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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
In this case, in claim 10, the limitation “a plurality of ventilation holes extending vertically” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Only the embodiment showing one ventilation hole is shown (fig. 4, ventilation hole 27). 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
The abstract is objected to because:
the phrase “Thus, upper and lower sides of the food are heated uniformly, and a user does not need to turn over the food on the baking pan during cooking” refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention.
The applicant should also avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure concerns”, “The disclosure defined by this invention”, “This disclosure describes”, “is disclosed”, “are disclosed”, “the invention relates to” etc. In this case, the present abstract contains the word “This application discloses…” that the applicant should avoid using.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
In pg. 4, paragraph 0030, line 25, “baking pan” should be followed by its element no. “2”.
In pg. 5, paragraph 0035, line 23, “ventilation holes” should be followed by its element no. “27”.
In pg. 5, paragraph 0036, line 26, “fryer body 121” is referenced but is not in figures 4-7, as stated in paragraph 0035, p. 5, line 1.
In pg. 6, paragraph 0036, line 1, “fryer body 121” is again referenced.
In pg. 6, paragraph 0037, line 13, “baking pan body” should be followed by its element no. “21”.
In pg. 6, paragraph 0040, line 29, “air fryer” should be followed by its reference no. “100”.
In pg. 7, paragraph 0041, line 4, “is” should read “are”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: "hot air component" in claim 1.
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. In this case, “hot air component” is interpreted to have a fan and a heating element, as described in paragraph 0027, line 25-27 in the specification 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.
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 9 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.
The limitation “protrude upwards” in claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what surface the ribs (25) protrude upwardly with respect to what surface. In light of the specification, the term "protrude upwards" will be interpreted as to protrude upwards from the upper plane of the baking pan surface. The term “protrude upwards” is also used in the first line of paragraph 0034. The same interpretation applies and both instances of this term must be amended or removed.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0313017).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia discloses:
An air fryer (fig. 1, cooking apparatus 100), comprising a housing (fig. 1, housing 102), a hot air component (fig. 2, heating element 110a-b, first fan 120) and a cooking chamber (fig. 1, cooking portion 105) being arranged in the housing (fig. 1, housing 102), a fryer body (fig. 1, cooking container 106) being arranged in the cooking chamber (fig. 1, cooking portion 105), and a baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) being arranged in the fryer body (fig. 1, cooking container 106), wherein the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) comprises a baking pan body (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) and a deflector (see modified fig. 6 below) extending away from a center of the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) along an edge of the baking pan body (fig. 5, removable cooking tray
PNG
media_image1.png
579
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
136a-b).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
604
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) comprises a fence (see modified fig. 6 above) that is arranged along the edge of the baking pan body (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) and is higher than the baking pan body (see modified fig. 6 above), and the deflector (see modified fig. 6 above) extends outwards away from the center of the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) along an upper end of the fence (see modified fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the deflector (see modified fig. 6 above) comprises a deflection surface (see modified fig. 6 above), and the deflection surface (see modified fig. 6 above) is inclined towards the center of the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) with respect to a plane where the baking pan is located (see modified fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 3, wherein a bottom of the baking pan (fig. 3, well portions 134a-b) has support members (see modified fig. 3 below), and the support members (see modified fig. 3 below) support the baking pan in the cooking chamber (see modified fig. 3 below) such that the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) is spaced apart from a bottom of the cooking chamber (par. 0027 cited: “when in a cooking position, the first removable cooking tray 136a rests over a first of the two well portions 134a…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
597
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the deflector (see modified fig. 6 above) comprises a deflection surface (see modified fig. 6 above), and the deflection surface (see modified fig. 6 above) is inclined towards the center of the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) with respect to a plane where the baking pan is located (see modified fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 8, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 6, wherein a bottom of the baking pan (fig. 3, well portions 134a-b) has support members (see modified fig. 3 above), and the support members (see modified fig. 3 above) support the baking pan in the cooking chamber (see modified fig. 3 above) such that the baking pan (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) is spaced apart from a bottom of the cooking chamber (par. 0027 cited: “when in a cooking position, the first removable cooking tray 136a rests over a first of the two well portions 134a…”).
Regarding claim 10, Garcia discloses:
The air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the baking pan body (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) comprises one or a plurality of ventilation holes extending vertically (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b).
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.
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Dow (U.S. Patent No. 7,879,381).
Regarding claim 4 and 7, Garcia discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as an inclination angle of the deflection surface with respect to the plane but does not disclose the baking pan is located ranges from 110 degrees to 150 degrees. As shown in Figure 6 (see modified Figure 6), Garcia appears to show an inclination angle of the deflection surface of approximately 135 degrees, but Garcia does not identify that Figure 6 is drawn to scale, and as such, the specific inclination angle cannot be ascertained. However, Garcia can be said to teach an obtuse inclination angle far beyond 90 degrees as this can be reasonably conveyed by the drawings to one of ordinary skill.
Similar to Garcia, Dow teaches a baking pan (cooking utensil 11) that includes a deflection surface (upturned rim 17) wherein it is clear based on the figures that the inclination angle of the deflection angle is acute and far under 90 degrees (see modified Figure 4 below).
Based on the combined teachings of Garcia and Dow, it is known within the art to adjust the inclination angle of a deflection surface between substantially obtuse and acute angles. Furthermore, the applicant does not disclose that having the inclination angle between 110 degrees and 150 degrees solves anu stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try any inclination angle for the deflection surface, including any angle between 110 degrees and 150 degrees, as doing so would have yielded the predictable result of deflecting hot air for cooking or keeping food within the baking pan. It has been held that where the general conditions for a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image3.png
437
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
364
759
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Man (U.S. Patent No. 11,297,977).
Regarding claim 9, Garcia teaches all the limitations as set forth in claim 1 above, such as the baking pan body. However, Garcia does not teach the baking pan body comprises ribs that are distributed uniformly and protrude upwards, and the oil drain holes and the ribs are arranged at intervals.
Man teaches: the baking pan body comprises ribs (fig. 16, perforated trays 247) that are distributed uniformly and protrude upwards, and the oil drain holes and the ribs are arranged at intervals (fig. 16, perforated trays 247).
PNG
media_image7.png
687
556
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removable cooking tray of Garcia, by including both ribs and oil drain holes, as taught by Man, for the well-known purpose of improving circulation, as well as decreasing a pan’s contact with food surface area for even cooking and to prevent a user from needing to turn over food during cooking.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Oswald (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0226135).
Regarding claims 11-13, Garcia teaches all the limitations as set forth above, including the baking pan body (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b) comprises a plurality of ventilation holes extending vertically (fig. 5, removable cooking tray 136a-b).
Garcia does not teach:
A baking pan comprising an air duct retaining wall in a shape of a hollow column, the air duct retaining wall being detachably connected to an upper side of the one ventilation hole or one of the plurality of ventilation holes, the hollow column of the air duct retaining wall corresponding to the one or the plurality of ventilation holes in position to form a ventilation duct, and an upper end of the air duct retaining wall being higher than an upper surface of the baking pan. Garcia further does not teach a side wall of the hollow column of the air duct retaining wall is provided with a plurality of wall holes, or an air duct retaining wall further comprising a base, and a shape of a bottom of the base is matched with a shape of an upper surface of the baking pan body such that the base is steadily connected to the baking pan.
Oswald does teach:
A baking pan comprising an air duct retaining wall in a shape of a hollow column (fig. 3, spine 30), the air duct retaining wall (fig. 3, spine 30) being detachably connected to an upper side of the one ventilation hole or one of the plurality of ventilation holes (fig. 1, vents 28), the hollow column of the air duct retaining wall (fig. 3, spine 30) corresponding to the one or the plurality of ventilation holes in position to form a ventilation duct (fig. 1), and an upper end of the air duct retaining wall (fig. 3, spine 30) being higher than an upper surface of the baking pan (see fig. 3). Oswald further teaches a side wall of the hollow column of the air duct retaining wall (fig. 3, spine 30) that is provided with a plurality of wall holes (fig. 3, perforations 32), as well as an air duct retaining wall (fig. 3, spine 30) further comprising a base (fig. 5, outer brace 42), and a shape of a bottom of the base (fig. 5, outer brace 42) is matched with a shape of an upper surface of the baking pan body such that the base is steadily connected to the baking pan (see fig. 3). Oswald utilizes these columns to skewer food while cooking to allow for heated air to enter the skewered food to more thoroughly and efficiently cook the food (paragraphs 58 and 59).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Garcia to include an air duct retaining wall comprising a plurality of wall holes to circulate heated air through the side surface of the air duct retaining wall, as taught by Oswald, to more thoroughly and efficiently cook the food.
PNG
media_image8.png
602
446
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
519
718
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
663
306
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Citrynell (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0187699), Vinett (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0299005), Bourgeois (U.S. Patent No. 10,299,621), Sudmalis (U.S. Patent No. 8,973,490), Holloway (U.S. Patent No. 1,339,625) teach elements of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JADE DOMINIQUE TORRES BALANSAG whose telephone number is (571)272-1786. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30a - 5p.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/J.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
