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 .
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cigarini et. al (US 5,697,360) in view of Lee et. al (US 5,158,065).
With respect to claim 1 Cigarini discloses an oven assembly comprising a case body [reference character 1] and a combustion assembly [reference character 29] arranged below the case body, wherein an exhaust hole [reference character 13] is arranged in an upper part of the case body, and a heat conduction hole [reference character 16] is arranged on a lower part of the case body, so that hot air formed by combustion in the combustion assembly is capable of entering the case body through the heat conduction hole [see Fig. 2]; and a fume exhaust pipe [reference character 14], wherein a fume inlet of the fume exhaust pipe is connected to the exhaust hole [see Figs. 1-2]. Finally, Cigarini discloses that a cross-sectional area of the fume exhaust pipe tapers from the fume inlet to the fume outlet [see Figs. 1-2].
Cigarini does not disclose an integrated gas stove comprising: a rack; a cooker assembly, arranged at an upper part of the rack and comprising at least one burner assembly where the oven is arranged on the rack and located below the cooker assembly and a fume outlet of the fume exhaust pipe arranged above the cooker assembly obliquely faces downwards the burner assembly.
Lee discloses an integrated gas stove comprising: a rack [reference character 10]; a cooker assembly [reference character 13], arranged at an upper part of the rack and comprising at least one burner assembly [reference character 9] where an oven [reference character 19] is arranged on the rack and located below the cooker assembly and a fume outlet [reference character 33] of a fume exhaust pipe [reference characters 23 and 28] arranged above the cooker assembly obliquely faces downwards the burner assembly [see Fig. 2].
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cigarini by incorporating the oven into a range, as taught by Lee, in order to preclude the need for a separate stove and oven, and to form the fume outlet of the fume exhaust pipe arranged above the cooker assembly so that it obliquely faces downwards towards the burner assembly, as taught by Lee in order to allow for sufficient mixing with cooler ambient air and prevent overheating of the control panel [column 3 lines 45-59 of Lee].
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Cigarini and Lee disclose that the fume exhaust pipe comprises an ascending section [reference character 14] extending from bottom to top and a eject section connected with the ascending section and extending laterally [reference characters 33 and 41], the fume inlet is arranged at a bottom end of the ascending section, the fume outlet is arranged at a top end of the eject section, the eject section inclines downwards, and a comprised angle a between the eject section and a cooker plane of the cooker assembly [see Fig. 3 of Lee]
The combination of Cigarini and Lee do not disclose that the angle is between 5° to 25°; however, Lee discloses that “[t]he forward upper wall 41 of the curved hood portion extends downwardly at a sufficient angle so as to produce a downward component in the direction of flow of the flue gases passing out through the opening 39. Further, since the throat 37 of the vent stack is relatively narrow, the flue gases passing out through the vent stack are discharged with sufficient velocity to cause the flue gases to project outwardly in front of the control panel 12 so that the control panel is not excessively heated” therefore, the angle is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to produce a desired result, in this case the angle would be optimized in order to ensure that the fumes are projected sufficiently outwardly and downwardly in order to prevent overheating of the control panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide an angle of between 5° to 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 3 the combination of Cigirini and Lee disclose that a sum of cross-sectional areas of all the heat conduction holes [the total outlet areas of the holes 16] is larger than a sectional area [the cross section shown in Fig. 2] of the exhaust hole.
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Cigarini and Lee discloses that the heat conduction hole and the exhaust hole are both elongated holes, and a length extending direction of the heat conduction hole and a length extending direction of the exhaust hole are perpendicular to each other [see Fig. 1 of Lee].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cigarini et. al (US 5,697,360) in view of Lee et. al (US 5,158,065) and further in view of Seidel (US 4,240,397).
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Cigarini and Lee do not disclose a switch mechanism arranged at the fume outlet is capable of controlling an opening degree of the fume outlet.
Seidel discloses an oven [reference character 10] having a flue [reference character 90] having a switch mechanism [reference characters 106 and 94] capable of controlling an opening degree of the flue outlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Cigarini and Lee by including a damper capable of closing off the flue, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent hot air from escaping from the oven once the thermostat has determined that the desired temperature is reached and the burner is shut off [column 6 lines 41-51 of Seidel].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Cigarini, Lee and Seidel discloses that the case body comprises a temperature detection module [reference character 120 of Seidel] capable of detecting a temperature T in the case body, the integrated gas stove further comprises a control system [see Fig. 5] respectively connected to the temperature detection module and the switch mechanism, and the control system is capable of controlling an action of the switch mechanism according to the temperature T, so that the opening degree of the fume outlet is in direct proportion to the temperature T [see column 6 line 29-51 of Seidel].
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Cigarini, Lee, and Seidel disclose that the fume outlet faces a center of the cooker assembly, so that a central velocity of the oil fume which is discharged from the fume outlet and ejected to the center of the cooker assembly is V, and V is larger than 0 m/s [see Figs. 1-3 of Seidel].
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Cigarini, Lee, and Seidel do not disclose that V is equal to or greater than 0.005 m/s and is equal to or less than 0.02 m/s. However, Lee states that “[t]he velocity of the flue gases flowing through the opening is sufficient to propel them beyond the face of the control panel and the control panel in the backguard is not excessively heated” [column 1 lines 59-63], therefore the velocity is a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to provide a desired result, the result being that the velocity is sufficient to prevent the backgaurd and control panel from being excessively heated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide a velocity of between 0.005m/s – 0.02 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights