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 Objections
Claims 2, 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 line 2, “…which the capsule to be seated…” should read “…which the capsule is seated…”.
In claim 5 line 2, “…penetrate an end…” should read “…penetrate the end…” as positively recited in claim 3.
In claim 16 line 2, “…toward the seating groove…” should read “…toward a seating groove…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-2013-0031610).
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) an electronic cooking appliance/ cooker comprising:
a cooking chamber/cavity (120) having a cooking space in which an object/food to be cooked is placeable (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1-2);
a heating member/heater (121) configured to heat the object/food based on the object being placed in the cooking chamber/cavity (120) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1-2); and
a smoker module configured to smoke the object/food placed in the cooking chamber/cavity (120), wherein the smoking module comprises:
a capsule placement unit/compartment (140) in which a capsule (210) containing smoking chips/charcoal is insertable and placeable therein (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 6-8);
a smoke generation unit/secondary heater rod (220) configured to generate smoke by heating the smoking chips inside the capsule (210) based on the capsule being placed in the capsule placement unit (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 9); and
a smoke transfer unit/path of smoke and air circulation fan (122) configured to transfer the smoke generated from the smoking chips to the cooking chamber (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) comprises a seating groove in which the capsule is seated, the seating groove corresponding to an outer shape of the capsule (clearly shown in the figure below) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 6), and
the smoking module further comprises a capsule door (110) to open or close the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the smoke transfer unit comprises:
a smoke passage/smoke path formed therein to connect the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) with the cooking chamber/cavity (120) so that the smoke moves therethrough; and
a blower/air circulation fan (122) arranged in the smoke passage to control a movement direction of the smoke (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1; smoke flows throughout the cooking chamber and fan controls the movement direction of the smoke).
Regarding claim 12, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the heating member/heater (121 is further configured to heat an inside of the cooking chamber (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1-2).
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(s) 3-5 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2013-0031610) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawrenson et al. (US 2021/0401038).
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the smoke generation unit/secondary heater rod (220) comprises a combustion heater/secondary heater rod (220) which penetrates an end of the capsule placed in the capsule placement unit (combustion heater is the smoke generation unit) (clearly seen in figure 1),
the smoking module further comprises a capsule door (110) to open or close the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 2).
but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance wherein a combustion heater is movable between a protrusion position in which the combustion heater penetrates an end of the capsule placed in the capsule placement unit, and a retraction position in which the combustion heater is retraced to enable a placement of the capsule in the capsule placement unit, and
based on the capsule door being closed, the combustion heater moves from the retraction position to the protrusion position.
Lawrenson et al. ‘038 teaches electronic cigarettes comprising heaters moveable between a retraction position and an extended position (Para 0007).
Therefore, 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 Lee ‘610 to incorporate the teachings of Lawrenson et al. ‘038 to configure the electronic cooking appliance wherein a combustion heater is movable between a protrusion position in which the combustion heater penetrates an end of the capsule placed in the capsule placement unit, and a retraction position in which the combustion heater is retraced to enable a placement of the capsule in the capsule placement unit, and
based on the capsule door being closed, the combustion heater moves from the retraction position to the protrusion position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure safety of combustion heater when the heater is not in use by retracting away from the capsule placement unit/compartment.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/smoked cooker wherein the combustion heater heats the smoking chips but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the combustion heater heats the smoking chips at a temperature of 480℃ or lower.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art that smoking chips needs to be heated at a certain minimum temperature to create smoke from the smoking chips. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee ‘610 to configure the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the combustion heater heats the smoking chips at a temperature of 480℃ or lower.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to use the heater to heat smoking chips made up of different materials with different minimum temperature requirements to create smoke.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/cooker wherein an end of the combustion heater has a sharp shape to penetrate the end of the capsule based on the combustion heater being moved to the protrusion position (clearly seen in figure 1; the end of the combustion heater which penetrates the capsule is sharper compared to other end of the combustion heater).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/smoked cooker wherein the combustion heater/secondary heater rod (220) does not protrude toward a seating groove to enable insertion of the capsule into the seating groove (clearly seen in figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/smoked cooker wherein the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) comprises a seating groove corresponding to an outer shape of the capsule (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the smoke transfer unit/path of smoke and air circulation fan (122) comprises a smoke passage/smoke path that is in communication with the capsule placement unit/compartment (140) and the cooking chamber/cavity (120), and provides a passage through which the smoke moves (smoke moves and circulate within the smoke passage), and a blower/air circulation fan (122) arranged in the smoke passage to control a movement direction of the smoke (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 1; smoke flows throughout the cooking chamber and fan controls the movement direction of the smoke).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2013-0031610) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Livchak et al. (US 2016/0030782).
Regarding claims 7-9, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker of claim 6 but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance further comprising a smoke detection unit configured to detect the smoke moving through the smoke passage,
wherein the smoke detection unit comprises a light-emitting unit configured to emit light, and a light receiving unit configured to receive the emitted light, and
wherein smoke detection unit is arranged upstream of the blower.
Livchak et al. ‘782 teaches (figure 3) the exhaust hood (106) comprising smoke density opacity sensors (324) that emit a light beam across the length of the exhaust hood (322) and generate an opacity signal due to variations in the magnitude of light received by luminance sensor thereof (Para 0064-0066).
Therefore, 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 Lee ‘610 to incorporate the teachings of Livchak et al. ‘782 to configure the electronic cooking appliance further comprising a smoke detection unit configured to detect the smoke moving through the smoke passage,
wherein the smoke detection unit comprises a light-emitting unit configured to emit light, and a light receiving unit configured to receive the emitted light, and
wherein smoke detection unit is arranged upstream of the blower.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to detect smoke density and control the blower to control the smoke density.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2013-0031610) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Du (US 2021/0212508).
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the smoke passage is configured to allow the smoke to circulate therein (smoke moves and circulate within the smoke passage) but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance wherein the smoking module further comprises a filter arranged in the smoke passage to remove the smoke by using a liquid.
Du ‘508 teaches a water filter tray to filter and absorb the oil smoke (Para 0002).
Therefore, 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 Lee ‘610 to incorporate the teachings of Du ‘508 to configure the electronic cooking appliance wherein the smoking module further comprises a filter arranged in the smoke passage to remove the smoke by using a liquid.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would filter the smoke circulating in the chamber.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/smoked cooker wherein the filter comprises a purification filter to purify air (as modified by Du ‘508) but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance wherein the filter comprises a detachable liquid cartridge storing the liquid.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a cartridges in the filtration system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee ‘610 to configure the electronic cooking appliance wherein the filter comprises a detachable liquid cartridge storing the liquid.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable easy insertion into and removal from the electronic cooking appliance.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2013-0031610) and Lawrenson et al. (US 2021/0401038) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bautista (US 2019/0082732).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/ cooker wherein the smoking module further comprises the capsule (210) and the capsule (210) comprises:
a basket accommodating the smoking chips/charcoal (clearly seen in figure 1);
a smoke discharge unit/top end of the basket arranged at one end of the basket and configured to pass the smoke generated from the smoking chips (clearly seen in figure 1),
but it is silent about the capsule comprising:
a capsule lid that blocks the smoke discharge unit and is removable from the basket,
wherein the smoke discharge unit formed as a mesh shape including mesh holes, and configured to block leakage of the smoking chips and pass the smoke generated from the smoking chips through the mesh holes, and
sizes of mesh holes of the smoke discharge unit are less than the sizes of the smoking chips.
Bautista ‘732 teaches (figures 1-9) a pod (50) for smoking pipe (10) comprising a bowl (52) and cover/lid (62) wherein the bowl (52) and the cover/lid (62) is composed of food-grade stainless mesh, and wherein the smoking material is within bowl (52) and sizes of mesh holes are less than the size of smoking material (clearly seen in figure 9) (Paa 0019-0020; claims 8-9).
Therefore, 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 Lee ‘610 to incorporate the teachings of Bautista ‘732 to configure the capsule comprising:
a capsule lid that blocks the smoke discharge unit and is removable from the basket,
wherein the smoke discharge unit formed as a mesh shape including mesh holes, and configured to block leakage of the smoking chips and pass the smoke generated from the smoking chips through the mesh holes, and
sizes of mesh holes of the smoke discharge unit are less than the sizes of the smoking chips.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would confine the smoking chips inside the capsule.
Modified Lee ‘610 is silent about the capsule comprises:
sizes of the smoking chips are 5 mm or less to enable combustion by the combustion heater.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use smaller smoking chips to increase the rate of burning of the smoking chips, which in turns control the rate of smoke. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee ‘610 to configure the capsule comprises:
sizes of the smoking chips are 5 mm or less to enable combustion by the combustion heater.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would expedite the cooking process.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee ‘610 teaches (figure 1) the electronic cooking appliance/cooker wherein the basket comprises:
a through hole (212) formed at an other end/side end of the basket, and into which the combustion heater/ secondary heater rod (220) is able to be inserted (clearly seen in figure 1) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 9)
but it is silent about the electronic cooking appliance wherein the basket comprises:
a cover member provided at the other end of the basket, and covers the through hole.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to cover through hole to avoid contamination and foreign objects inside the capsule. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee ‘610 to configure the electronic cooking appliance wherein the basket comprises:
a cover member provided at the other end of the basket, and covers the through hole.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would prevent foreign object from entering the capsule when not in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights