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 limitation
“a controller” in claim 1;
“a loudspeaker” in claim 4;
“a screen” in claim 5;
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 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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the products to be cooked are placed”, “the bottom of the cooking chamber (4)”, “the cooking options”, “the pot (2)”, “the ingredients”, “the preparation of stews and yogurt”, and “the operating temperature” are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “contains a controller that allows the operating temperature to be set to 150° C.-210° C., time interval 1-120 minutes for cooking stews and the operating temperature to be set to 35° C.-55° C., time interval 5-10 hours for yogurt preparation feature” is indefinite, because it is unclear what structure contains a controller.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to the hot air flow cooking appliance comprising a controller.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “it comprises a controller which activates the heater in the yogurt preparation function” is indefinite. 1) The structure that the term “it” refers to is unclear. 2) It is unclear whether the controller in this claim is the same controller in claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, the term “it” is interpreted to hot air flow cooking appliance, and the “controller” in this claim is interpreted to be the same controller in the claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “it comprises a lid (1) which covers the pot (2) placed inside the cooking chamber (4)” is indefinite. The structure that the term “it” refers to is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, the term “it” is interpreted to hot air flow cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “it comprises a loudspeaker providing audible information about cooking operations” is indefinite. The structure that the term “it” refers to is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, the term “it” is interpreted to hot air flow cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “it comprises a loudspeaker providing audible information about cooking operations it comprises a screen on the keypad (5) for monitoring the cooking temperature and time” is indefinite. The structure that the term “it” refers to is unclear.
For the purpose of examination, the term “it” is interpreted to hot air flow cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “it comprises a keypad (5) for manually changing the temperature time setting by means of buttons located thereon” is indefinite. 1)The structure that the term “it” refers to is unclear. 2) It is unclear whether the keypad (5) in this claim is the same keypad (5) in claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, the term “it” is interpreted to hot air flow cooking appliance, and the “keypad (5)” in this claim is interpreted to be the same keypad (5) in the claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 215650646) in view of Stewart (US 2020/0315389).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
315
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a hot air flow cooking appliance (See figs.) comprising a cooking chamber (4) (interior space of fryer assembly 200) in which the products to be cooked are placed, a fat collector (3) (Oil receiving tray 302) placed on the bottom of the cooking chamber (4) (chamber; see the annotation of fig.1) and a keypad (5) (keypad; see the annotation of fig.3) on which the cooking options are selected, characterized in that;
the pot (2) (fryer assembly 200) placed on the fat collector (3) (Oil receiving tray 302), in which the ingredients required for the preparation of stews and yogurt are added (fryer assembly 200 is capable to receive ingredients),
Wu does not explicitly teach contains a controller that allows the operating temperature to be set to 150° C.-210° C., time interval 1-120 minutes for cooking stews and the operating temperature to be set to 35° C.-55° C., time interval 5-10 hours for yogurt preparation feature.
However, Stewart teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance comprising a controller (processor 102) that allows the operating temperature to be set up to 450 ºF (about 232.2°C) (See para.[0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance of Wu by adding a controller that allows the operating temperature to be set up to 232.2°C as taught by Stewart, so that operator can select desired temperature and cooking time for various types of food, such as to set operating temperature to 150° C.-210° C, time interval 1-120 minutes for cooking stews and to set the operating temperature to 35° C.-55° C., time interval 5-10 hours for yogurt preparation feature, in order to provide best flavor for the food.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Wu and Stewart teaches a controller (processor 102 of Stewart) which activates the heater in the yogurt preparation function (See para.[0125] of Stewart “ a controller or processor 102 for controlling operation of the heating elements 82, 84 (and air movement device 86 including the motor 88 and fan 90 associated therewith”).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches a lid (1) (lid; see the annotation of fig.1) which covers the pot (2) (fryer assembly 200) placed inside the cooking chamber (4) (chamber).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wu does not explicitly teach a screen on the keypad (5) for monitoring the cooking temperature and time. a keypad (5) for manually changing the temperature time setting by means of buttons located thereon.
However, Stewart teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance comprising a screen (display 96) on the keypad (5) (control panel 92) for monitoring the cooking temperature and time; a keypad (5) (control panel 92) for manually changing the temperature time setting by means of buttons located thereon (see fig.1A and para.[0124] The control panel 92 includes one or more inputs 94 associated with energizing the one or more heating elements 82, 84 of the cooking system 20 and for selecting various modes of operation of the cooking system 20. One or more of the inputs 94 may include a light or other indicator to show that the respective input has been selected. The control panel 92 may additionally include a display 96 separate from and associated with the at least one input 94.).
PNG
media_image4.png
660
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance of Wu by adding a keypad as taught by Stewart, in order to allow user to control the cooking operations of the cooking appliance manually (para.[0124]-[0126] of Stewart).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wu and Stewart in view of Moon (US 2021/0137300).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Wu and Stewart does not explicitly teach a loudspeaker providing audible information about cooking operations.
However Moon teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance comprising a loudspeaker providing audible information about cooking operations (see para.[0059] “8. Once the unit comes to pressure the unit will ˜beep˜ one (1) time and will begin to cook at the default time for the program chosen… 10. Once cooking is complete, the unit will ˜beep˜ three (3) times and the LED display will show “End”.” Since the cooking appliance can provide “beep” sound, the cooking appliance is inherently comprising a loudspeaker.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance of the modification of Wu and Stewart by adding a loudspeaker as taught by Moon, in order to indicate different status of cooking operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights