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 § 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 3 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 3 contains the trademark/trade name Bakelite™. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of synthetic resin and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/214840 by Costa (hereinafter “Costa”).
Regarding claim 1, Costa discloses an oven (Fig 1, Abstract), comprising:
an oven body comprising a front plate (Fig 1 front of oven including door 8) and a cover (Fig 4 sheet 42), wherein the front plate has an entrance that communicates with an inside of the oven body (at door 8);
the cover has a front end that is connected to the front plate (Fig 5b);
a heating element disposed in the oven body (Fig 5b support 10 holds wood for burning which acts as a heating element in oven body); and
at least one guard board disposed on a periphery of the cover (Fig 4 and Fig 5b external sheet 41), wherein an interval space is formed between the at least one guard board and an outer surface of the cover (Fig 4 and 5b, hollow space 9), and a periphery of the interval space communicates with an outside of the oven (Fig 1 interval space communicates with outside through ventilation holes 43, with the lower holes in particular being at a periphery of the interval space).
Regarding claim 5, Costa discloses that the at least one guard board has a plurality of hollow portions; each of the plurality of hollow portions communicates with the interval space (Fig 1 ventilation holes 43).
Regarding claim 6, Costa discloses that the plurality of hollow portions comprises at least one hanging hole (Fig 1 the ventilation holes 43, at least one of which may be used as a hanging hole).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa in view of US 2012/0247446 by Cross (hereinafter “Cross”).
Regarding claim 2, Costa teaches the oven as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). But Costa does not teach that the oven further comprises a plurality of columns, wherein an end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the cover, and another end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the at least one guard board.
However, Cross teaches a cooking apparatus which may be interpreted as an oven (Fig 2 barbeque grill 102) having a cover (Fig 2 cover portion 106) and a guard board (Fig 2 weather cover portion 202 of weather cover 200), the cooking apparatus further comprising a plurality of columns (Fig 4 tubular portions 318 of support members 204; paragraph [0017]), wherein an end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the cover, and another end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the at least one guard board (Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Costa by including a plurality of columns, wherein an end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the cover, and another end of each of the plurality of columns is connected to the at least one guard board, as taught by Cross, in order to better support the guard board spaced from the cover.
Regarding claim 4, Costa, as modified with the columns of Cross, teaches the oven as claimed in claim 2. Cross further teaches that the oven further comprises a plurality of bolts (Fig 4 bolts 408) and a plurality of nuts (Fig 4 nuts 410), wherein the at least one guard board has a plurality of first through holes (Fig 4 bolt hole in guard board 202); the cover has a plurality of second through holes (Fig 4 bolt hole through cover 106); each of the plurality of columns has a channel hole (Fig 4); two ends of the channel hole of each of the plurality of columns respectively correspond to each of the plurality of first through holes and each of the plurality of second through holes (Fig 4); each of the plurality of bolts passes through each of the plurality of first through holes of the at least one guard board, the channel hole of each of the plurality of columns, and each of the plurality of second through holes of the cover in sequence (Fig 4); each of the plurality of nuts is located on an inside of the cover and is screwed to each of the plurality of bolts to fix each of the plurality of columns (Fig 4; paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the oven of Costa with the supporting columns of Cross, to further include further a plurality of bolts and a plurality of nuts, and the associated through holes taught by Cross, in order to attach the guard board to the cover, maintain spacing between the guard board and the cover, and prevent unwanted movement between the guard board and the cover.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa in view of Cross, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of CN 202477402 by Zhang (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3, Costa modified with the supporting columns of Cross, teaches the oven as claimed in claim 2. But Costa/Cross is silent as to the material making up the columns.
However, Zhang teaches an oven (Fig 2) having a base (Fig 2 base 10) and a cover (Fig 2 top cover 20) and a handle connected to and protruding from the cover (Fig 2 handle 21), the handle being made of bakelite (paragraph [0011], bakelite handle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Zhang before them at the time the application was filed, to modify the oven of Costa/Cross by making each of the plurality of columns from bakelite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known [as evidenced by Zhang, see above] material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; MPEP 2144.07). Zhang teaches that bakelite is a suitable material for elements projecting from the oven cover. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa, as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of US 7,108,304 issued to White (hereinafter “White”).
Regarding claim 7, Costa teaches the oven as claimed in claim 6 (see details in claim 6 rejection above). But Costa does not teach that the oven further comprises at least one accessory, wherein the at least one accessory has at least one hook portion; the at least one hook portion hangs in the at least one hanging hole.
However, White teaches an accessory usable with an oven such as that of Costa (Fig 1 grilling implement 10 usable for manipulating burning logs in a cooking apparatus as shown in Fig 4), the accessory having at least one hook portion for hanging from a hanging hole (Fig 1 hanger 70; col 5 line 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Costa by including at least one accessory having at least one hook portion, such as the one taught by White and which can hang in the at least one hanging hole. The accessory taught by White would be advantageous for assisting the user with stoking the fire in the oven by manipulating the burning wood and can be easily stored in a hanging hole on the oven.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costa, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of KR 101191873 (hereinafter “KR ‘873”).
Regarding claim 8, Costa teaches the oven as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Costa further teaches that the oven comprises an exhaust pipe that passes through a top portion of the cover (Costa Fig 4 duct 6; page 4 line 10-11). But Costa does not teach an exhaust hood, wherein a bottom portion of the exhaust hood has two insertion plates; the top portion of the cover has two insertion slots which are located on two opposite sides of the exhaust pipe; the two insertion plates of the exhaust hood are detachably inserted into the two insertion slots and the exhaust pipe is located in the exhaust hood.
However, KR ‘873 teaches a cooking appliance cover (Fig 4 household cooking utensil cover 100 for household cooking utensil 200, utensil 200 shown in Fig 1) having an exhaust hood (Fig 4 housing 110 of suction filtration mechanism, which is fitted with an exhaust fan to act as an exhaust hood; paragraph [0026]) and an exhaust vent (Fig 4 suction holes 108), wherein a bottom portion of the exhaust hood has two insertion plates (Fig 4 flange 112 comprises plates on sides of housing 110); the exhaust vent passes through a top portion of the cover (paragraph [0023]); the top portion of the cover has two insertion slots which are located on two opposite sides of the exhaust vent (Fig 4 insertion slot 107 is C-shaped and thus comprises slots on opposite sides of 108); the two insertion plates of the exhaust hood are detachably inserted into the two insertion slots and the exhaust vent is located in the exhaust hood (Fig 4; paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Costa by including an exhaust hood, wherein a bottom portion of the exhaust hood has two insertion plates; the top portion of the cover has two insertion slots which are located on two opposite sides of the exhaust pipe; the two insertion plates of the exhaust hood are detachably inserted into the two insertion slots and the exhaust pipe is located in the exhaust hood, as taught by KR ‘873, in order to better remove smoke and odors from the oven with the easily installed exhaust hood.
Regarding claim 9, Costa teaches the oven as claimed in claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Costa further teaches that the cover has a top portion and two side portions (see Examiner Annotated Figure A below showing cover 42 divided into top and side portions) and an exhaust pipe is positioned in the top portion of the cover (Fig 4 and Examiner Annotated Figure A, duct 6; page 4 line 10-11), wherein the two side portions are respectively located on two opposite sides of the top portion (Examiner Annotated Figure A).
But Costa does not explicitly teach that the oven comprises an exhaust hood or that the at least one guard board comprises two guard boards, and the two guard boards are respectively disposed on the two side portions.
However, KR ‘873 teaches a cooking appliance cover (Fig 4 household cooking utensil cover 100 for household cooking utensil 200, utensil 200 shown in Fig 1) having an exhaust hood (Fig 4 housing 110 of suction filtration mechanism, which is fitted with an exhaust fan to act as an exhaust hood; paragraph [0026]) positioned over an exhaust vent (Fig 4 suction holes 108) and engaged with the cover (Fig 4 flange 112 of exhaust hood engages with 107 on cover 100; paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven of Costa by including an exhaust hood engaged with the top portion of the cover at the exhaust pipe in order to better exhaust smoke and smells from the oven.
Costa, as modified with KR ‘873, teaches therefore teaches claimed invention except for the guard board comprising two guard boards respectively disposed on the two side portions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the guard board as two separate guard boards, since the separate guard boards would perform equally as well and may allow for easier manufacturing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 V-C). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 4 of Costa, showing the cover 42 divided into top and side portions
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0195502 by Tseng et al teaches an oven with a cover (162) and guard board (36) and an exhaust pipe with exhaust hood (20).
US 2013/0008427 by Ahmed teaches a grill with a cover (164) and guard board (166).
US 2016/0345774 by Odom teaches a grill with a cover (6) and guard board (26) connected with columns (30).
US 12,569,088 to Tapaninaho teaches an oven with a cover (38) and guard board (8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights