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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 18 September 2025. As directed by Applicant, only claim 9 is amended. No new claims are added or cancelled. Claim 1, 2 and 5-21 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
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 (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 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 1, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) and Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Byrne (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019 0229511).
Regarding claim 1, Sherer discloses a microwave cooking appliance (Title) comprising:
a housing (Sherer, Fig. 1, base section 12 with top 32 and the other side sections), having a cooking cavity (microwave 40, cavity is behind door 42, column 2 lines 38-50);
a door (door 42) movable between a closed position closing a front opening to define a portion of the cooking cavity and an open position different from the closed position (column 2 lines 45 “can be opened and closed”);
a cord housing (built into 26) having a cord cavity (76) and positioned within the housing;
a cord (74) having a length (the cord is a certain length, fig. 3), wherein the cord is positionable between at least one stowed position within the cord cavity (Sherer, cord 74 that is stored in a cord compartment 76” col. 3, ll. 21-22), and one or more deployed positions out of the cord cavity (when it is out of the cavity being plugged in via 78 or 80, fig. 3);
However, Sherer does not disclose
a relief member is fixedly attached to the cord and travels with the cord within the cord cavity and when in a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord cavity, nor
wherein the cord housing includes an inlet and an outlet adjacent a top wall of the cord housing, wherein when in the at least one stowed position a second length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards a bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the second length portion is larger than the first length portion; and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion.
However, Farah teaches a strain relief member (726) is fixedly attached to the cord and travels with the cord (cable 724) within the cord cavity (within recess 113) and when in a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord cavity (Farah, ¶0045, fig. 7A, “ Retractable cord 724 can be used in combination with overextension preventer 726, which is fixed to at least one portion of retractable cord 724 and stops in contact with cord aperture 725 or another component to prevent retractable cord 724 from being overextended and separating from spool 727 or power coupler 728”; emphasis added). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to modify Sherer with the teaching of Farah to modify the cord and have a retractable cord and to have attached to the cord a device that is an “overextension preventer” which is “fixed to at least one portion of the retractable cord and “stops in contact with the with the cord aperture” in order to prevent overextension of the cord, so that it only extends as long as far as desired, and to use a conventional means (“overextension preventer”) in a conventional way (i.e. being attached to the cord”) in order to achieve the predictable result of pulling out the cord only to a certain length, and then having the fixed preventor caught from inside the housing to prevent further extension.
And while Sherer in view of Farah teaches all the above limitations, it does not teach wherein the cord housing includes an inlet and an outlet adjacent a top wall of the cord housing, wherein when in the at least one stowed position a second length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards a bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the second length portion is larger than the first length portion; and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion.
Now, reference Yoshidome does not teach a housing for the cord, per se, but he does teach allowing area “adjacent a top wall” for the inlet of the plug, even cut- out area of what might otherwise be his microwave space, see Figs. 1 and 7), for area to store the cord so it does not get in the way. Having a housing is still disclosed in Sherer. Further, it is noted that Byrne teaches wherein when in the at least one in Byrne, where 14a is located in fig. 4] and extends downwardly towards a bottom (Byrne, fig. 4, turning arcuately where the weighted donut 332 is located to pull the cord down) turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the (Byrne, where 330 is located in fig. 4), and wherein the second length (the portion in the housing when the cord is in the completely stored position) portion is larger than the first length portion (the length of the cord in the housing when the cord is in the completely deployed position; the plug length within the housing is minimal when the cord is completely extended, but in the completely stored position, with the cord end all the way up to element 330, in our reference, the length that would be in the stored container is from 14a that leads to the donut and then back up is the longest); and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion (In Byrne, Fig. 4, for instance, this would be where the plug is not completely extended but not completely retracted, where it is in use but the full length of the cord is not required for its purpose, so that the “third length” that is in the housing is longer than the “first length”, if the cord was completely extended, and shorter than the “second length” if the cord was fully retracted). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teachings of Yoshidome and Byrne, to create a housing for access to the cord from the top, and to have the length within the housing to be adjustable, to have an inlet into a housing for stowing and an outlet to extend the cord as needed, in order to create space for the cord mechanism that is elongated and to have the wire come out of the top and be accessible, to prevent the cord from hanging down and being caught since it the microwave is movable, and also so that it should have enough place and storage for the cord device of Farah, and even to even have space and a method of retraction of the cord when not in use (via the cord being counterweighted by the weighted donut, in this case).
Regarding claim 7, Sherer in view of Farah Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a microwave cooking appliance wherein the housing includes a top wall, wherein the top wall defines an aperture slidably receiving the length of the cord therethrough between the at least one stowed position and the one or more deployed positions. However, Yoshidome teaches a top wall (fig. 1) that defines an aperture (30a) for [] receiving the length of the cord therethrough []. Now, all the other limitations of the claim are already taught in the previous references. That is, the device “slidably” receives the cord between the at least one stowed position and the one or more deployed positions are already learned. (learned from Farah). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teachings of Yoshidome, to have the power cord received through an aperture in the top wall, in order to have the cord accessible, since this is a movable device, so the cord is obviously attached, and to also not let the cord fall down, or drag or the ground, or easily get stuck under the device.
Regarding claim 17, Sherer discloses a method of managing a power cord of a microwave cooking appliance, the method comprising:
providing a microwave cooking appliance housing (Sherer, Fig. 1) having an aperture (opening into 76, fig. 3) in communication with a cord housing (Sherer 76) within the microwave cooking appliance, wherein the cord housing includes a cord (74) having a length with a plug end (78), wherein the plug end is exterior to the microwave cooking appliance housing in both a stowed position and a deployed position (it may be located there, see fig. 3);
deploying the portion of the cord out of the cord housing from the stowed position through the aperture to the deployed position (cord comes out of aperture, i.e. entrance to compartment 76); and
Sherer does not disclose stopping the deployment of the cord out of the cord housing and the aperture with a strain relief member fixedly attached to the cord, wherein when in a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord housing;
stowing a second length portion of the length of the cord within the cord housing in the stowed position, wherein the cord housing includes an inlet and an outlet adjacent a top wall of the cord housing, wherein when in the stowed position the second length portion of the length extends downwardly towards a bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending though the outlet, and wherein the second length portion is larger than the first length portion; and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion.
However, Farah teaches stopping the deployment of the cord out of the cord housing and the aperture with a strain relief member fixedly attached to the cord, wherein when a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord housing (Farah, ¶0045, fig. 7A, “ Retractable cord 724 can be used in combination with overextension preventer 726, which is fixed to at least one portion of retractable cord 724 and stops in contact with cord aperture 725 or another component to prevent retractable cord 724 from being overextended and separating from spool 727 or power coupler 728”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to modify Sherer with the teaching of Farah to modify the cord and have a retractable cord and to have attached to the cord a device that is an “overextension preventer” which is “fixed to at least one portion of the retractable cord and “stops in contact with the with the cord aperture” in order to prevent overextension of the cord, so that it only extends as long as far as desired, and to use a conventional means (“overextension preventer”) in a conventional way (i.e. being attached to the cord”) in order to achieve the predictable result of pulling out the cord only to a certain length, and then having the fixed preventor caught from inside the housing to prevent further extension.
And while Sherer in view of Farah teaches all the above limitations, it does not teach wherein the cord housing includes an inlet and an outlet adjacent a top wall of the cord housing, wherein when in the at least one stowed position a second length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards a bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the second length portion is larger than the first length portion; and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion.
Now, reference Yoshidome does not teach a housing for the cord, per se, but he does teach allowing area “adjacent a top wall” for the inlet of the plug, even cut- out area of what might otherwise be his microwave space, see Figs. 1 and 7, for area to store the cord so it does not get in the way. Having a housing is still disclosed in Sherer. Further, it is noted that Byrne teaches wherein when in the at least one in Byrne, where 14a is located in fig. 4] and extends downwardly towards a bottom (Byrne, fig. 4, turning arcuately where the weighted donut 332 is located to pull the cord down) turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the (Byrne, where 330 is located in fig. 4), and wherein the second length (the portion in the housing when the cord is in the completely stored position) portion is larger than the first length portion (the length of the cord in the housing when the cord is in the completely deployed position; the plug length within the housing is minimal when the cord is completely extended, but in the completely stored position, with the cord end all the way up to element 330, in our reference, the length that would be in the stored container is from 14a that leads to the donut and then back up is the longest); and
wherein when in a second deployed position a third length portion of the length is fixed at the inlet and extends downwardly towards the bottom wall of the cord housing before arcuately turning back towards the top wall of the cord housing and extending through the outlet, and wherein the third length portion is larger than the first length portion and is smaller than the second length portion (In Byrne, Fig. 4, for instance, this would be where the plug is not completely extended but not completely retracted, where it is in use but the full length of the cord is not required for its purpose, so that the “third length” that is in the housing is longer than the “first length”, if the cord was completely extended, and shorter than the “second length” if the cord was fully retracted). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teachings of Yoshidome and Byrne, to create a housing for access to the cord from the top, and to have the length within the housing to be adjustable, to have an inlet into a housing for stowing and an outlet to extend the cord as needed, in order to create space for the cord mechanism that is elongated and to have the wire come out of the top and be accessible, to prevent the cord from hanging down and being caught since it the microwave is movable, and also so that it should have enough place and storage for the cord device of Farah, and even to even have space and a method of retraction of the cord when not in use (via the cord being counterweighted by the weighted donut, in this case).
Regarding claim 18, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches comprising sealing the cord adjacent the aperture (Farah, ¶0045, in the combination above).
Regarding claim 19, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but and further teaches a method wherein the strain relief member travels with the cord within the cord housing between the stowed position and the deployed position (Farah, ¶0045, fig. 7A, in the combination above).
Regarding claim 20, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, and further teaches a method comprising engaging the strain relief member from a disengaged position within the cord housing). (Farah, 0¶0045, figs. 7A, it is disengaged until it hits the aperture and stops the cord, at which point the preventor is engaged; understood from the combination above).
Regarding claim 21, Sherer in view of Farah Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the cord includes a single arcuate curve adjacent a bottom wall of the cord housing between an inlet and an outlet adjacent a top wall of the cord housing (this would be the curve within 332 of Byrne; this would have been incorporated into the combination above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) over Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) and Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Byrne and further in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent 2007/ 0193999).
Regarding claim 2, Sherer in view of Farah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a device wherein the housing includes a top wall (Sherer, fig. 1, column 2 lines 22-3; top section 30) and a bottom wall (14) interconnected by a pair of side walls (20 and 22), but does not teach wherein the cord housing longitudinally extends between the cooking cavity and one of the pair of side walls from the top wall towards the bottom wall. However, Peterson teaches wherein the cord housing longitudinally extends (Fig. 15, down and out) between the cooking cavity and one of the pair of side walls from the top wall towards the bottom wall (Peterson, fig. 15; the spool is attached to the wall, and the heating area does not extend to the wall, thus, it is between the heating area and the wall; heating areas can be seen in Figs. 18, microwave oven 1840, but the power cord would be combined from fig. 15, as ¶88 states, “Changes may be made in the above methods and systems without departing from the scope hereof”, and then goes on to give examples of how structures of different embodiments may be combined.). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teaching of Peterson, to modify the compartment and appliance, and to substitute the back, location of Sherer with the side location of Peterson as the place to store the cord, also allowing for more space for the retractable cord device of Farah, because the substitution of one known cord storage location for another is not inventive (KSR) as both would have yielded the predictable results of storing the cable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035), Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Byrne (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0229511) , and further in view of Hamula (U.S. Patent 5,450,874).
Regarding claim 5, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Byrne teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a microwave cooking appliance wherein the outlet is more proximal the door than the inlet.
However, it is noted that the back of a microwave is often where the electronics are and it would be obvious to have the inlet of the cord in the back and have the, connected to the electronics, and have the outlet of the cord, which means a user would have access to it, further forward, i.e. more proximal to the door, such as in Hamula (HAmula, where the entrance of the cord is in the back, but the outlet of the cord is farther forward and easier for a user to use, fig. 2)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Byrne with the teachings of Hamula, to have the wire come out of the top and be accessible, to prevent the cord to have the cord be accessible to a user since it the microwave is movable (Sherer, fig. 1)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035), Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Byrne (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0229511) and further in view of Swartfager (U.S. Patent 7,452,100).
Regarding claim 6, Sherer in view of Farah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a microwave cooking appliance wherein the strain relief member includes a larger diameter than a remaining portion of the cord. However, Swartfager teaches wherein the strain relief member (Swartfager 8) includes a larger diameter than a remaining portion of the cord (diameter goes around cord, so must be larger). Farah does not explicitly state how the member is attached to the cord. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teachings of Swartfager, to have such a “preventor” (Farah, ¶0045), attached to the cord in a conventional way, traveling with it and having a diameter that goes around it, in order to use a conventional method in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of preventing to much cord to extend beyond the housing. (See MPEP 2143A)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035), Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Byrne (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0229511) and further in view of Shotey (U.S. Patent 7,538,272).
Regarding claim 8, Sherer in view of Farah and Yoshidome teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a microwave cooking appliance wherein the aperture of the top wall includes a gasket, wherein the gasket seals against the cord.
However, Shotey a gasket at an aperture wherein the gasket seals against the cord (Shotey, Column 11 lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer In view of Farah and Yoshidome with the further teaching of Shotey, to have a gasket seal the opening for a cord, in order to increase the weatherproof characteristics of the microwave cooking appliance, to strive to seal the microwave cooking appliance so that the outside elements cannot do damage and prevent water and other things from entering through the hole through which the cord travels.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) and further in view of Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Beach (U.S Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0215643).
Regarding claim 9, Sherer discloses a microwave cooking appliance (Sherer, figs. 1,3) comprising:
a housing (Sherer, Fig. 1, base section 12 with top 32 and the other side sections) having a cooking cavity (microwave 40, cavity is behind door 42, column 2 lines 38-50) and
a door (42) movable between a closed position closing a front opening to define a portion of the cooking cavity and an open position different from the closed position (the door may open to allow access to the cavity);
a cord housing (fig. 3, cord compartment 76) having a cord cavity and positioned within the housing adjacent the top wall, and wherein the cord housing includes an outlet (where the cord comes of 76) and an inlet (where the cord enters compartment 76 from electrical controls of microwave, inside the main control housing);
a cord (Fig. 3, cord 74) having a length (inherent) and fixed adjacent the inlet of the cord housing,
However, Sherer does not disclose a housing having a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall, and a back wall opposite to the front wall, wherein a door to the cooking cavity is disposed adjacent the front wall, and wherein a sidewall interconnects the top wall, the bottom wall, the front wall, and the back wall, and wherein the housing includes an aperture through the top wall;
a cord housing wherein the cord housing is positioned between the cooking cavity and the sidewall of the housing and between the top wall and the bottom wall of the housing,
a cord wherein the cord is slidably received through both the aperture of the top wall and the outlet of the cord housing between at least one stowed position within the cord cavity and one or more deployed positions out of the cord cavity; and
a strain relief member is fixedly attached to the cord and travels with the cord within the cord cavity and when in a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord cavity.
However, Farah teaches “a cord slidably received” (Farah, ¶0045, Fig. 7A, “retractable cord” 724)) , and a strain relief member (Farah, 726) is fixedly attached to the cord and travels with the cord within the cord cavity and when in a first deployed position of the one or more deployed positions the strain relief member stops a first length portion of the length from being deployed from the cord cavity (Farah, ¶0045, fig. 7A, “ Retractable cord 724 can be used in combination with overextension preventer 726, which is fixed to at least one portion of retractable cord 724 and stops in contact with cord aperture 725 or another component to prevent retractable cord 724 from being overextended and separating from spool 727 or power coupler 728”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of the invention to modify Sherer with the teaching of Farah to modify the cord and have a retractable cord and to have attached to the cord a device that is an “overextension preventer” which is “fixed to at least one portion of the retractable cord and “stops in contact with the with the cord aperture” in order to prevent overextension of the cord, so that it only extends as long as far as desired, and to use a conventional means (“overextension preventer”) in a conventional way (i.e. being attached to the cord”) in order to achieve the predictable result of pulling out the cord only to a certain length, and then having the fixed preventor caught from inside the housing to prevent further extension.
And while Sherer in view of Farah teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach a housing having a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall, and a back wall opposite to the front wall, wherein a door to the cooking cavity is disposed adjacent the front wall, and wherein a sidewall interconnects the top wall, the bottom wall, the front wall, and the back wall, and wherein the housing includes an aperture through the top wall;
a cord housing wherein the cord housing is positioned between the cooking cavity and the sidewall of the housing and between the top wall and the bottom wall of the housing,
a cord wherein [] through both the aperture of the top wall and the outlet of the cord housing between at least one stowed position within the cord cavity and one or more deployed positions out of the cord cavity;
However, Yoshidome teaches a housing having a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall (Yoshidome, 20a, ¶0035), and a back wall (20c) opposite to the front wall, wherein a door to the cooking cavity is disposed adjacent the front wall (figs. 1, 2, 6, 7), and wherein a sidewall (20b) interconnects the top wall, the bottom wall, the front wall, and the back wall, and wherein the housing includes an aperture through the top wall (figs, 1-2, aperture through top wall is from figs. 1/2), a cord is positioned between the cooking cavity and the sidewall of the housing and between the top wall and the bottom wall of the housing (Yoshidome, fig. 7); and wherein the housing includes an aperture through the top wall (fig. 2, though top wall 30a). Although it is noted that is modification combines two embodiments of Yoshidome (fig. 2 and fig. 7) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine these references, and put a whole through the top wall and still have the invention with the cord cavity extending down, if there was a need for space or the specific requirement for the location of the plug. As well, while this is just space for the modification and not a “housing” or compartment, it would be obvious to add this modification to the cord housing of Sherer (in view of Farah), to take care of the plug and locate it in a convenient location to be accessible to a power source or another appliance above it, and have it be deployed efficiently, taking advantage of the retractable cord as taught in Farah.
And While Sherer in view of Farah and Yoshidome teach all the above limitation, it still does not teach a cord [] through both the aperture of the top wall and the outlet of the cord housing between at least one stowed position within the cord cavity and one or more deployed positions out of the cord cavity;
However, Beach teaches a cord [] through both the aperture [] and the outlet of the cord housing between at least one stowed position within the cord cavity and one or more deployed positions out of the cord cavity (Beach, outlet is “opening next to gate 27; and aperture is entire whole in which gate 27 is located, fig. 1, ¶27). In combination, this would be through the “top wall” when combined with Yoshidome. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah and Yoshidome with the teaching of Beach, to have both an outlet for the housing and an aperture though the wall for exposing a cord (seemingly what Applicant does as well, with the aperture being 12a and outlet being 42, seen as next to each other in Applicant’s Specification, Fig. 2), in order to better and more tightly close off the compartment, and to be sure the cord is within the compartment when not deployed, or mostly closed even when the cord is out (rather than the compartment of Sherer, 76),in order to better maintain the compartment and keep safe the components of the cord extraction, and to keep out contaminants.
Regarding claim 10, Sherer in view of Farah Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches in this combination a microwave cooking appliance wherein the strain relief member is engaged with at least one of the outlet of the cord housing and the aperture of the top wall when in the first deployed position and is disengaged from the at least one of the outlet of the cord housing and the aperture of the top wall when in a position different from the first deployed position (Farah, engaged with the outlet of the cord housing).
Regarding claim 13, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a microwave cooking appliance wherein the length of the cord includes U-shape within the cord housing (Farah, U position in spool 727, ), wherein the U-shape decreases in size from the at least one stowed position towards the first deployed position (inherent, the thickness of the cable within spool would decrease in size as the cord is deployed from the stowed position, in which there is more cord, to a deployed position, in which there is less cord stored).
Regarding claim 14, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a microwave cooking appliance wherein the inlet of the cord housing is more proximal to a front side of the appliance than the outlet of the cord housing (In combination with Yoshidome, where the cord goes through an aperture through a top wall, fig. from an aperture adjacent to the top), interpreting the cord at 7 the inlet, and the locating of the cord 4a into 30 the outlet, and thus the outlet is more towards the door 4 than the inlet.)
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) and further in view of Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Beach (U.S Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0215643) and further in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent 2007/ 0193999).
Regarding claim 11, Sherer in view of Farah and Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but do not further teach, explicitly, in this combination a microwave cooking appliance wherein the cord housing is elongated between a top wall and opposing bottom wall interconnected by a back wall and a front wall, wherein the inlet and the outlet are adjacent the top wall. However, Peterson teaches wherein the cord housing is elongated between a top wall and opposing bottom wall interconnected by a back wall and a front wall (Peterson, fig. 15; being between the top and the bottom and the front and the back means that this compartment would have to be on the side of the microwave; in Peterson, the spool is attached to the wall, and the heating area does not extend to the wall, thus, it is between the heating area and the wall; heating areas can be seen in Figs. 18, microwave oven 1840, but the power cord would be combined from fig. 15, as ¶88 states, “Changes may be made in the above methods and systems without departing from the scope hereof”, and then goes on to give examples of how structures of different embodiments may be combined.), wherein the inlet and the outlet are adjacent the top wall.) Thus, in the combination, the cord housing of Sherer 76 would be on the side, extending between the top and the bottom, and “the inlet (Yoshidome, fig. 2, where 4 comes out of 30) and the outlet (where cord goes out to 7) are adjacent the top wall”, it is also seen in Yoshidome Fig. 7, which is just used for the configuration not the actual compartment, that such a space would let the cord be elongated, extending from top to bottom),. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah and Yoshidome and Beach with the teaching of Peterson, to substitute the back location of Sherer with the side location of Peterson as the place to store the cord, also allowing space for the retractable cord device of Farah, because the substitution of one known cord storage location for another is not inventive (KSR) as both would have yielded the predictable results of storing the cable.
Regarding claim 12, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach and Peterson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teach, in this combination a microwave cooking appliance wherein when in the at least one stowed position (the retractable cord of Farah stored as in Yoshidome, fig. 7), the length of the cord (Yoshidome, 4) depends downwardly (seen in Yoshidome fig. 7 but on the side as in Peterson) from the inlet adjacent the top wall along the back wall, arcuately along the bottom wall towards the front wall, and extends upwardly adjacent the front wall towards and through the outlet (4 out 7) adjacent the top wall (Fig. 7).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) and further in view of Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Beach (U.S Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0215643) and further in view of Shotey (U.S. Patent 7,538,272).
Regarding claim 15, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a microwave cooking appliance wherein at least one of the aperture of the top wall and the outlet of the cord housing includes a gasket, wherein the gasket seals against the cord and maintains a plug end of the cord exterior to the aperture of the top wall when the cord is in the at least one stowed position and the one or more deployed positions. However, Shotey a gasket at an aperture wherein the gasket seals against the cord (Shotey, Column 11 lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach with the further teaching of Shotey, to teach “wherein at least one of the aperture of the top wall and the outlet of the cord housing includes a gasket, wherein the gasket seals against the cord and maintains a plug end of the cord exterior to the aperture of the top wall when the cord is in the at least one stowed position and the one or more deployed positions”, to have a gasket seal the opening for a cord, in order to increase the weatherproof characteristics of the microwave cooking appliance, to strive to seal the microwave cooking appliance so that the outside elements cannot do damage and prevent water and other things from entering through the hole through which the cord travels.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer (U.S. Patent 5,369,255) in view of Farah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0069035) Yoshidome (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0191923) and Beach (U.S Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0215643) and further in view of Swartfager (U.S. Patent 7,452,100).
Regarding claim 16, Sherer in view of Farah, Yoshidome and Beach teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a microwave cooking appliance wherein the strain relief member is an overmolded (this is a “product by process” limitation and “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, see MPEP 2113, here, the product is the same so this limitation is not given patentable weight.) member but does not further teach having a larger diameter than a remaining portion of the cord. However, Swartfager teaches wherein the strain relief member (Swartfager 8) includes a larger diameter than a remaining portion of the cord (diameter goes around cord, so must be larger). Farah does not explicitly state how the member is attached to the cord. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sherer in view of Farah with the teachings of Swartfager, to have such a “preventor” (Farah, ¶0045), attached to the cord in a conventional way, traveling with it and having a diameter that goes around it, in order to use a conventional method in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of preventing to much cord to extend beyond the housing. (See MPEP 2143A)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, essentially, that the references do not teach a housing for putting the cord in, “adjacent the top wall”, because Yoshidome, which is used to teach the location of the cord being “adjacent to the top wall” (Yoshidome, fig. 7) does not teach a compartment at all but that the cord is entirely out of the microwave machine and is just placed in space adjacent next to the machine (Remarks, regarding claims 1 and 17, p. 9 of 11 and, regarding claim 9, p. 10 of 11)). However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1 and 17 (pp. 6 and 11, respectively, above), it is noted that Yoshidome does not teach the housing, however, Yoshidome does teach space within the outside frame of the appliance where there is space for the cord to hang, even if, in Yoshidome, that space is actually not contained in a compartment. However, the original teaching of Sherer is still valid, that the cord has a housing in order to contain the cord when it is not dispensed, so that its extra length does not get in the way. Thus, Yoshidome is only being used to teach the location of the compartment, and thus the invention as claimed is obvious (see rejections above for exactly how the elements read on the claims). Consequently, the dependent claims are also rejected, and no other independent arguments are made.
Please contact Examiner regarding any questions or concerns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761