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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/24 was considered by the examiner. However are not entered since application numbers of US applications should be disclosed as their PG publication number.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 7-15 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 7-15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Newly submitted claims 7-15 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-6, drawn to a method of cooking, classified in A23B4/052.
II. Claims 7-15, drawn to a method of cooking, classified in A23L5/30.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination has a distinct smoke channel different from that of Group I and effect of the fan, i.e. wherein operation of the fan causes smoke generated by the smoke unit to be drawn into a first end of a smoke channel at least partially defined within a wall of the housing and out of a terminal end of the smoke channel disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber.
The subcombination has separate utility such as a singular type cooker, i.e. a smoker as opposed to combination cooking and smoke of group II and more specifically with respect to the distinct element, the second heat source as an oven or microwave for combination cooking as opposed to singularly cooking by smoke.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 is rejected due to the phrase “the second end of the smoke channel” since “the second end” lacks antecedent basis and thus it is unclear if the second end is the same as the terminal end, with respect to an additional component or with respect to something different altogether.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capriglione (20190116819; IDS 9/11/24).
Capriglione teaches a method of cooking, comprising:
generating smoke using a smoke unit (par. 0029 including ref. 36; par. 0048) coupled to an external surface of a housing of a cooking device (fig. 7 ref. 21), the housing defining an interior chamber configured to receive a food product (par. 0050) and
operating a fan disposed within the interior chamber to circulate air within the interior cooking chamber (fig. 7 ref. 18, par. 0044; par. 0048),
wherein operation of the fan causes smoke generated by the smoke unit to be drawn (par. 0036, 0047, 0048) into a first end of a smoke channel at least partially defined within a wall of the housing (par. 0044 area of within suction section ref. 19; point connected within, fig. 7 ref. 19; par. 0048 “reach the suction section” ref. 19) and out of a terminal end of the smoke channel (par. 0044 ref. 20 delivery section; par. 0048 sent to delivery section) disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber (par. 0044, 0048).
Claim 2, decoupling the smoke unit from the external surface of the housing (par. 0029 ref. 36; relative sliding, in/out)
Claim 4, wherein operating the fan causes the fan to create a low pressure zone proximate the fan (par. 0047, 0048), and wherein the second end of the smoke channel is disposed within the low pressure zone (par. 0047, 0048).
Claim 6, where the first end of the smoke channel is located on a side of the housing (fig. 7 ref. 19) and the second end of the smoke channel is located on a rear of the internal cooking chamber (fig. 7 ref. 20; where it is noted the “a rear” is not defined and thus in the instant case is taken relative the food ref. 9 or relative a side as opposed to top)
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunsley et al. (EP2986130; IDS 9/11/24).
Hunsley teaches a method of cooking, comprising:
generating smoke using a smoke unit (par. 0030) coupled to an external surface of a housing (fig. 1a, fig. 9 front wall) of a cooking device (fig. 9), the housing defining an interior chamber configured to receive a food product (par. 0022; fig. 1a, 1b front and back walls, fig. 4 ref. 32 top wall, ref. 34 bottom wall, fig. 4 ref. 72) and
operating a fan disposed within the interior chamber to circulate air within the interior cooking chamber (par. 0031),
wherein operation of the fan causes smoke generated by the smoke unit to be drawn into a first end of a smoke channel at least partially defined within a wall of the housing (fig. 4 area of ref. 47, ref. 84 within wall 32; prior to fan) and out of a terminal end of the smoke channel (par. 0031; fig. 4 horizontal smoke flow area of ref. 92; area of fan; ref. 72 apertures fig. 9 ref. 74) disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber (fig. 4; par. 0031).
Claim 2, decoupling the smoke unit from the external surface of the housing (fig. 9, in/out)
Claim 4, wherein operating the fan causes the fan to create a low pressure zone proximate the fan (par. 0031), and wherein the second end of the smoke channel is disposed within the low pressure zone (par. 0031 fig. 4 ref. 92).
Claim 5, wherein the first end of the smoke channel is located on a side of the housing (fig. 4 right side), and wherein the second end of the smoke channel is located on a top of the housing (fig. 4 relative flow; area ref. 92).
Claim 6, where the first end of the smoke channel is located on a side of the housing (fig. 4 ref. 84) and the second end of the smoke channel is located on a rear of the internal cooking chamber (fig. 4 where rear is taken with respect to horizontal distance and/or wall 26 relative wall 43).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (20210123601; IDS 9/11/24).
Martin teaches a method of cooking, comprising:
generating smoke using a smoke unit (fig. 7 ref. 20; par. 0067) coupled to an external surface of a housing of a cooking device (par. 0086 via lid fig. 6 ref. 136 and ref. 132; alternatively fig. 6 ref. 132, opening ref. 134, ref. 36 in communication with and including area within module ref. 20), the housing defining an interior chamber (interior relative within ref. 132 fig. 6; smoke flow) configured to receive a food product (fig. 6; within ref. 132 and relative ref. 114 fig. 5) and
operating a fan (fig. 5 ref. 128) disposed within the interior chamber (fig. 6, 7, within ref. 132) to circulate air within the interior cooking chamber (par. 0031),
wherein operation of the fan causes smoke generated by the smoke unit to be drawn into a first end of a smoke channel (fig. 7 ref. 60; outlet holes; alternatively fig. 2 ref. 60 interior of channel; beginning) at least partially defined within a wall of the housing (fig. 7 ref. 60; par. 0065 relative outlet holes ref. 60; wall relative lid; alternatively within, i.e. horizontal area of ref. 136 ) and out of a terminal end of the smoke channel (par. 0092 “drawn into” flow of air) disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber (fig. 6; within ref. 132).
Claim 2, decoupling the smoke unit from the external surface of the housing (par. 0095 last 3 lines remove).
Claim 3, wherein the housing includes a lid movably coupled to a base (par. 0077), and wherein the smoke unit is removably coupled to an external surface of the lid (par. 0086 last 2 lines; external taken relative interior chamber; opposite interior chamber as defined by lid bottom wall).
Claim 4, wherein operating the fan causes the fan to create a low pressure zone proximate the fan (par. 0092), and wherein the second end of the smoke channel is disposed within the low pressure zone (par. 0092).
Claim 5, wherein the first end of the smoke channel is located on a side of the housing (fig. 6 housing encompassing ref 132), and wherein the second end of the smoke channel is located on a top of the housing (fig. 6, 7 relative smoke flow).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Martin et al. (20210123601; IDS 9/11/24).
Martin teaches the first end of the smoke channel is located on a side of the housing (par. 0086 via lid fig. 6 ref. 136 and ref. 132; alternatively fig. 6 ref. 132, opening ref. 134, ref. 36 in communication with and including area within module ref. 20). Martin further teaches the second end of the smoke channel, though silent to explicitly teaching its location with respect to the center axis of the internal chamber. Thus where a rear is taken relative the vertical middle axis of the chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the second end of the smoke channel located relative a top rear of the internal cooking chamber since changing positions relative a same top mounted fan would achieve a same desired forced circulation of smoke laden air as taught.
Response to Arguments
Applicants urgings directed to the previous interpretations of the references and in light of the claim amendments are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection are made with respect to the references using different interpretations of the references.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Capriglione, Capriglione teaches two different smoke flow area and in the instant case as taught at par. 0044 and fig. 7 ref. 19 is within a wall, where separate ref. 20 is taken with respect to out of a terminal end of the smoke channel (par. 0044 ref. 20 delivery section; par. 0048 sent to delivery section) disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber (par. 0044, 0048).
With respect to applicants urging directed to Hunsley and applicants urging that due to a loop Hunsley fails to teach a “terminal end”. It is noted the claimed terminal end is taken with respect to the claimed interior chamber and more specifically with respect to smoke application for its intent of impinging on food.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Martin. Though urged the module ref. 20 is within the interior chamber Martin is relied upon with respect to internal of ref. 132 and ref. 136. More specifically, wherein operation of the fan causes smoke generated by the smoke unit to be drawn into a first end of a smoke channel (fig. 7 ref. 60; outlet holes; alternatively fig. 2 ref. 60 interior of channel; beginning) at least partially defined within a wall of the housing (fig. 7 ref. 60; par. 0065 relative outlet holes ref. 60; wall relative lid; alternatively within, i.e. horizontal area of ref. 136 ) and out of a terminal end of the smoke channel (par. 0092 “drawn into” flow of air) disposed proximate the fan and within the interior chamber (fig. 6; within ref. 132).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792