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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an RF signal generation unit “ in claim 1. In particular, the claim limitation “an RF signal generation unit ” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “configured to oscillate an RF signal” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “an RF signal generation unit ” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a radiation element” in claim 1. In particular, the claim limitation “a radiation element” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “configured to radiate the RF energy into the cavity” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “a radiation element” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “RF signal generation unit”, in para 0032, the specification states: oscillators 101 a and 101 b correspond to an RF signal generation unit, therefore, the RF signal generation unit is construed as oscillators.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the controller resets the output value of the RF energy using software control,” however the reset[ing] is not described in the specification, rather the specification only describes the controller reduces the output value, such as in Para. 0044 in the applicant’s specification. It is unclear how the controller “resets” the output value, and to what value the output is reset. For purposes of examination, the limitation is taken to be the controller reduces the output value.
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 limitation “a radiation element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what constitutes “a radiation element” as the specification only recites in [0010] The radiation element radiates the RF energy into the cavity. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US20160345389A1) in view of Ito (JP 2004309026) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Torres teaches a radio frequency (RF) energy radiation device ([0026] cooking oven that cooks food items by applying RF radiation to the food items) comprising:
a cavity (116) in which a heating target object (101) is to be placed (Fig. 2A)
an RF signal generation unit (130) configured to oscillate an RF signal ([0033] RF power source 114 may include an oscillator 130,);
an RF amplifier (132) configured to amplify the RF signal to provide RF energy ([0034] amplifier 132 for amplifying, for example, a waveforms generated by oscillator 130)
a radiation element (134) configured to radiate the RF energy into the cavity ([0035] at least one radiating element 134 configured to deliver electromagnetic energy to zone 116)
a detector (120) configured to detect an outputted power value of the RF energy transmitted from the RF amplifier toward the radiation element ([0049] detector 120 may include a power meter configured to detect a level of power associated with an incident, reflected and/or transmitted electromagnetic wave)
a temperature sensor ([0113] thermometer) disposed in a vicinity of the RF amplifier ([0113] a wireless thermometer may be placed in zone 116);
a controller (112) configured to cause the RF amplifier (132) to adjust an output value of the RF energy in accordance with the outputted power value detected by the detector ([0050, 0115] absorbable energy may be calculated as a product of the incident energy (e.g., maximum incident energy) supplied to the at least one radiating element (e.g., antenna) and a dissipation ratio; the characterization information related to the object, and/or the time-temperature profile. As used herein, the predetermined and/or desired processing result may include, for example, reaching a certain temperature; absorbing a certain amount of energy), and a difference between a temperature detected by the temperature sensor (T1 at ta Fig. 4B) and a lowest threshold of a plurality of threshold levels (T0 Fig. 4B; where amount of energy applied is a result of temperature and absorbed power, calculated using incident output power, as shown in Fig. 4B),
the controller sets the output value of the RF energy using software control ([0115] 408 processor may determine a second amount of energy to be dissipated in the object; being the application of RF energy) in accordance with the outputted power value detected by the detector ([0050, 0115] absorbable energy may be calculated as a product of the incident energy (e.g., maximum incident energy) supplied to the at least one radiating element (e.g., antenna) and a dissipation ratio; the characterization information related to the object, and/or the time-temperature profile. As used herein, the predetermined and/or desired processing result may include, for example, reaching a certain temperature; absorbing a certain amount of energy)
and when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds a highest of the plurality of threshold levels ([0100]] desired temperature reached, being the highest threshold level), a hardware stops an output of the RF energy ([0100] when the coldest part of the food reaches the desired temperature, cooking may be stopped).
Torres is silent on wherein when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the lowest threshold level of the plurality of threshold levels, the controller resets the output value of the RF energy using software control.
Ito teaches wherein when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the lowest threshold level of the plurality of threshold levels ([0014] when the temperature at the base point is equal to or lower than the predetermined temperature L1), the controller resets the output value of the RF energy using software control ([0014] the control unit reduces the output of the magnetron, where reducing the output of the magnetron is taken to be a resetting).
Torres and Ito are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RF energy applicators. It would have been obvious to have modified the controller setting the output value of the RF energy using software control in accordance with the outputted power value detected by the detector when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the lowest threshold level of the plurality of threshold levels, as taught by Torres to incorporate the teachings of Ito to have the controller reset the output value of the RF energy using software control when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the lowest threshold level of the plurality of threshold levels, in order to be able prevent the occurrence of abnormality of the magnetron in advance while maintaining the cooking capability of the cooking sequence without excessively stopping the magnetron by rapidly and appropriately reducing the output of the magnetron by combining the detection conditions according to the temperature characteristics from the low temperature state of the magnetron (Ito [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Torres and Ito teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 1, and Torres teaches wherein the plurality of threshold levels comprise: a first threshold level (T0), a second threshold level higher than the first threshold level (T1), and a third threshold level higher than the second threshold level (T2),
wherein when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the first threshold level (T0), the controller causes the RF amplifier to adjust an output of the RF energy in accordance with the temperature that exceeds the first threshold level ([0115] 408 processor may determine a second amount of energy to be dissipated in the object; being the application of RF energy),
and when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the third threshold level, the controller stops the RF signal generation unit ([0100] when the coldest part of the food reaches the desired temperature, cooking may be stopped).
Torres does not teach when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the second threshold level, the controller causes the RF amplifier to reduce the output of the RF energy,
Ito teaches when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor exceeds the second threshold level, the controller causes the RF amplifier to reduce the output of the RF energy ([0015] when the temperature at the base point is higher than the predetermined temperature L1 and equal to or lower than the predetermined temperature L2, the control unit reduces the output of the magnetron).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres to incorporate the teachings of Ito to reduce the energy applied when a second temperature threshold is reached in order to be able prevent the occurrence of abnormality of the magnetron in advance while maintaining the cooking capability of the cooking sequence without excessively stopping the magnetron by rapidly and appropriately reducing the output of the magnetron by combining the detection conditions according to the temperature characteristics from the low temperature state of the magnetron (Ito [0014]).
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US20160345389A1) and Ito (JP 2004309026) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Guatta (US10772165).
Regarding claim 7, Torres and Ito teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 6, but are silent on wherein the second threshold level varies depending on a rising rate of the temperature detected by the temperature sensor.
Guatta teaches wherein the second threshold level varies depending on a rising rate of the temperature detected by the temperature sensor (Col. 34 lines 20-40, Col. 35 lines 50-60 Figs. 36-38 The controller 14 may control the heating of a liquid by performing heating method 740 shown in FIG. 36, in which the controller 14 first measures the coefficient of variation of efficiency during a still phase (step 742) that may correspond to an initial heating period. The coefficient of variation of efficiency measured during the still phase may be utilized to define a threshold (e.g., threshold 743, FIG. 35B) indicative of the strong boiling state (step 744). The coefficient of variation results for milk demonstrate changes in the reflected power at approximately 37° C., 50° C., and 85° C. based upon steep changes in permittivity with respect to temperature rise that are related to protein denaturation and other chemical changes. These chemical reactions drive frequency shifts and Q-factor variations in the resonances of the system 10).
Torres, Ito, and Guatta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RF heating devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Torres and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Guatta to vary a threshold based on a rising rate of a temperature in order to greatly improve energy consumption and enables a user to obtain an optimum milk temperature without having to input any specific characteristics of the milk such as mass or volume (Guatta Col. 36 lines 30-40).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US20160345389A1) and Ito (JP 2004309026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kammeoka (JP2009187842) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 8, Torres and Ito teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the RF amplifier is included in a semiconductor device disposed on a substrate in such a manner that a bottom of the semiconductor device is in contact with a base plate, and the temperature sensor is disposed on a side of the substrate opposite to a side on which the semiconductor device is disposed.
Kameoka teaches the RF amplifier is included in a semiconductor device disposed on a substrate in such a manner that a bottom of the semiconductor device is in contact with a base plate ([0015-0016] magnetrons 13a and 13b, being the semiconductor device, having waveguides 1a and 1b, antennas 2a and 2b, and antenna drive motors 3a and 3b as shown in Figs. 1 and 5, attached to placement table 20 of the heating chamber 5), and the temperature sensor is disposed on a side of the substrate opposite to a side on which the semiconductor device is disposed ([0013] Figs. 1 to 3 load detecting means 6 for detecting a temperature, shown to be at the top of heating chamber 5, opposite the side of which magnetrons 13 a and 13 b are placed).
Torres, Ito, and Kameoka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RF heating devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Torres and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Kameoka to have a RF amplifier included with a semiconductor device at a base plate of the device with a temperature sensor at the opposite side in order to protect a magnetron from a failure or a decrease in efficiency due to overheating of the magnetron itself (Kameoka [0001]).
Regarding claim 9, Torres and Ito teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 1, but are silent on the RF amplifier is included in a semiconductor device disposed on a substrate in such a manner that a bottom of the semiconductor device is in contact with a base plate, and the temperature sensor is disposed on a same side of the substrate as a side on which the semiconductor device is disposed.
Kameoka teaches the RF amplifier is included in a semiconductor device disposed on a substrate in such a manner that a bottom of the semiconductor device is in contact with a base plate ([0015-0016] magnetrons 13a and 13b, being the semiconductor device, having waveguides 1a and 1b, antennas 2a and 2b, and antenna drive motors 3a and 3b as shown in Figs. 1 and 5, attached to placement table 20 of the heating chamber 5), and the temperature sensor is disposed on a same side of the substrate as a side on which the semiconductor device is disposed ([0044] Fig. 10 the antenna 2c, the antenna drive motor 3c, the waveguide 1c, and the magnetron 13c shown to be at the top of heating chamber 5, being the same side of load detecting means 6).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Kameoka to have a RF amplifier included with a semiconductor device at a base plate of the device with a temperature sensor on the same side in order to protect a magnetron from a failure or a decrease in efficiency due to overheating of the magnetron itself (Kameoka [0001]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres (US20160345389A1) and Ito (JP 2004309026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mattfolk (US20160323939) and Johansson (US10368404).
Regarding claim 10, Torres and Ito teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 1 , but are silent on a protection circuit, wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator, the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator, and the protection circuit is configured to stop the output of the RF energy by using the hardware.
Mattfolk teaches further comprising: a protection circuit (42, 44), and the protection circuit (42, 44) is configured to stop the output of the RF energy by using the hardware ([0028] interrupting circuits 42, 44 interrupt microwave generator 24 to cut power).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Mattfolk to have a protection circuit in order to monitor the electrical couplings and detect a fault between respective components, such as irregular or erroneous power characteristics (Mattfolk [0020]).
Torres, Ito, and Mattfolk are silent on but is silent on wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator, the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator.
Johansson teaches wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator (Col.5 lines 5-15 preamplifier 38 may amplify or attenuate), the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator (Col.5 lines 5-15 RF controller 32 send signals to amplify or attenuate microwave signal).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres, Ito, and Mattfolk to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to have an RF amplifier with a variable attenuator controlled by a control in order to be able to set a specific microwave signal per channel to a distinct amplitude (Johansson Col.5 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 11, Torres, Ito, and Mattfolk teach the RF energy radiation device according to claim 6, but Torres and Ito are silent on a protection circuit, wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator, the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator, and the protection circuit is configured to stop the output of the RF energy by using the hardware.
Mattfolk teaches further comprising: a protection circuit (42, 44), and the protection circuit (42, 44) is configured to stop the output of the RF energy by using the hardware ([0028] interrupting circuits 42, 44 interrupt microwave generator 24 to cut power).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Mattfolk to have a protection circuit in order to monitor the electrical couplings and detect a fault between respective components, such as irregular or erroneous power characteristics (Mattfolk [0020]).
Torres, Ito, and Mattfolk are silent on but is silent on wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator, the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator.
Johansson teaches wherein the RF amplifier includes variable attenuator (Col.5 lines 5-15 preamplifier 38 may amplify or attenuate), the controller is configured to control an attenuation amount of the variable attenuator using the software control to adjust the variable attenuator (Col.5 lines 5-15 RF controller 32 send signals to amplify or attenuate microwave signal).
It would have been obvious to have modified Torres, Ito, and Mattfolk to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to have an RF amplifier with a variable attenuator controlled by a control in order to be able to set a specific microwave signal per channel to a distinct amplitude (Johansson Col.5 lines 5-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 08/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Mattfolk (US20160323939) and Johansson (US10368404) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited references Torres (US20160345389A1) and Ito (JP 2004309026).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/16/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761