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 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 6 and 18-20 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 term “ most of” in claims 6 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most of ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is meant by “most of” a more detailed range is needed or cancelling the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200224882 A1 – Kim in view of US 20190120504 A1 – Lee and US 20210307131 A1 – Heimerdinger.
Regarding claim 1, Kim is directed towards a cooking appliance. Kim does teach a housing ([0078] The housing 100); a door (300) attached to the housing, the door configured to move between an open position and a closed position, wherein in the closed position the housing and the door define an enclosed cooking cavity ([0002] a door for opening and closing a cooking compartment of an oven or the like.), and in the open position the door is positioned above the housing to provide access to the cooking cavity (Figure 2 and [0082] The door 300 is provided to open or close the open upper and front surfaces of the housing 100.);a fan positioned within the housing outside of the cooking cavity, the fan positioned and configured to circulate air within the cooking cavity ([0152] Further, the cooking appliance of the present embodiment may further include a first cooling fan 370 disposed inside the door 300. The first cooling fan 370 may be installed inside the door upper surface part 310 or inside the door front surface part 350. In the present embodiment, the first cooling fan 370 is illustrated as being installed in the space portion inside the door front surface part 350.), a heating element positioned in the cooking cavity ([0142] Further, considering that the heating element of the first heating part 400)
Kim does not expressly teach a rotation assembly mounted in the housing configured to rotate a pan positioned in the cooking cavity about a vertical axis of rotation and a controller operatively connected with the fan, the rotation assembly, and the heating element, the controller configured to selectively operate each of the fan, the rotation assembly, and the heating element.
Lee is directed towards an oven. Lee does teach a rotation assembly mounted in the housing configured to rotate a pan positioned in the cooking cavity about a vertical axis of rotation ([0090] Referring to FIGS. 3 to 5, the oven 1 may further include a turn table 100 rotationally arranged inside the cooking chamber 20.);
The combination of the rotation assembly of Lee with the cooking device of Kim will allow the food stuff to be cooking evenly since the stationary heating elements alone may over cook one area of the food stuff and under cook others.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include a rotation assembly mounted in the housing configured to rotate a pan positioned in the cooking cavity about a vertical axis of rotation because the rotation assembly of Lee with the cooking device of Kim will allow the food stuff to be cooking evenly since the stationary heating elements alone may over cook one area of the food stuff and under cook others.
Heimerdinger is directed towards a cooking device. Heimerdinger does teach and a controller operatively connected with the fan ([0053]), the rotation assembly ([0088]), and the heating element ([0006]), the controller configured to selectively operate each of the fan, the rotation assembly, and the heating element ([0007] The upper heater module and the lower heater module each have one or more heating elements. The convection module includes one or more heating element and a convection fan operable to move air across the one or more heating elements of the convection module and into the cooking cavity. The method also includes activating a motor to rotate a turntable within the cooking cavity during the meal cook cycle. The turntable rotates in a back-and-forth motion within the cooking cavity during at least a portion of the meal cook cycle.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee to include a controller operatively connected with the fan, the rotation assembly, and the heating element, the controller configured to selectively operate each of the fan, the rotation assembly, and the heating element because the controller Heimerdinger would allow the user to control the component of Kim and Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach a pan positioned to engage and be rotated by the rotation assembly.
Lee does teach a pan positioned to engage and be rotated by the rotation assembly ([0090] Referring to FIGS. 3 to 5, the oven 1 may further include a turn table 100 rotationally arranged inside the cooking chamber 20.);.
The combination of the pan of Lee with the cooking device of Kim will allow the food stuff to be cooking evenly since the stationary heating elements alone may over cook one area of the food stuff and under cook others.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include a pan positioned to engage and be rotated by the rotation assembly because the pan of Lee with the cooking device of Kim will allow the food stuff to be cooking evenly since the stationary heating elements alone may over cook one area of the food stuff and under cook others.
Regarding claim 3, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 2. Kim does not expressly teach the pan is a first pan, and further comprising a second pan mounted on and above the first pan.
Lee does teach the pan is a first pan, and further comprising a second pan mounted on and above the first pan ([0092] The tray 120 may be arranged inside the cooking chamber 20 and rotated along with the turn table 100.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the pan is a first pan, and further comprising a second pan mounted on and above the first pan because the second pan of Lee allows for the food stuff to be adjusted to a more central location for even cooking.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does teach the heating element is a first heating element and is mounted at an upper portion of the cooking cavity ([0095] the first heating part 400 provided to be able to heat the inside of the cooking compartment 105 from the top) and further comprising a second heating element mounted to underlie a pan positioned on the rotation assembly ([0094] The second heating part 600 may be provided in the form including a working coil 610 installed at a lower portion of the bottom surface 110 of the housing 100).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 5. Kim does teach the first heating element extends widthwise for most of a width of the cooking cavity, and the second heating element extends for most of the width of the cooking cavity (Figure 7 shows the width of the heaters 400 are about the size of the cavity).
Regarding claim 7, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 5. Kim does teach the rotation assembly comprises a support positioned to engage the pan, the support mounted on the axis of rotation ([0091] The oven 1 may further include a turn table motor 110 for generating driving power to rotate the turn table 100. The turn table 100 may be coupled to the turn table motor 110 to receive the driving power from the turn table motor 110.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does teach the door is pivotally attached to the housing, and wherein in the open position the door is located above and spaced apart from the housing. (Figure 2 and [0082] The door 300 is provided to open or close the open upper and front surfaces of the housing 100.).
Regarding claim 11, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach the cooking cavity is between about 4 and 6 inches in height, between about 11 and 14 inches in width, and between about 11 and 14 inches in depth.
While Kim may not expressly teach the cooking cavity is between about 4 and 6 inches in height, between about 11 and 14 inches in width, and between about 11 and 14 inches in depth of the instant claim, Kim teaches a cavity with a set dimension. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the a cavity with a set dimension of Kim is capable of the cooking cavity is between about 4 and 6 inches in height, between about 11 and 14 inches in width, and between about 11 and 14 inches in depth.
Regarding claim 12, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach a ratio of a width of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1.
While Kim may not expressly teach the a ratio of a width of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1 of the instant claim, Kim teaches a cavity with a set dimension. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the a cavity with a set dimension of Kim is capable of a ratio of a width of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1.
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach a ratio of a depth of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity may be between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1.
While Kim may not expressly teach the a ratio of a depth of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity may be between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1 of the instant claim, Kim teaches a cavity with a set dimension. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the a cavity with a set dimension of Kim is capable of a ratio of a depth of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity may be between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations have been rejected in a previous claim. a housing; a door attached to the housing, the door configured to move between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the housing and the door define an enclosed cooking cavity, and in the open position the door is positioned above the housing to provide access to the cooking cavity; a first heating element positioned in an upper portion of the cooking cavity; a second heating element positioned in a lower portion of the cooking cavity, and a controller operatively connected with the first and second heating elements, the controller configured to selectively operate each of the first and second heating element; (See rejection of claim 1 above.).
wherein the first heating element extends most of a width of the cooking cavity, and the second heating element extends most of the width of the cooking cavity. (See the rejection of claim 6 above.)
Regarding claim 19, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 18. Kim does teach wherein each of the first and second heating elements pass through or adjacent to the vertical axis (Figure 3 shows the heating elements along the entirety of the top cover.). This limitation have been rejected in a previous claim. a rotating assembly for rotating a pan within the cooking cavity about a vertical axis, (See rejection of claim 3 above.)
Regarding claim 20, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 18. These limitations have been rejected in a previous claim. wherein a ratio of a width of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1, and wherein a ratio of a depth of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1. (See rejection of claim 11-13 above.)
Claims 4 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200224882 A1 – Kim, US 20190120504 A1 – Lee and US 20210307131 A1 – Heimerdinger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 6936795 B1 – Moon.
Regarding claim 4, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 3. Kim does not expressly teach the second pan includes a floor with perforations and wherein the floor is above and spaced apart from a floor of the first pan.
Moon is directed towards a cooking device. Moon does teach the second pan includes a floor with perforations ([Col.3 Ln. 43-45]).
The combination of the grilled pan of Moon with the cooking device of Kim and Lee allows for the grease and liquids to leave the cooking area for a specific type of cook (avoid steaming).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee to include the second pan includes a floor with perforations because the grilled pan of Moon with the cooking device of Kim and Lee allows for the grease and liquids to leave the cooking area for a specific type of cook (avoid steaming).
Lee does teach the floor is above and spaced apart from a floor of the first pan ([0093] The oven 1 may further include a supporting rack 130 to support the tray 120. The supporting rack 130 may be made of wire to have certain height in the vertical direction Z of the cooking chamber 20. The tray 120 may be arranged on the turn table 100 with the support of the supporting rack 130.).
The combination of the space from the first pan and second pan of Lee with the cooking system of Kim allows for the food stuff to be more centralized for a more even cook.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the floor is above and spaced apart from a floor of the first pan because the space from the first pan and second pan of Lee with the cooking system of Kim allows for the food stuff to be more centralized for a more even cook.
Regarding claim 14, these limitations have been rejected in a previous claim. a housing; a door attached to the housing, the door configured to move between a closed position and an open position, wherein in the closed position the housing and the door define an enclosed cooking cavity, and in the open position the door is positioned above the housing to provide access to the cooking cavity; a fan positioned within the housing outside of the cooking cavity, the fan positioned and configured to circulate air within the cooking cavity; a heating element positioned in the cooking cavity;
a controller operatively connected with the fan and the heating element, the controller configured to selectively operate the fan and the heating element; (See rejection of claim 1 above.). a first pan positioned in the cooking cavity, the first pan having a generally horizontal first floor;
and a second pan positioned to overlie the first pan, the second pan having a generally horizontal second floor, the second floor being perforated, wherein a gap is present between the first and second floors. (See rejection of claim 4 above.).
Regarding claim 15, Kim, Lee, Heimerdinger, and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 14. These limitations have been rejected in a previous claim. wherein the cooking cavity is between about 4 and 6 inches in height, between about 11 and 14 inches in width, and between about 11 and 14 inches in depth. (See the rejection of claim 11 above.).
Regarding claim 16, Kim, Lee, Heimerdinger, and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 14. These limitations have been rejected in a previous claim, wherein a ratio of a width of the cooking cavity to a height of the cooking cavity is between about 1.8:1 and 3.5:1. (See rejection of claim 13 above.)
Regarding claim 17, Kim, Lee, Heimerdinger, and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 14. These limitations have been rejected in a previous claim, a rotation assembly mounted in the housing configured to rotate the first and second pans about a vertical axis of rotation. (See rejection of claim 3 above.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200224882 A1 – Kim, US 20190120504 A1 – Lee and US 20210307131 A1 – Heimerdinger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 5165889 A – Baggott.
Regarding claim 8, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach the rotation assembly includes first and second wheels positioned to engage the pan.
Baggott is directed towards a heat exchanger. Baggot does teach tray includes first and second wheels positioned to engage the pan ([Col.3 Ln.65-68] Food to be processed is conveniently placed in the heating chamber 7 through an oven door 12. In the illustrated embodiment a roll-in rack is used to support trays containing food.).
The combination of the rollers of Baggot with the cooking device of Kim and Lee allow for the easy rotation of the pan in the cavity.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Lee to include the tray includes first and second wheels positioned to engage the pan because the rollers of Baggot with the cooking device of Kim and Lee allow for the easy rotation of the pan in the cavity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200224882 A1 – Kim, US 20190120504 A1 – Lee and US 20210307131 A1 – Heimerdinger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 20200378609 A1 – Paller.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, Lee, and Heimerdinger does teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not expressly teach the fan is positioned within a duct, and wherein the fan is configured to draw air from the cooking cavity into the duct through a first set of vents and to force air from the duct into the cooking cavity through a second set of vents.
Paller is directed towards a cooking device. Paller does teach the fan is positioned within a duct, and wherein the fan is configured to draw air from the cooking cavity into the duct through a first set of vents and to force air from the duct into the cooking cavity through a second set of vents. ([Claim 13 The oven appliance of claim 12, further comprising a first duct extending from the single heat source to a vent in fluid communication with the ambient environment around the oven appliance, the single heat source in thermal communication with the ambient environment by natural convection through the first duct and the vent, and a second duct extending to a broil outlet in the upper cooking chamber, wherein the fan is configured to urge heated air from the single heat source into the second duct.]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the fan is positioned within a duct, and wherein the fan is configured to draw air from the cooking cavity into the duct through a first set of vents and to force air from the duct into the cooking cavity through a second set of vents because the input and output fans of Paller allow for even and clean airflow through the cooking device of Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
