Rear Wall Rack Retention to Prevent Oven Rack Toe-In
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional sliding oven racks suffer from 'toe-in' due to torsional over-loading, requiring complex and costly redesigns of oven sidewalls to prevent assembly failure, which increases material costs and reduces assembly lifespan.
Innovation Solution
The design eliminates the need for a sub-frame by utilizing retention members that interact with the rear wall of the oven cavity, providing anti-tip and retention functionality without modifying the sidewalls, using rear wall retainers to stabilize the assembly and prevent 'toe-in'.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a sub-frame is used to prevent toe-in, then assembly strength and reliability are improved, but device complexity and material costs increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent removes the sub-frame component entirely and extracts the anti-tip functionality to be provided by the retention members interacting with the rear wall. This eliminates the harmful complexity of the sub-frame while maintaining the necessary stability function through a simpler retention member-rear wall interface.
Solution Approach 2:
Instead of adding structural support from the sides (sub-frame), the patent inverts the approach by using the rear wall as the primary retention structure. The retention members engage with the rear wall to provide anti-tip functionality, reversing the conventional approach of side-mounted support structures.
2Reliability
If anti-tip design elements are added to interact with sidewalls, then toe-in prevention is improved, but device complexity and manufacturing cost increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts the anti-tip function from complex sidewall interaction mechanisms and relocates it to simpler retention members that interact with the rear wall. This removes the need for costly sidewall modifications while maintaining toe-in prevention capability.
Solution Approach 2:
The retention members are designed as simpler, more economical components compared to complex anti-tip design elements. By using basic retention members with rear wall retainers rather than elaborate sidewall interaction mechanisms, the patent reduces manufacturing cost while achieving the same functional outcome.
3Stability of the object's composition
If retention members interact with rear wall retainers, then assembly stability is improved, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent merges the retention member and rear wall retainer into a unified anti-tip system. The retention member includes an integrated retainer that directly engages with the rear wall, combining multiple functions into a single streamlined component structure that reduces overall device complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The rear wall retainer serves multiple functions: it provides structural attachment points, enables anti-tip functionality, and facilitates assembly retention. By making the rear wall structure multi-functional, the patent eliminates the need for separate sub-frames and complex anti-tip mechanisms, thereby reducing device complexity while maintaining stability.
Data Source
AI summary
A sliding rack assembly includes an rack, a pair of retention members supporting the rack, and a pair of rear wall retainers. Each retention member includes a slide assembly and a retention plate fixed to the slide assembly. Each retention plate includes a front end for being toward an opening of the cavity and a rear end for being disposed toward a rear wall of the cavity. The rear end of the retention plate includes a holding feature. The rear wall retainers are for being fixed to the rear wall of the cavity. Each rear wall retainer includes a plurality of vertically spaced retention features. Each retention feature is for connecting with a holding feature of a retention member to prevent the retention members from tipping inwardly and separating from the rear wall retainers.