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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of WO 2020022335 A1 (hereinafter “KOIKE”).
Regarding Claims 1-7, 9 and 16, ERBE discloses a cooling system for sensitive electronics disposed in a heated environment (the oven door 4 is a heated environment due to its proximity to the oven chamber 2), 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.
ERBE does not disclose wherein a rounded surface is provided at an opposing end of the electronics chamber from the incoming air.
KOIKE teaches a cooling system for an oven door wherein a rounded surface (241) is provided at an opposing end of the doors interior chamber (A2) from the incoming air (D; see also 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
822
media_image1.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 a rounded surface is provided at an opposing end of the electronics chamber from the incoming air as taught and/or suggested by KOIKE, since such a modification would provide an improved guidance of the air being exhausted by influencing its directionality away from the oven structure under smoother and/or more laminar flow conditions in comparison to the more restrictive flow arrangement disclosed by ERBE thus enhancing the cooling flow of air through said electronics chamber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERBE in view of KOIKE.
Regarding Claim 10, ERBE in view of KOIKE 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 in view of KOIKE 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 KOIKE as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,202,347 B2 (hereinafter “ARMSTRONG”).
Regarding Claim 17, ERBE in view of KOIKE discloses wherein the air intake comprises a fan (see ERBE, 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 in view of KOIKE 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 in view of KOIKE to comprise an axial fan as taught and/or suggested by ARMSTRONG, since both ERBE and ARMSTRONG teach a 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 KOIKE as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of EP 3121573 B1 (hereinafter “HERZOG”).
Regarding Claim 8, ERBE in view of KOIKE 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 in view of KOIKE wherein the partial flows on either side of the flow separator are in opposing directions as taught and/or suggested by HERZOG, since both ERBE and HERZOG 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 KOIKE as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of CN 112137415 A (hereinafter “REN”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, ERBE in view of KOIKE does not disclose wherein the solid element is mechanically actuated; wherein the mechanical 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 mechanical 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 in view of KOIKE wherein the solid element is mechanically actuated; wherein the mechanical 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 22nd, 2026 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.
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights