top of said door 4);
wherein the flow separator (16) comprises a solid element;
further comprising a vent (15) from which the flow exits the electronics chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE.
Regarding Claim 10, ERBE does not disclose wherein the solid element comprises one of glass or plastic.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ERBE wherein the solid element comprises one of glass or plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of US 11,202,347 B2 (hereinafter “ARMSTRONG”).
Regarding Claim 17, ERBE discloses wherein the air intake comprises a fan (see para. [0009]: “For this purpose, an air volume is blown through a gap out of the door or into the door by a motor having an impeller and arranged in the cooking appliance.”).
ERBE does not specifically disclose an axial fan.
ARMSTRONG teaches an oven (110) wherein an oven door (150) comprises an axial fan (see at least Col. 8, Lns. 54-55: “air handler 216 includes a plurality of fans (e.g., axial fans 286, 288)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ERBE to comprise an axial fan as taught and/or suggested by ARMSTRONG, since both references teach fan for providing an air flow through an oven door, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one fan for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing an air flow through an oven door.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of EP 3121573 B1 (hereinafter “HERZOG”).
Regarding Claim 8, ERBE does not disclose wherein the partial flows on either side of the flow separator are in opposing directions.
HERZOG teaches a cooling system wherein the partial flows (19) on either side of the flow separator (12) are in opposing directions (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
732
1865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ERBE wherein the partial flows on either side of the flow separator are in opposing directions as taught and/or suggested by HERZOG, since both references teach cooling partial flows on either side of a flow separator for cooling sensitive electronics, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one flow pattern for the other (i.e., unidirectional or bidirectional flow) to achieve the predictable result of providing cooling partial flows on either side of a flow separator. Furthermore, HERZOG discloses “In FIG. 3, the airflow 19 is bidirectionally guided through the door column 18 in a counterflow-like manner. This is advantageous if the door column 18 is divided into at least two sub-chambers. However, unidirectional airflow 19 is also possible.” Thus, HERZOG teaches the use of both unidirectional or bidirectional cooling flows for cooling sensitive electronics.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of CN 112137415 A (hereinafter “REN”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, ERBE does not disclose wherein the solid element is mechanically actuated; wherein the mechanically actuation includes a hinge.
PNG
media_image3.png
563
1273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
REN teaches a camera (20) wherein the solid element (21; i.e., the camera support housing) is mechanically actuated (see at least elements 23-26); wherein the mechanically actuation includes a hinge (28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ERBE wherein the solid element is mechanically actuated; wherein the mechanically actuation includes a hinge as taught and/or suggested by REN, since such a modification would provide a means to adjust the camera angle so as to optimally image a cooking process or food item being cooked within said heating chamber for observation and/or heating control purposes.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of US 7055541 B2 (hereinafter “SEIFERT”).
Regarding Claims 13-15, ERBE does not disclose wherein the flow separator is non-solid; wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises a laminar or turbulent flow; wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises an air jet.
PNG
media_image4.png
561
1501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
SEIFERT teaches a means to control a flow direction wherein a flow separator (42) is non-solid; wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises a laminar or turbulent flow (i.e., the flow generated by the non-solid flow separator 42 is perpendicular to the flow 26 being separated which would result in a turbulent flow); wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises an air jet (see Col. 2, Lns. 40-41: “Pneumatic valves that employ compressed air have been developed and demonstrated to be suitable for flow control”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ERBE wherein the flow separator is non-solid; wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises a laminar or turbulent flow; wherein the non-solid flow separator comprises an air jet as taught and/or suggested by SEIFERT, since such a modification would provide a means to actively control the flow direction thus allowing greater control over the quantity and the amount of time that the flow is directed to said thermal break zone adjacent the heating chamber on one side of the flow separator and to said cooling zone on an other side of the flow separator about the sensitive electronics, thereby allowing active regulation of said thermal break zone and said cooling zone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B. McAllister can be reached at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799