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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2308784.4, filed on 7/25/2023.
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(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takata et al [4901705].
With respect to claim 1, Takata discloses: An open-flame oven comprising: an oven housing (4’) surrounding an oven chamber (4) for containing foodstuffs (5) during cooking, the oven housing comprising an inner surface forming an internal wall of the oven chamber [see FIGs 3 and 4, col 2, line 3-19]; an oven mouth (covered via door 21) for accessing the oven chamber [col 6, line 65-68]; and a substantially continuous oven floor (6, 31) forming a base of the oven chamber for supporting foodstuffs, the oven floor extending across the oven chamber from the oven mouth [see FIG 3, the net is considered “substantially continuous” in that it foodstuffs are fully supported]; wherein the internal wall of the oven housing comprises lateral wall sections (at 4’) extending generally upwardly along lateral sides of the oven floor, wherein at least a portion of one of the lateral wall sections is recessed laterally from the respective lateral side of the oven floor, thereby forming an alcove in the internal wall of the oven housing adjacent the lateral side of the oven floor [see reproduced figures below], and wherein the open-flame oven further comprises a gas burner (8) arranged in the alcove adjacent the lateral side of the oven floor [col 5, line 43-65].
Takata further discloses:
{cl. 4} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lateral sides of the oven floor are substantially linear [see FIG 1].
{cl. 6} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alcove and gas burner are situated adjacent a left-hand lateral side of the oven floor [see FIG 1].
{cl. 7} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein a width of the oven mouth is substantially the same as a maximum width of the oven floor [see FIG 13].
{cl. 9} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alcove is formed over only a portion of the lateral side of the oven floor [see FIG 3].
{cl. 10} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alcove is formed over only a portion of the lateral side of the oven floor [see FIG 3].
{cl. 11} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alcove is elongate along the lateral side of the oven floor.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al [4901705], further in view of Geer [3038464].
With respect to claims 2-3, Takata discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the flame guard.
Geer makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a flame guard (21) extending upwardly between the gas burner (16) and the lateral side of the oven floor [see FIG 1, col 2, line 13-22].
{cl. 3} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 2, wherein a height of the flame guard (21) above the oven floor is adjustable and/or wherein a plurality of interchangeable flame guards of different heights and/or thicknesses are provided [see FIG 1, col 2, line 13-22].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Takata with the teachings of Geer because Geer provides an adjustable flame guard in order to prevent overheating of the area in which the burner resides in.
Claim(s) 8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al [4901705], further in view of Borovicka [201901231123].
With respect to claims, 8 and 13-14, Takata discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show aspects of the stone or shape of the oven as claimed.
Borovicka makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 8} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein a rear edge of the oven floor opposite the oven mouth is arcuate [see FIG 2].
{cl. 13} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the oven floor is formed from ceramic or stone (10) [see FIG 2, paragraph 0016-0019].
{cl. 14} An open-flame oven as claimed in claim 1, wherein the internal wall of the oven is generally dome-shaped [see FIG 2].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Takata with the teachings of Borovicka because Borovicka provides an arcuate stone cooking surface that provides versatility for the oven to cook various food items.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The claims are not found in the prior art and are considered unique in the field of endeavor. The limitations with regard to the alcove are not found to be obvious as the wall thickness and decrease with elevation of the alcove would require hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boardmen et al [3148674] is considered prior art relevant to the claimed invention with respect to similar teachings of a burner (30) in a recessed area (29) having a flame guard (45) [see FIG 1, col 3, line 50-74].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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 at 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
7/3/2026
Prosecution Insights