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 .
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 2 recites the limitation "the insulator" where only “interior insulation layer” and “central insulated panel” are previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 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 14 recites “an outer housing including a back wall and at least one side wall extending from and defining an outer perimeter around the back wall, an aperture formed in the back wall; an oven core housing received in the outer housing, the oven core housing having a back wall and at least one side wall coupled to and extending from the back wall, the at least one side wall defining a perimeter around the back wall that is smaller than the perimeter of the outer housing” where multiple different features for the outer housing and oven core housing are referred to by the same terminology, specifically the back wall and at least one side wall is recited multiple times for multiple different components. As such it becomes unclear which back wall and which side wall are being referred to in later recitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ceramic insulator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated US Publication 20170082296 to Jeong.
As to claim 1, Jeong discloses An oven comprising: an outer housing (11); an oven core comprising an oven core housing (22,21,40), an interior insulation (44) layer and a heating coil (42), the oven core received within the outer housing (Fig 2a); a plenum (A, below) between the outer housing and the oven core; a blower directing a cooling fluid flow into the plenum (50, Par 0045); a door (30) including a central insulated panel ( closer to center of oven, 32,60,31) and a door plenum (70) between the central insulated panel and an outer edge (33), wherein the door is moveable between an open and a closed position (Fig 2a,7), and wherein the central insulated panel encloses the oven core and the door plenum mates with the plenum between the outer housing and the oven core when in the closed position (Fig 2a, plenum 70 mates with airflow plenum at 57, door insulation 32,60,31 mates with 44 top and bottom Fig 2a), the door including a vent (inlets to 70,60 at bottom) provided at a position vertically opposite the blower (blower 50 at top, vents at bottom), wherein cooling fluid flow from the blower is directed through the plenum and the door vent (Par 0045).
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 2-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20170082296 to Jeong as applied to claim 1 above in view of US Patent 10598391 to Padula.
As to claim 2, Jeong does not expressly disclose the insulator is a ceramic insulator, however Padula discloses how oven insulation paired with an air gap can be a ceramic insulation (Col 12, Line 30-35).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong to include where the insulation (44) is a ceramic insulation using the teachings of Padula as this was a well known heat resistant insulation at the time that would withstand the temperatures and provide the desired outcome.
As to claim 3, Jeong does not expressly disclose the outer housing comprises stainless steel, however this is taught by Padula (Col 3, line 30-33, Col 12, Line 19-53).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong to include the outer housing comprises stainless steel using the teachings of Padula as stainless steel is a poor heat transfer material and would allow for a resilient and heat capable shell of the system.
As to claim 4, Jeong does not expressly disclose the oven core comprises stainless steel, however this is taught by Padula (Col 6 Line 14-17).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong to include the oven core comprises stainless steel using the teachings of Padula as stainless steel is a poor heat transfer material and would allow for a resilient and heat capable shell of the system.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 20170082296 to Jeong as applied to claim 1 above in view of US Publication 20190316380 to Kim.
As to claim 5, Jeong does not expressly disclose a latch for latching the door to the outer housing which is disclosed by Kim (Abs).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong to include a latch for latching the door to the outer housing using the teachings of Kim so as to effectively secure the door closed insuring an insulating seal while avoiding undesired opening of the door while in use.
As to claim 6, Jeong as modified by Kim discloses the latch includes a cam style latching mechanism (Kim: Abs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-17 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 and overcoming any 112 issues.
Claim 18-20 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on 571-270-7878. 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.
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746