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 .
Status of Application/Claims
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on August 7, 2024. As directed by the amendment claims 3-4 and 6-9 have been amended and claims 11-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
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 3, 8, and 16-17 are 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 recites the limitation “a plurality of inner cover protrusions” in line 2 and then, in line 6, refers to “the inner cover protrusion”. It is not clear if “the inner cover protrusion” is meant to refer to a particular one cover protrusion of the plurality of inner cover protrusions, or each of the inner cover protrusions. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the inner cover protrusion” is being interpreted as “an inner cover protrusion of the plurality of inner cover protrusions.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cover protrusion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “cover protrusion” has not been introduced in this claim or in a parent claim, but was introduced in claim 2. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the cover protrusion” is being interpreted as “a cover protrusion coupling the air guide with the control panel.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a plurality of inner cover protrusions” in line 2 and then, in line 6, refers to “the inner cover protrusion”. It is not clear if “the inner cover protrusion” is meant to refer to a particular one inner cover protrusion of the plurality of inner cover protrusions, or each of the inner cover protrusions. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the inner cover protrusion” is being interpreted as “an inner cover protrusion of the plurality of inner cover protrusions.”
Claim 17 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 16.
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, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102010038806 by Thaller et al (hereinafter “Thaller”).
Regarding claim 1, Thaller discloses a cooking appliance (paragraph [0001], “oven with a cooking chamber”) comprising:
a cavity having a cooking chamber defined therein and having an open front surface (Fig 1 cooking chamber 3);
a door disposed in front of the cavity to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 1 and Fig 6, oven door 8);
a control panel disposed on top of the cavity and the door (Fig 1 control panel 5 at front of switch unit 4)
a front panel disposed between the cavity and the door (Fig 1 cooking chamber flange 2)
an air guide disposed in front of the front panel so as to screen at least a portion of the front panel, wherein the air guide is disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 6 flow guide element 17 between door 8 and control panel 5 and in front of front panel 2, which would function to screen at least a portion of front panel 2).
Regarding claim 5, Thaller further discloses that the air guide is disposed in a front space surrounded with the door, the front panel, and the control panel (Fig 1, front space in figure is defined by door 8 on the bottom, front panel 2 on the left, and control panel 5 at top; Fig 6 shows air guide 17 in this front space).
Regarding claim 10, Thaller further discloses that the air guide divides at least a portion of the front space into an upper space and a lower space (Fig 6, air guide 17 in the front space divides the front space vertically into upper space above the air guide and lower space below air guide).
Regarding claim 19, Thaller further discloses that the air guide divides at least a portion of the front space so that a vertical length of the upper space is equal or greater than a vertical length of the lower space (Fig 6 shows the vertical length of the upper space above the air guide is equal to or greater than the vertical length of the lower space below the air guide).
Regarding claim 20, Thaller discloses a cooking appliance (paragraph [0001], “oven with a cooking chamber”) comprising:
a main body including a cavity having a cooking chamber defined therein and having an open front surface (Fig 1 main body including cooking chamber flange 2 and having cooking chamber 3 defined therein);
a door disposed in front of the cavity to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 1 and Fig 6, oven door 8);
a control panel disposed on top of the cavity and the door (Fig 1 control panel 5 at front of switch unit 4)
an air guide disposed between the door and the control panel, wherein the air guide is disposed in front of the main body so as to screen at least a portion of a front surface of the main body (Fig 6 flow guide element 17 between door 8 and control panel 5 and in front of main body 2, which would function to screen at least a portion of front of main body 2).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thaller (using a different embodiment than that cited in the rejection to Thaller above, specifically that of Fig 1 rather than Fig 6).
Regarding claim 1, Thaller discloses a cooking appliance (paragraph [0001], “oven with a cooking chamber”) comprising:
a cavity having a cooking chamber defined therein and having an open front surface (Fig 1 cooking chamber 3);
a door disposed in front of the cavity to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 1, oven door 8);
a control panel disposed on top of the cavity and the door (Fig 1 control panel 5 at front of switch unit 4)
a front panel disposed between the cavity and the door (Fig 1 cooking chamber flange 2)
an air guide disposed in front of the front panel so as to screen at least a portion of the front panel, wherein the air guide is disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 1 temperature resistant plastic part 16 of flow guide elements 15/16, see Abstract, between door 8 and control panel 5 and in front of front panel 2, which would function to guide air flow and to screen at least a portion of front panel 2).
Regarding claim 5, Thaller further discloses that the air guide is disposed in a front space surrounded with the door, the front panel, and the control panel (Fig 1, front space in figure is defined by door 8 on the bottom, front panel 2 on the left, and control panel 5 at top with air guide 16 disposed in this space).
Regarding claim 6, Thaller further discloses that a door exhaust port configured to provide communication between an inner space of the door and the front space is formed in an upper end of the door facing the control panel (Fig 1 outlet opening 14; paragraph [0019]), and wherein the door exhaust port is disposed between the air guide and the front panel in a frontward-rearward direction (Fig 1 door exhaust port 14 is shown between air guide 16 and front panel 2).
Regarding claim 9, Thaller further discloses that a door exhaust port configured to provide communication between an inner space of the door and the front space is formed in an upper end of the door facing the control panel (Fig 1 outlet opening 14, paragraph [0019]), wherein the door is divided into a front half portion and a rear half portion arranged in a frontward-rearward direction, and wherein the door exhaust port is disposed in the rear half portion disposed at a rear of the front half portion (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, Thaller further discloses that the second half portion has an inclined surface that is inclined downwardly as the second half portion extends in a rearward direction, and wherein the door exhaust port is positioned at a lower vertical level than a vertical level of an upper end of the first half portion (Fig 1).
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.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaller in view of EP 0532393 by Montassier et al (hereinafter “Montassier”).
Regarding claim 2, Thaller teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1 (see details in first claim 1 rejection above). Thaller teaches that the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel (Fig 6) and is attached to the housing (paragraph [0024]), but Thaller does not teach a cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel and the air guide is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion.
However, Montassier teaches a relatable cooking appliance having a cooking chamber (Fig 2 enclosure 3), a door in front of the cooking chamber to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 2 door 5), a control panel (Fig 2 control strip 4), and an air guide disposed in front of the front panel and disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 2 deflector 11, also see the prior art shown in Fig 1 having a similar deflector 8). Montassier further teaches a cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel, wherein the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel and is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion (Fig 2 shows air guide 11 spaced apart from lower end of control panel 4 and coupled to the control panel 4 via a protrusion which protrudes downwardly from the control panel 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 cooking appliance of Thaller by including a cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel, wherein the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel and is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion, as taught by Montassier, in order to securely attach the air guide to the apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Thaller, modified with Montassier, teaches the cooking appliance of claim 2, including the cover protrusion protruding from the control panel (see above).
Thaller and Montassier teach the claimed invention except for the lower end of the control panel and the cover protrusion being formed integrally with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the lower end of the control panel and the cover protrusion integrally with each other, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04 V-B). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Thaller teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1 (see details in first claim 1 rejection above). Thaller teaches that the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel (Fig 6) and is attached to the housing (paragraph [0024]), but Thaller does not teach a cover protrusion protruding upwardly from the air guide toward the control panel so as to be coupled to the control panel, wherein the air guide is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion.
However, Montassier teaches a relatable cooking appliance having a cooking chamber (Fig 2 enclosure 3), a door in front of the cooking chamber to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 2 door 5), a control panel (Fig 2 control strip 4), and an air guide disposed in front of the front panel and disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 2 deflector 11, also see the prior art shown in Fig 1 having a similar deflector 8). Montassier further teaches a cover protrusion protruding upwardly from the air guide toward the control panel so as to be coupled to the control panel, wherein the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel and is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion (Fig 2 shows air guide 11 spaced apart from lower end of control panel 4 and coupled to the control panel 4 via a protrusion which protrudes upwardly from the air guide 11).
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 cooking appliance of Thaller by including a cover protrusion protruding upwardly from the air guide toward the control panel so as to be coupled to the control panel, wherein the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel and is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion, as taught by Montassier, in order to securely attach the air guide to the apparatus.
Claims 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaller and Montassier in view of US 2006/0001273 by Smith et al (hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 4, Thaller teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Thaller that the air guide is Thaller teaches that the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel (Fig 6) and is attached to the housing (paragraph [0024]), but Thaller is silent as to an outer cover protrusion. Thaller does not teach a latch disposed in the cavity and selectively engaged with the door; and an outer cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel, wherein at least a portion of the latch is exposed to a position in front of the front panel, and wherein the outer cover protrusion is disposed in front of the latch and screens at least a portion of the latch.
However, Montassier teaches a relatable cooking appliance having a cooking chamber (Fig 2 enclosure 3), a door in front of the cooking chamber to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 2 door 5), a control panel (Fig 2 control strip 4), and an air guide disposed in front of the front panel and disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 2 deflector 11, also see the prior art shown in Fig 1 having a similar deflector 8). Montassier further teaches an outer cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel to couple the control panel with the air guide (Fig 2 shows air guide 11 spaced apart from lower end of control panel 4 and coupled to the control panel 4 via a protrusion which protrudes downwardly from the control panel 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 cooking appliance of Thaller by including an outer cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel, as taught by Montassier, in order to securely couple the air guide to the control panel.
But Thaller/Montassier does not teach a latch disposed in the cavity and selectively engaged with the door; wherein at least a portion of the latch is exposed to a position in front of the front panel, and wherein the outer cover protrusion is disposed in front of the latch and screens at least a portion of the latch.
However, Smith teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1 range 10) comprising a cavity having a cooking chamber (Fig 1 oven cavity 24), a door disposed in front of the cavity (Fig 1 oven door 26), and a front panel disposed between the cavity and the door (Fig 1 front wall 19 of range body). Smith further teaches a latch disposed in the cavity and selectively engaged with the door (Fig 1 door latch assembly 40; paragraph [0029]); wherein at least a portion of the latch is exposed to a position in front of the front panel (Figs 6-7, front hook 90 of latch member 92 has at least a portion exposed to a position in front of front panel 19).
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 cooking appliance of Thaller/Montassier by including a latch disposed in the cavity and selectively engaged with the door, wherein at least a portion of the latch is exposed to a position in front of the front panel, as taught by Smith. This would allow the door to be selectively latched so that unintentional opening may be prevented, particularly during certain oven modes, such as self-cleaning mode, wherein unintentional opening may be hazardous. This modification of Thaller/Montassier with the latch of Smith would necessarily result in the claimed invention, wherein the outer cover protrusion is disposed in front of the latch and screens at least a portion of the latch.
Regarding claim 14, Thaller/Montassier/Smith teaches the cooking appliance of claim 4 (see above). Thaller further teaches that the air guide is positioned at a vertically central position of a space between the door having closed the cooking chamber and the control panel (Fig 6, with door closed, air guide 17 is positioned at a vertically central position between door and control panel, i.e. air guide is positioned near the middle of the space).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Thaller with Montassier and Smith teaches the cooking appliance of claim 14 (see above). Furthermore, the modification of Thaller with the cover protrusion of Montassier and the latch of Smith results in a cooking appliance wherein the outer cover protrusion is disposed between the control panel and the air guide and screens the at least a portion of the latch (The modification of Thaller with outer cover protrusion taught by Montassier results in the outer cover protrusion disposed between the control panel and the air guide, as shown in Fig 2 of Montassier; the modification with the latch of Smith results in the latch positioned partially in front of the front panel at the rear of the door; thus the combination would necessarily result in an outer cover protrusion positioned in front of the latch and which functions to screen at least a portion of the latch).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaller and in view of KR 20210083041 by Lim et al (hereinafter “Lim”).
Regarding claim 7, Thaller teaches the cooking appliance of claim 6, including the door exhaust port disposed between the air guide and the front panel in the frontward-rearward direction (see details in claim 6 rejection above). But Thaller does not explicitly teach an electric component chamber disposed on top of the cavity, wherein at least a portion of the front panel is disposed in front of the electric component chamber, wherein an exhaust port that provides communication between an inner space of the electric component chamber and the front space is formed in the front panel.
However, Lim teaches that it is known to form a cooking appliance (Fig 1 oven 1) with an electric component chamber disposed on top of the cavity (Fig 3 electrical room 40 above cooking chamber 30), wherein at least a portion of the front panel is disposed in front of the electric component chamber (Fig 2 front panel 21, which also extends in front of electric component chamber and which includes front panel cover 41, see Figs 3-4 and paragraph [0049]), wherein an exhaust port that provides communication between an inner space of the electric component chamber and a front space is formed in the front panel (Fig 2 shows exhaust port 71 in front panel; paragraph [0076]).
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 cooking appliance of Thaller by including an electric component chamber disposed on top of the cavity, wherein at least a portion of the front panel is disposed in front of the electrical component chamber, wherein an exhaust port that provides communication between an inner space of the electrical component chamber and the front space is formed in the front panel, as is known in the art. This would allow for a space to house electrical components of the oven, such as oven control components, a camera, or other accessories where the components may be cooled by a flow of air that is exhausted through the exhaust port.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaller in view of Montassier and in further view of US 2010/0101556 by Dell’Oglio et al (hereinafter “Dell’Oglio”).
Regarding claim 11, Thaller teaches the cooking appliance of claim 1 (see details in first claim 1 rejection above). But Thaller is silent as to the means of coupling the air guide to the appliance.
Montassier teaches a relatable cooking appliance having a cooking chamber (Fig 2 enclosure 3), a door in front of the cooking chamber to open and close the cooking chamber (Fig 2 door 5), a control panel (Fig 2 control strip 4), and an air guide disposed in front of the front panel and disposed between the door and the control panel (Fig 2 deflector 11, also see the prior art shown in Fig 1 having a similar deflector 8). Montassier further teaches a cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of the control panel, wherein the air guide is spaced apart from the lower end of the control panel and is coupled to the control panel via the cover protrusion (Fig 2 shows air guide 11 spaced apart from lower end of control panel 4 and coupled to the control panel 4 via a protrusion which protrudes downwardly from the control panel 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 cooking appliance of Thaller by including a cover protrusion, wherein the air guide is coupled to the cover protrusion, as taught by Montassier, in order to securely attach the air guide to the apparatus.
But Thaller/Montassier does not explicitly teach that the cover protrusion comprises a plurality of cover protrusions arranged to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance, wherein the air guide is coupled to each of the plurality of cover protrusions.
However, Dell’Oglio teaches a cooking appliance (Abstract, Fig 1 oven 10) comprising a door (Fig 1-3, door 300) and an air guide positioned above the door and coupled to an upper edge of an air exhaust path (Fig 4 flow diverter 120 at upper and horizontal profile 61 of hot air exit vent 60). Dell’Oglio teaches that a plurality of cover protrusions is arranged to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance and the air guide is coupled to each of the plurality of cover protrusions (Fig 8 air guide 120 is coupled to anchor plate 101 at each of supports 102, 103, and 104 via spiral springs 130 which protrude from the anchor plate).
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 cooking appliance of Thaller/Montassier by using a plurality of cover protrusions arranged to be spaced apart from each other at a predetermined distance, with the air guide coupled to each of the plurality of cover protrusions, since coupling the air guide to the appliance with multiple, spaced apart coupling protrusions would result in greater stability compared to a coupling with single coupling protrusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8, and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a cooking appliance with all of the limitations of claim 3 as interpreted, particularly the limitation requiring a cover protrusion disposed in front of each partition wall, along with all of the other limitations of the claim. Montassier teaches a cover protrusion protruding downwardly from a lower end of a control panel to couple an air guide with the control panel (Fig 2 shows a protrusion coupling air guide 11 to the control panel 4). But none of the prior art of record teaches a plurality of inner cover protrusions positioned specifically in front of each of a plurality of partition walls between exhaust ports in the front panel.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is allowable for the same or substantially the same reasoning.
Claim 17 is allowable at least because it depends from claim 16.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a cooking appliance with all of the limitations of claim 8, particularly the limitation requiring the control panel and the cover protrusion formed integrally, along with all of the other limitations of the claim.
Thaller, modified with Lim, teaches the cooking appliance of claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection above). But Thaller/Lim does not teach that the control panel and the cover protrusion are formed integrally with each other and are made of plastic material and wherein the air guide is made of a metal material, nor would it have been obvious to modify Thaller/Lim with these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0215345 by Lee et al (cited on Applicant’s IDS) teaches a cooking appliance with an air guide (100) disposed above the door.
US 2017/0082296 by Jeong et al teaches a cooking appliance with a blocking plate (110) attached to the bottom of the control panel above the door to deflect a flow of hot air.
FR 2746903 by Branger et al (cited on Applicant’s IDS) teaches a cooking appliance with an air guide (5) disposed above the door.
US 2015/0068510 by Lee et al teaches an air flow guide (80) disposed above the door.
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