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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 recites “air from an outside of the main body is passable through the silencer and the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner”. Looking at Figure 7 of the as-filed specification, the arrows appear to suggest that only noise generated by the burner is discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening to the outside of the main body. The specification was consulted for further clarification and based on Par. 0167, it appears passage portion 17, not the silencer 100, supplies air to the burner. Therefore, “air from an outside of the main body is passable through the silencer and the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner” 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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT Application No. PCT/JP2020/035109 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 9/16/2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 1/10/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 13, 16, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 7, line 4, “the fluid container” should read “the fluid-tight container.” Any subsequent recitations of “the container” throughout the claims should also read “the fluid-tight container” for consistency.
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 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:
Claim 2, lines 3-4: first noise guide. The nonce term “guide” is modified by functional language “configured to guide the noise, discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening, in a first direction.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a floor or base, as specified in Par. 0030, lines 1-4, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 25 and 28.
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.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination 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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 9 recites a “second sealing member” even though no sealing member has been previously introduced in parent claim 7 or the claims from which claim 7 depends. Given claim 8 recites a “first sealing member”, it appears claim 9 should depend from claim 8. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this is how Examiner interprets the claims.
Claim 11 recites a “second prevention portion” even though no prevention portion has been previously introduced in parent claim 3 or the claims from which claim 3 depends. Given claim 10 recites a “first prevention portion”, it appears claim 11 should depend from claim 10. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this is how Examiner interprets the claims.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Institute of Gas Technology (GB 1216678 A, hereafter IGT).
Regarding claim 1, IGT discloses a cooking apparatus (Pg. 1, line 10, oven), comprising:
a main body (Figs. 1 and 7, exterior panels surrounding the oven cavity 25) including at least one opening (Fig. 7, opening that must be necessarily be present where the regenerator 5 is installed), the main body forming a cooking chamber (Fig. 7, oven cavity 25. Reference Fig. 5, which labels the location of this structure);
a burner in the main body to heat the cooking chamber (Fig. 7, burner 37); and
a silencer mounted to the main body and covering the at least one opening (Fig. 7, regenerator 5. Noise is reduced because it passes through the regenerator 5, therefore regenerator 5 is a ‘silencer’. See pg. 3, lines 39-42, “When using a regenerator device, the regenerator contacts the flue gases, thereby removing substantial amounts of heat energy from these gases”) so that:
air from an outside of the main body is passable through the silencer and the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner (Fig. 7, airflow path from fan 19a to the burner 37), and
noise generated by the burner, and discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening to the outside of the main body, is reduced by the silencer (Fig. 7, airflow path from the burner 37 to the fan 19. Noise is reduced because it passes through the regenerator 5. See pg. 3, lines 39-42, as quoted above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6-7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sean (US 20180073739 A1) in view of Hatanaka (JP 2021162177 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 9/3/24 IDS) and Hisaoka (JPS58208513A).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Hatanaka ‘177.
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Hisaoka ‘513.
Regarding claim 1, Sean discloses a cooking apparatus (Abstract, grill), comprising:
a main body (Fig. 2, grill body 102) including at least one opening (Fig. 5, drip hole 508), the main body forming a cooking chamber (Fig. 5, area above cooking shelf 500);
a burner in the main body to heat the cooking chamber (Fig. 6, first cooking mode element 602, which is a gas heating element per Par. 0058),
a drip pan mounted to the main body and covering the at least one opening (Fig. 5, drip pan 204),
air from an outside of the main body is passable through the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner (Fig. 6, when the drip pan 204 is removed from cleaning, air from an outside of the grill body 102 is passable through drip hole 508 to be supplied to first cooking mode element 602), and
noise generated by the burner, is discharged through the at least one opening to the outside of the main body (Fig. 6, noise generated by the first cooking mode element 602 is discharged through drip hole 508 to the outside of grill body 102).
However, Sean does not disclose a silencer mounted to the main body and covering the at least one opening so that:
air from an outside of the main body is passable through the silencer and the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner, and
noise generated by the burner, and discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening to the outside of the main body, is reduced by the silencer.
Hatanaka discloses a combustion device (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and a solution for reducing emitted noise (Par. 0010), similar to the problem of reducing noise when a burner flame is extinguished in the present invention (PGPUB: Par. 0006). Hatanaka further discloses it is known to have a silencer (Figs. 3-4 and Par. 0030, silencer) so that:
air from an outside of a main body (Par. 0010, combustion device) is passable through the silencer (Fig. 3, when the combustion device is not operating, air is at least capable of passing through the aperture on the right side of the silencer, through the silencer, and out the aperture on the left side of the silencer. This air must necessarily be from outside of the combustion device in light of Par. 0010, which discloses the silencer is attached to the combustion device. Note that to the extent that the Applicant disagrees, air originating from outside of the main body would necessarily be met after Sean is modified in view of Hatanaka because Sean already discloses “air from an outside of the main body is passable through the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner”. See claim 1 mapping above), and
noise generated by the burner, and discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening to the outside of the main body, is reduced by the silencer (Par. 0010, “A silencer for a combustion device, which is attached to a combustion device that burns fuel and discharges combustion gases, and which reduces the combustion noise of the combustion gases”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sean to include the silencer as taught by Hatanaka in order to have a silencer mounted to the main body and covering the at least one opening so that: air from an outside of the main body is passable through the silencer and the at least one opening to be supplied to the burner, and noise generated by the burner, and discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening to the outside of the main body, is reduced by the silencer and thereby reduce the combustion noise of the combustion gases (As suggested by Par. 0010 of Hatanaka, as quote above). This beneficially increases user comfort.
However, it’s noted that the inlet of the Hatanaka’s silencer is on the side of the silencer while Sean’s opening would be positioned over the top of the silencer. Therefore, the inlet of Hatanaka’s silencer would need to be moved to the top of the silencer.
Hisaoka discloses a solution for reducing emitted noise (Par. 0001), similar to the problem of reducing noise when a burner flame is extinguished in the present invention (PGPUB: Par. 0006). Hisaoka further discloses it is known for a silencer to have an inlet (Fig. 1, inlet 2) that is oriented at a top of a silencer (Fig. 1, silencer 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the inlet of the silencer to the top of the silencer, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed inlet was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (i.e., inlet on the top, inlet on the side). One could have expected the silencer to perform substantially equally well, whether the inlet was located at the side or in its original position.
Regarding claim 2, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the silencer (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4 and Par. 0030, silencer) includes:
a first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, frame member 3) configured to guide the noise, discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening (Frame member 3 (shown in Figs. 3-4 of Hatanaka) guides the noise discharged through the silencer of Hatanaka and the drip hole 508 (i.e., at least one opening) of Sean. Reference the arrows representing combustion gas 8 in Fig. 2 and see Par. 0054 of Hatanaka), in a first direction (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, to the left), and
a second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2) configured to guide noise, guided by the first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, which shows noise guided by frame member 3 is guided by bottom member 2), in a second direction different from the first direction (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, to the right).
Regarding claim 3, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
a first flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from outside gas inlet 11 to opening 20d) along which the noise, discharged through the silencer and the at least one opening, is guided by the first noise guide (Frame member 3 (shown in Figs. 3-4 of Hatanaka) guides the noise discharged through the silencer of Hatanaka and the drip hole 508 (i.e., at least one opening) of Sean. Reference the arrows representing combustion gas 8 in Fig. 2 and see Par. 0054 of Hatanaka); and
a second flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from opening 20d to gas outlet 12) along which the noise, guided by the first noise guide, is guided by the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, which the noise guided by frame member 3 is guided by bottom member 2).
Regarding claim 6, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the first flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from outside gas inlet 11 to opening 20d) is formed by the main body (Sean: Fig. 2, grill body 102) and the first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, frame member 3. Note the first flow path is formed by the grill body 102 of modified Sean because grill body 102 defines the beginning of the flow path outside gas inlet 11 of Hatanaka), and
the second flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from opening 20d to gas outlet 12) is formed by the first noise guide and the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2).
Regarding claim 7, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, frame member 3) includes:
a first guide body (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, partition plate 6) spaced apart from a bottom surface of the main body (Sean: Fig. 2, bottom surface of grill body 102. Note the grill body 102 of Sean is above the silencer of Hatanaka, therefore the frame member 3 of Hatanaka must necessarily be spaced apart from a bottom surface of the grill body 102 of Sean), and
a first blocking portion (Hatanaka: Fig. 3, wall portion 3b) extended toward the main body (Note the grill body 102 of Sean is above the silencer of Hatanaka, therefore wall portion 3b of Hatanaka must necessarily extend toward the grill body 102 of Sean) to prevent a substance in the first flow path from being discharged in the second direction (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, to the right) from the first flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from outside gas inlet 11 to opening 20d) to an outside of the silencer (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4 and Par. 0030, silencer), and
the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2) includes:
a second guide body spaced apart from the first guide body (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom wall 2a), and
a second blocking portion (Hatanaka: Fig. 3, wall portion 2b) extended toward the main body (Note the grill body 102 of Sean is above the silencer of Hatanaka, therefore the second blocking portion of Hatanaka must necessarily extend toward the grill body 102 of Sean) to prevent a substance in the second flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from opening 20d to gas outlet 12) from being discharged in the first direction (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, to the left) from the second flow path to the outside of the silencer (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4 and Par. 0030, silencer).
Regarding claim 12, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the at least one opening (Sean: Fig. 5, drip hole 508) is located below the burner (Sean: Fig. 6, first cooking mode element 602) in a direction of gravity (Sean: Figs. 5, 6),
the first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, frame member 3) is located below the at least one opening in the direction of gravity (Note the drip hole 508 of Sean is above the silencer of Hatanaka, therefore the frame member 3 of Hatanaka must necessarily be below the drip hole 508 of Sean in the direction of gravity), and
the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2) is located below the first noise guide in the direction of gravity (Note the drip hole 508 of Sean is above the silencer of Hatanaka, therefore the bottom member 2 of Hatanaka must necessarily be below the drip hole 508 of Sean in the direction of gravity).
Regarding claim 13, Sean discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a burner case (Figs. 5-6, area below cooking shelf 500 and above drip hole 506) located below the cooking chamber (Fig. 5, area above cooking shelf 500) to accommodate the burner (Fig. 6, first cooking mode element 602),
wherein the burner case comprises a case opening (Fig. 5, drip hole 506) formed to discharge the noise generated by the burner toward the at least one opening (Fig. 5, drip hole 508. Noise generated by the burner will move from first cooking mode element 602, through drip hole 506, and toward drip hole 508).
Regarding claim 14, Sean discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 1, wherein the burner (Fig. 6, first cooking mode element 602) is located below the cooking chamber (Fig. 5, area above cooking shelf 500) in a direction of gravity (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the first noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, frame member 3) is coupled to the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2. Figs. 3-4 show the bottom of frame member 3 is coupled to bottom member 2), and
the second noise guide is coupled to the main body (Sean: Fig. 2, grill body 102 and annotated Fig. A. Bottom member 2 of Hatanaka in modified Sean is at least coupled to the grill body 102 of Sean via the structures identified in annotated Fig. A).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 3 from Hatanaka showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sean (US 20180073739 A1) in view of Hatanaka (JP 2021162177 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 9/3/24 IDS) and Hisaoka (JPS58208513A) in further view of Min (KR 20130025501 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 9/3/24 IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 3.
However, Sean, as modified above, does not disclose a sound absorbing member disposed in the second flow path so that noise, guided by the second noise guide along the second flow path, is absorbed by the sound absorbing member.
Min discloses a solution to the problem of preventing noise (Abstract) similar to the problem of reducing noise when a burner flame is extinguished in the present invention (PGPUB: Par. 0006). Min further discloses it is known to have a sound absorbing member (Pg. 2, paragraph before ‘Description of Embodiments’, “a sound absorbing material on the flow path of the fluid connected to the mixing fluid connection pipe (20, 20a)”) disposed in a second flow path (Fig. 1, flow through fluid connection pipe 20) so that noise, guided by a second noise guide (Fig. 1, fluid connection pipe 20) along the second flow path, is absorbed by the sound absorbing member (Pg. 2, paragraph before ‘Description of Embodiments’, “As a way to suppress the noise…a sound absorbing material on the flow path of the fluid connected to the mixing fluid connection pipe (20, 20a)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sean, as modified above, with the sound absorbing member as taught by Min in order to have a sound absorbing member disposed in the second flow path so that noise, guided by the second noise guide along the second flow path, is absorbed by the sound absorbing member and thereby further reduce noise generation (As suggested by Pg. 2, paragraph before ‘Description of Embodiments’ of Min: “As a way to suppress the noise…a sound absorbing material on the flow path of the fluid connected to the mixing fluid connection pipe (20, 20a)”) of modified Sean’s device. This beneficially increases user comfort.
Regarding claim 5, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 4, wherein the sound absorbing member (Min: Pg. 2, paragraph before ‘Description of Embodiments’, “a sound absorbing material on the flow path of the fluid connected to the mixing fluid connection pipe (20, 20a)”) includes a flame-retardant material (Min: Pg. 2, paragraph before ‘Description of Embodiments’, “the sound absorbing material must meet the requirements such as flame retardancy and durability”).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sean (US 20180073739 A1) in view of Hatanaka (JP 2021162177 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 9/3/24 IDS) and Hisaoka (JPS58208513A) in further view of Helminger (DE 102021201946 A1).
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Helminger ‘946.
Regarding claim 8, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 7.
However, Sean, as modified above, does not disclose a first sealing member configured to seal a gap between the main body and the first blocking portion to prevent noise, guided by the first noise guide along the first flow path, from being discharged in the second direction from the first flow path to the outside of the silencer through the gap.
Helminger discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Helminger further discloses it is known to have a first sealing member (Pg. 4, Par. 3, “a seal (e.g. a sealing ring) can be present in the joint area, which can be attached to the steam generation unit or to the steam inlet duct”) configured to seal a gap (Pg. 4, Par. 3, “gap”) between a main body (Fig. 4, damper pan 20, which includes steam inlet duct 25) and a first blocking portion (Fig. 4, wall of evaporator 12, 41 that element number 12, 41 is pointing to) to prevent noise (Pg. 4, Par. 3, “In order to prevent parasitic steam escaping through gaps”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this necessarily means the seal prevents noise from being discharged too), guided by a first noise guide (Fig. 4, walls of evaporator 12 leading to steam outlet opening 12a) along a first flow path (Fig. 4, flow path leading from the left to the right side of evaporator 12), from being discharged in a second direction (Fig. 4, to the right) from the first flow path to the outside of the evaporator through the gap (Fig. 4 and Pg. 4, Par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sean, as modified above, to have the first sealing member as taught by Helminger in order to have a first sealing member configured to seal a gap between the main body and the first blocking portion to prevent noise, guided by the first noise guide along the first flow path, from being discharged in the second direction from the first flow path to the outside of the silencer through the gap and thereby further reduce noise generation (As suggested by Pg. 4, Par. 3 of Helminger: “In order to prevent parasitic steam escaping through gaps between the borders of the steam outlet opening and the coupling opening of the steam inlet duct, a seal (e.g. a sealing ring) can be present in the joint area, which can be attached to the steam generation unit or to the steam inlet duct.”) of modified Sean’s device. This beneficially increases user comfort.
NOTE: The limitation “a first sealing member configured to seal a gap between the main body and the first blocking portion” is necessarily met by modified Sean. To elaborate, Sean in view of Hatanaka discloses a main body with a silencer comprising a first blocking portion underneath, so adding the first sealing member of Helminger to seal a gap in the joint between the main body and the silencer necessarily means the first sealing member is between the main body and first blocking portion in modified Sean. To elaborate, the first sealing member would be located at the top of the silencer, which is located between the main body and the first blocking portion.
Regarding claim 9, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 7.
However, Sean, as modified above, does not disclose a second sealing member configured to seal a gap between the main body and the second blocking portion to prevent noise, guided by the second noise guide along the second flow path, from being discharged in the first direction from the second flow path to the outside of the silencer through the gap.
The sealing member of Helminger discloses a ring that surrounds the entire joint area. Therefore, when modified Sean is further modified in view of Helminger, the sealing member will surround the entire joint area between the main body of Sean and the top wall of the silencer of Hatanaka. To elaborate, modified Sean reads on claim 9 as follows:
a first sealing member (Helminger: Pg. 4, Par. 3, “a seal (e.g. a sealing ring) can be present in the joint area, which can be attached to the steam generation unit or to the steam inlet duct”) configured to seal a gap (Pg. 4, Par. 3, “gap”) configured to seal a gap (Helminger: Pg. 4, Par. 3, “gap”) between the main body (Sean: Fig. 2, grill body 102) and the second blocking portion (Hatanaka: Fig. 3, wall portion 2b) to prevent noise (Helminger: Pg. 4, Par. 3, “In order to prevent parasitic steam escaping through gaps”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this necessarily means the seal prevents noise from being discharged too), guided by the second noise guide (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, bottom member 2. Figs. 3-4 show the bottom of frame member 3 is coupled to bottom member 2) along the second flow path (Hatanaka: flow path from opening 20d to gas outlet 12), from being discharged in the first direction (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4, to the left) from the second flow path to the outside of the silencer through the gap (Hatanaka: Figs. 3-4 and Par. 0030, silencer). Therefore, claim 9 is already read on by modified Sean, except Helminger discloses one sealing member instead of two.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to split the first sealing member of Helminger into two halves (one that reads on the limitations of claim 8 and the other that reads on the limitations of claim 9) since it has been held that making a claimed element separable was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 V-C. In this case, if a portion of the first sealing member of Helminger becomes worn, a user could replace the half of the sealing member associated with the worn section, instead of replacing the entire sealing member. This would beneficially decrease costs and reduce environmental impacts.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sean (US 20180073739 A1) in view of Hatanaka (JP 2021162177 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 9/3/24 IDS) and Hisaoka (JPS58208513A) in further view of Powell et al. (US7722708B2, hereafter Powell).
Regarding claim 10, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 3.
However, Sean, as modified above, does not disclose the first noise guide includes a first prevention portion extending toward the main body to prevent a portion of a substance moved in the first flow path from moving to the second noise guide.
Powell discloses a solution to the problem of how to cleanse and purify air (Col. 2, lines 14-16) similar to the problem of how to prevent oil or food debris from being discharged outside the cooking appliance in the present invention (PGPUB: Par. 0008). Powell further discloses it is known for a first noise guide (Fig. 1, top instance of shelf 24) to include a first prevention portion (Fig. 1, element 29) to prevent a portion of a substance (Debris in water 33) moved in a first flow path (Fig. 1, flow from 16 to the instance of shelf 24 that is second from the top) from moving to a second noise guide (Fig. 1, instance of shelf 24 that is second from the top. Note element 29 will prevent bigger debris such as clumps of dust from moving to the instance of shelf 24 that is second from the top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sean, as modified above, to include the first prevention portion as taught by Powell in order to have the first noise guide include a first prevention portion extending toward the main body to prevent a portion of a substance moved in the first flow path from moving to the second noise guide and thereby better purify the air (As suggested by the Abstract of Powell: “The room air is purified as it mixes with the water cascading over the shelves”). This beneficially increases user comfort.
Regarding claim 11, Sean, as modified above, discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 3.
However, Sean, as modified above, does not disclose the second noise guide includes a second prevention portion extending toward the main body to prevent a portion of a substance moved in the second flow path from being discharged from the second noise guide.
Powell discloses a solution to the problem of how to cleanse and purify air (Col. 2, lines 14-16) similar to the problem of how to prevent oil or food debris from being discharged outside the cooking appliance in the present invention (PGPUB: Par. 0008). Powell further discloses it is known for a second noise guide (Fig. 1, instance of shelf 24 that is second from the top) to include a first prevention portion (Fig. 1, element 29) to prevent a portion of a substance (Debris in water 33) moved in a second flow path (Fig. 1, flow from the instance of shelf 24 that is second from the top to the instance of shelf 24 that is third from the top) from being discharged from the second noise guide (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sean, as modified above, to include the second noise guide includes a second prevention portion extending toward the main body to prevent a portion of a substance moved in the second flow path from being discharged from the second noise guide and thereby better purify the air (As suggested by the Abstract of Powell: “The room air is purified as it mixes with the water cascading over the shelves”). This beneficially increases user comfort.
JP2000291962A or JPS58208513A?
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reiss (D NO 146827 B) discloses an oven with a first and a second sealing member.
Chang (US 5047610 A) discloses a stove with a first and a second sealing member.
Harward (US 20140263276 A1) discloses an oven with two cooking chambers arranged side by side.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights