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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/17/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 21-27 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 6-8, 12-14 have been amended; claims 5, 15-20 cancelled; claim 27 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant(s)’ amendments filed 12/17/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 09/17/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation is maintained in this Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the limitations “first attachment mechanisms” as recited in claim 1 (lines 3-4, 6) & claim 8 (lines 3-4, 6) and “second attachment mechanisms” as recited in claim 1 (line 5) & claim 8 (line 5) do not meet the three-prong test under MPEP § 2181 (see details on page 7 of the Remarks dated 12/17/2025), Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations “first attachment mechanisms” and “second attachment mechanisms” meet the three-prong test under MPEP § 2181. Specifically,
“first attachment mechanisms” in claim 1 (lines 3-4, 6) & claim 8 (lines 3-4, 6). This limitation uses generic placeholder “mechanisms” (Prong A); the term “mechanisms” is modified by functional language “attachment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanisms” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “first attachment mechanisms” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “first attachment mechanisms” will be interpreted as “edges/hooks” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0028: “In the one embodiment shown, the user may lift the microwave cooking appliance 10, tilt it forward, and hook the back edges/hooks 16 of the appliance onto the tabs/hooks 43 of the mounting bracket.”.
“second attachment mechanisms” in claim 1 (line 5) & claim 8 (line 5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “mechanisms” (Prong A); the term “mechanisms” is modified by functional language “attachment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanisms” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “second attachment mechanisms” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “second attachment mechanisms” will be interpreted as “tabs/hooks” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0028: “In the one embodiment shown, the user may lift the microwave cooking appliance 10, tilt it forward, and hook the back edges/hooks 16 of the appliance onto the tabs/hooks 43 of the mounting bracket.”.
Therefore, the limitations “first attachment mechanisms” and “second attachment mechanisms” meet the three-prong test under MPEP § 2181. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation is maintained in this Office Action.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ amendments filed 12/17/2025 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claim interpretation has changed. Thus, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“first attachment mechanisms” in claim 1 (lines 3-4, 6) & claim 8 (lines 3-4, 6). This limitation uses generic placeholder “mechanisms” (Prong A); the term “mechanisms” is modified by functional language “attachment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanisms” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “first attachment mechanisms” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “first attachment mechanisms” will be interpreted as “edges/hooks” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0028: “In the one embodiment shown, the user may lift the microwave cooking appliance 10, tilt it forward, and hook the back edges/hooks 16 of the appliance onto the tabs/hooks 43 of the mounting bracket.”.
“second attachment mechanisms” in claim 1 (line 5) & claim 8 (line 5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “mechanisms” (Prong A); the term “mechanisms” is modified by functional language “attachment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanisms” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “second attachment mechanisms” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “second attachment mechanisms” will be interpreted as “tabs/hooks” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0028: “In the one embodiment shown, the user may lift the microwave cooking appliance 10, tilt it forward, and hook the back edges/hooks 16 of the appliance onto the tabs/hooks 43 of the mounting bracket.”.
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.
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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 21-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a microwave cooking appliance” in line 3. This should read “the microwave cooking appliance” to properly refers to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claim 1 (lines 12, 15), claim 21 (line 3) recite the limitation “the second end”. This should read “the opposing second end” to properly refers to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 11).
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 21-23 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a microwave cooking appliance” in line 3. This should read “the microwave cooking appliance” to properly refers to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 8 (line 1).
Claims 9-14, 24-27 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the entire inner periphery of the at least one vent opening” in line 2. This should read “an entire inner periphery of the at least one vent opening” because it is understood that the entire inner periphery of the at least one vent opening recited in claim 12 refers to the inner periphery of the at least one vent opening recited previously in claim 8, but entirely.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-14, 21-27 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 1 recites the limitation “a through opening” in line 24. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 1 previously recited “a through opening” in line 11. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same through opening or different through openings. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as the same through opening.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 21-23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a through opening” in line 14. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 8 previously recited “a through opening” in line 10. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same through opening or different through openings. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as the same through opening.
Claims 9-14, 24-27 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the mounting bracket includes a top plate and a rear plate” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 1 previously recited “a plate” in line 19. Therefore, it is unclear if one of the top plate and rear plate refers to the plate recited previously in claim 1; or they are three different plates. For examination purposes, one of the top plate and rear plate recited in claim 22 will be interpreted as to refer to the plate recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 22.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 노종광 (KR 200322075 Y1, Published 2003, Translation is attached, hereinafter KR’075) in view of Master Flow Duct (NPL, Published 2017, Specification is attached, [https://www.homedepot.com/p/Master-Flow-3-1-4-in-x-10-in-Rectangular-Stack-Duct-Starting-Collar-SCF3-25X10/100139382?N=c5hh], hereinafter Master Flow), and further in view of Kelley (U.S. Patent No. 10,633,783 B1).
Regarding claim 1, KR’075 discloses a microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below & Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 6) having a connector system (connector system includes coupling bracket 120, damper 130, and sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) comprising:
a microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below & Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 6) having an exhaust (exhaust duct 111, KR’075 Fig.3) and one or more first attachment mechanisms (hooks 113, KR’075 Fig.3);
a mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3) includes one or more second attachment mechanisms (pockets 121, KR’075 Fig.3) adapted to engage the one or more first attachment mechanisms (hooks 113, KR’075 Fig.3) to mount the microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven, KR’075 annotated Fig.3) on the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3) (KR’075 Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 11 discloses: “That is, the main body 100 of the combined microwave oven to the coupling bracket 120, but the hook 113 formed on the rear cover 110 is inserted into the pocket 121 of the coupling bracket 120 so as to engage the hood The microwave oven is firmly installed.”), wherein body of the mounting bracket (body of the coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3) includes an appliance-facing surface (appliance-facing surface, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) and an opposing wall-facing surface (opposing wall-facing surface, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below; it is noted that the opposing wall-facing surface is the surface of the coupling bracket 120 that is oriented away from the appliance-facing surface, as shown in KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below), and wherein the body (body of the coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3) includes at least one vent opening (exhaust port 123, KR’075 Fig.3) to engage the exhaust (exhaust duct 111, KR’075 Fig.3) of the microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven, KR’075 annotated Fig.3) (KR’075 Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 7 discloses: “an exhaust port 123 corresponding to the exhaust duct 111 is formed at an upper end thereof”);
an adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) having a first end (first end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) and an opposing second end (second end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below), a through opening (through opening, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) extends through the first end (first end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) and the second end (second end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below);
wherein the second end (second end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) of the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) is configured to engage an external vent (“hood”, KR’075 Translated Abstract) (KR’075 Translated Abstract discloses “damper coupling structure of a microwave oven with a hood”; it is noted that damper is 130), when the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) is engaged with the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3), the through opening (through opening, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) of the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) is in fluid communication with the at least one vent opening (exhaust port 123, KR’075 Fig.3) of the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3); and
wherein the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) includes a plate (plate includes the annotated plate & sponge 136, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) in a plane (the plate defines a plane, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below), wherein the plate (plate includes the annotated plate & sponge 136, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) includes a sleeve (sleeve, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) extending away from the plate (plate includes the annotated plate & sponge 136, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) in a first direction (first direction, annotated Fig.3 below) perpendicular to the plane (plane of the plate, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) away from the first end (first end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) of the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3), wherein the sleeve (sleeve, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) is adapted to engage the external vent (“hood”, KR’075 Translated Abstract) (the sleeve is adapted to engage the hood because KR’075 Translated Abstract discloses “damper coupling structure of a microwave oven with a hood”; it is noted that damper is 130).
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR’075 does not disclose:
wherein the mounting bracket includes a magnetic body;
the adapter having one or more magnets;
wherein the one or more magnets adjacent the first end of the adaptor releasably engages the first end of the adaptor to the opposite wall-facing surface of the magnetic body of the mounting bracket; and
wherein the plate includes a flange extending away from the plate in a second direction perpendicular to the plane opposite to the first direction away from the second end of the adaptor, wherein the flange includes an inner periphery defining a through opening and an outer periphery, wherein the outer periphery of the flange engages an inner periphery of the at least one vent opening of the mounting bracket, and wherein the plate includes the one or more magnets
Master Flow teaches an adaptor (adapter, Master Flow annotated Figure below):
wherein the adaptor (adaptor, Master Flow annotated Figure below) includes a plate (plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) in a plane (plate defines a plane, Master Flow annotated Figure below), wherein the plate (plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) includes a sleeve (sleeve, Master Flow annotated Figure below) extending away from the plate (plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) in a first direction (first direction, Master Flow annotated Figure below) perpendicular to the plane (plane of the plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) away from the first end (first end, Master Flow annotated Figure below) of the adaptor (adaptor, Master Flow annotated Figure below), and wherein the plate (plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) includes a flange (rectangular flange, Master Flow annotated Figure below) extending away from the plate (plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) in a second direction (second direction, Master Flow annotated Figure below) perpendicular to the plane (plane of the plate, Master Flow annotated Figure below) opposite to the first direction (first direction, Master Flow annotated Figure below) away from the second end (second end, Master Flow annotated Figure below) of the adaptor (adaptor, Master Flow annotated Figure below), wherein the flange (rectangular flange, Master Flow annotated Figure below) includes an inner periphery (inner periphery of the rectangular flange, see the rectangular flange in Master Flow annotated Figure below) defining a through opening (through opening, Master Flow annotated Figure below) and an outer periphery (outer periphery of the rectangular flange, see the rectangular flange in Master Flow annotated Figure below),
PNG
media_image2.png
836
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, by adding the Master Flow rectangular flange to the damper 130 of KR’075, in combination, KR’075 in view of Master Flow teaches:
wherein the outer periphery of the flange (outer periphery of the rectangular flange, see the rectangular flange in Master Flow annotated Figure above) engages an inner periphery of the at least one vent opening (inner periphery of the exhaust port 123, see KR’075 Fig.3) of the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of KR’075, by adding flange that is extended away from the plate in a second direction perpendicular to the plane opposite to the first direction away from the second end of the adaptor, as taught by Master Flow, in order to better secure the adaptor to the microwave appliance to control airflow, prevent leaking and backdrafts of outside air (e.g., cold in winter, hot in summer), keep pests out, and stop rattling, ensuring efficiency and comfort by keeping good quality air indoor and exhaust fumes outside, thus, improve indoor air quality.
KR’075 in view of Master Flow does not teach:
wherein the mounting bracket includes a magnetic body;
the adapter having one or more magnets;
wherein the one or more magnets adjacent the first end of the adaptor releasably engages the first end of the adaptor to the opposite wall-facing surface of the magnetic body of the mounting bracket;
wherein the plate includes the one or more magnets
Kelley teaches (Kelley Fig.2):
wherein the mounting bracket (mounting bracket includes 12, 14, 16, 18’, 20, 22, 24; Kelley Fig.2) includes a magnetic body (16, Kelley Fig.2) (16 is a magnetic body because it contains magnet 18’, specifically, Kelley Col.5 lines 12-16 teaches: “16 is the substrate of the dryer half of the coupling. 16 has embedded in its construction, or attached via a high temperature adhesive, such a silicone, a flattened toroid magnet 18′ surrounding the opening. 18′ is most likely a ceramic ferrite magnet, but could be a neodymium rare earth magnet, or ferrite embedded in a rubber matrix.”; therefore, Kelly teaches the magnet 18’ embedded in 16), wherein the magnetic body (16, Kelley Fig.2) of the mounting bracket (mounting bracket includes 12, 14, 16, 18’, 20, 22, 24; Kelley Fig.2) includes an appliance-facing surface (appliance-facing surface, Kelly annotated Fig.2 below; the annotated appliance-facing surface faces the dryer 10) and an opposing wall-facing surface (opposing wall-facing surface, Kelly annotated Fig.2 below; the annotated opposing wall-facing surface faces the wall 26);
the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) having one or more magnets (it is noted that the limitation “one or more magnets” is in alternative form, therefore, only one of these was required during examination; in this case, Kelly teaches magnet 36’, specifically, Kelley Col.5 lines 29-30 teaches 36’ is toroid magnet);
wherein the one or more magnets (magnet 36’, Kelley Fig.2) adjacent the first end (right end of the adaptor including 30, 32, 34, 38, Kelley Fig.2) of the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) releasably engages the first end (right end of the adaptor including 30, 32, 34, 38, Kelley Fig.2) of the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) to the opposite wall-facing surface (opposing wall-facing surface, Kelly annotated Fig.2 below) of the magnetic body (16, Kelley Fig.2) of the mounting bracket (mounting bracket includes 12, 14, 16, 18’, 20, 22, 24; Kelley Fig.2) and the second end (far end 32, Kelley Fig.2) of the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) is configured to engage an external vent (exhaust circuit 28, Kelley Fig.2), when the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) is engaged with the mounting bracket (mounting bracket includes 12, 14, 16, 18’, 20, 22, 24; Kelley Fig.2), the through opening (through opening, Kelley annotated Fig.2 below) of the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) is in fluid communication with the at least one vent opening (vent opening, Kelley annotated Fig.2 below) of the mounting bracket (mounting bracket includes 12, 14, 16, 18’, 20, 22, 24; Kelley Fig.2),
wherein the plate (34, Kelley Fig.2) includes the one or more magnets (magnet 36’, Kelley Fig.2, specifically, Kelley Col.5 lines 29-30 teaches 36’ is toroid magnet)
PNG
media_image3.png
727
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’075 in view of Master Flow, by making the mounting bracket to be magnetic body and adding magnet to the plate of the adaptor, as taught by Kelly, in order to establish the magnetic connection between the mounting bracket and the adaptor with ease of use and reconfigurability without the need for tools or causing damage to surfaces. Specifically, magnetic connection can be instantly attached and detached without requiring drills, screwdrivers, or other tools, saving significant time and effort; additionally, magnetic connection does not require drilling holes, which prevents permanent marks, holes, or other damage to surfaces, walls or components, preserving the aesthetic and integrity of the connected items; furthermore, magnetic connections can be effortlessly moved and reconfigured to fit changing needs.
Regarding claim 3, KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, KR’075 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the adaptor includes a plastic body with the one or more magnets positioned therein.
Kelley teaches:
wherein the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) includes a plastic body (Kelley Col.3 lines 62-63 teaches 34 is preferably constructed of a heat resistant hard plastic such as ABS, PVC) with the one or more magnets (magnet 36’, Kelley Fig.2) positioned therein (Kelley Col.5 lines 29-30 teaches: “The face of 34 contains toroid magnet 36′”, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly, by making the adaptor includes plastic body with the one or more magnets positioned therein, as taught by Kelly, in order to offer corrosion resistance because plastic is highly resistant to moisture and will not rust or corrode over time. Additionally, plastic is a poor conductor of heat; this makes a plastic material in duct or damper to be less prone to significant condensation in cold climates, which can prevent moisture buildup and potential damage or mold issues. Furthermore, plastic parts are generally more affordable to manufacture through molding processes, which allows for complex, single-piece designs without seams or joints; thus, this makes the overall unit more cost-effective for residential use.
Regarding claim 7, KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the sleeve (sleeve, KR’075 annotated Fig.3) telescopes with the external vent (“hood” that the sleeve will be connected to because KR’075 Translated Abstract discloses “damper coupling structure of a microwave oven with a hood”; it is noted that damper is 130) and the flange (flange, KR’075 in view of Master Flow teaches flange [see Master Flow flange in Master Flow annotated Fig below, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above]) telescopes with the inner periphery of the at least one vent opening (inner periphery of the exhaust port 123, see KR’075 Fig.3) of the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3) (in combination, the KR’075 in view of Master Flow flange telescopes with the inner periphery of the exhaust port 123, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
836
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the first end (first end, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) of the adaptor (damper 130 & sponge 136, KR’075 Fig.3) directly engages the opposing wall-facing surface (opposing wall-facing surface, KR’075 annotated Fig.3 below) of the magnetic body of the mounting bracket (coupling bracket 120, KR’075 Fig.3; it is noted that KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the mounting bracket includes the magnetic body, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) when installed.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR’075 does not explicitly disclose:
the second end of the adaptor directly engages the external vent when installed.
Kelly teaches an adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2):
the second end (far end 32, Kelley Fig.2) of the adaptor (adaptor includes 30, 32, 34, 38; Kelley Fig.2) directly engages the external vent (exhaust circuit 28, Kelley Fig.2) when installed (Kelly Col.5 lines 35-37 teaches the far end 32 is a male adapted end suitable for coupling to the remainder of the exhaust circuit 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly, by making the second end of the adaptor directly engages the external vent when installed, as taught by Kelly, in order to ensure proper function, energy efficiency, and safety. The direct connection would prevent backdrafts, ensure that smoke, odors, grease, and excess humidity generated during cooking are effectively exhausted to the outdoors, rather than leaking into wall cavities, the attic, or back into the kitchen; thus, improve indoor air quality.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 노종광 Embodiment Fig.3 (KR 200322075 Y1, Published 2003, Translation is attached, hereinafter KR’075) in view of Master Flow Duct (NPL, Published 2017, Specification is attached, [https://www.homedepot.com/p/Master-Flow-3-1-4-in-x-10-in-Rectangular-Stack-Duct-Starting-Collar-SCF3-25X10/100139382?N=c5hh], hereinafter Master Flow), Kelley (U.S. Patent No. 10,633,783 B1), and further in view of Iwata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,720,622 A).
Regarding claim 2, KR’075 Embodiment Fig.3 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach further comprising
at least one gasket, wherein the at least one gasket surrounds the at least one vent opening and is positioned between the appliance-facing surface of the magnetic body of the mounting bracket and the microwave cooking appliance.
Iwata discloses a microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven 1, Iwata Fig.1) having a connector system (connector system includes the fixing plate 10 [Iwata Fig.8] and the connector 18 [Iwata Fig.2]) comprising:
at least one gasket (projecting portion 103, Iwata Fig.8), wherein the at least one gasket (projecting portion 103, Iwata Fig.8) (it is noted that the definition of “gasket” is “a shaped piece or ring of rubber or other material sealing the junction between two surfaces in an engine or other device” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary; in this case, Iwata Col.8 line 47-53 discloses: “Referring to FIG. 8, 102 designates an opening for the damper/duct connector 18 opened at the position corresponding to the opening 52 of the back plate 50. At the circumference of the opening 102 a projecting portion 103 is formed by the extrusion molding method similarly to the band-like projecting portion 112.” and Iwata Col.9 lines 45-47 discloses: “adhering the rear surface of the back plate 50 to the front surface of the projecting portions 112, 113, 103 and the like of the fixing plate 10”, thus, the projecting portion 103 surrounds the vent opening 102 and is placed between the back plate 50 of the microwave oven 1 and the fixing plate 10 to help direct hot air, smoke and the like produced in cooking to the damper/duct connector 18, thus, preventing hot air, smoke and the like produced in cooking from escaping; therefore, the projecting portion 103 is gasket) surrounds the at least one vent opening (opening 102, Iwata Fig.8) and is positioned between the appliance-facing surface (appliance-facing surface, Iwata annotated Fig.8 below) of the mounting bracket (fixing plate 10, Iwata Fig.8) and the microwave cooking appliance (microwave oven 1, Iwata Fig.1) (Iwata Fig.11A shows the body 11 of the microwave oven 1 is mounted to the fixing plate 10, and Iwata Col.9 lines 45-47 discloses: “adhering the rear surface of the back plate 50 to the front surface of the projecting portions 112, 113, 103 and the like of the fixing plate 10”, it is noted that the back plate 50 is of the microwave oven 1, as indicated by Iwata Col.5 lines 54-56: “FIGS. 1 to 5, FIG. 6, which is a front view showing a back plate 50 of the body 11”, as shown in Figs.8, 10, 11A, therefore, the projecting portion 103 is between the fixing plate 10 and the microwave oven 1.)
PNG
media_image4.png
622
831
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly, by adding at least one gasket, wherein the at least one gasket surrounds the at least one vent opening and is positioned between the appliance-facing surface of the magnetic body of the mounting bracket and the microwave cooking appliance, as taught by Iwata, in order to offer proper ventilation, preventing heat buildup, allowing heat to escape because microwaves generate heat, and proper airflow is critical for cooling the internal components and preventing overheating.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 노종광 Embodiment Fig.3 (KR 200322075 Y1, Published 2003, Translation is attached, hereinafter KR’075) in view of Master Flow Duct (NPL, Published 2017, Specification is attached, [https://www.homedepot.com/p/Master-Flow-3-1-4-in-x-10-in-Rectangular-Stack-Duct-Starting-Collar-SCF3-25X10/100139382?N=c5hh], hereinafter Master Flow), Kelley (U.S. Patent No. 10,633,783 B1), and further in view of 노종광 Embodiment Figs.1-2 (KR 200322075 Y1).
Regarding claim 4, KR’075 Embodiment Fig.3 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
further comprising at least one damper positioned within the through opening of the adaptor.
KR’075 Embodiment Figs.1-2 teaches:
further comprising at least one damper (plate 39, KR’075 Figs.1-2) positioned within the through opening of the adaptor (damper 30, KR’075 Figs.1-2) (KR’075 Figs.1-2 show the plate 39 is positioned within the through opening of the damper 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’075 Embodiment Fig.3 in view of Master Flow and Kelly, by adding damper positioned within the through opening of the adaptor, as taught by KR’075 Embodiment Figs.1-2, in order to direct the airflow to the correct exhaust path (top/roof, rear/wall, or recirculating back into the kitchen) as required by the home’s configuration, allow the single component to be configured for different installation methods: either horizontal (wall) or vertical (roof) venting, or for recirculation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 22-23 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the microwave cooking appliance having the connector system set forth in claim 1; however, Applicant’s claim 6 also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious.
It is noted that the prior art Jin (CN 1704653 A) discloses a microwave cooking appliance having an adaptor, the outer periphery of the flange projecting from the adaptor includes a first chamfered periphery and wherein the inner periphery of the at least one vent opening includes a second chamfered periphery, and when the adaptor is engaged with the mounting bracket, the first chamfered periphery and the second chamfered periphery align to orient the adaptor relative to the mounting bracket in a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation. However, it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jin’s teachings with KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly because: first, Jin does not teach a mounting bracket for mounting the microwave appliance, thus, the vent opening is not vent opening of the mounting bracket, but of the microwave appliance; second, the mounting bracket and adapter of the primary reference KR’075 do not include L-shaped mounting bracket as taught by Jin, thus, the feature of the first chamfered periphery and the second chamfered periphery align to orient the adaptor relative to the mounting bracket in a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation can not be applied if adding Jin’s teachings to KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly because L-shaped mounting bracket of Jin is the feature that enables a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation since all four corners of the mounting bracket have the same shape of chamfered edge.
Therefore, Applicant’s claim 6 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant’s claim 6 recites: “the second chamfered periphery align to orient the adaptor relative to the mounting bracket in a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 6 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 22, KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly teaches the microwave cooking appliance having the connector system set forth in claim 1, however, Applicant’s claim 22 also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Specifically, Applicant’s claim 22 recites:
wherein the mounting bracket includes a top plate and a rear plate, wherein the top plate includes the magnetic body defining a top vent opening of the at least one vent opening, the appliance-facing surface, and the opposing wall-facing surface, and wherein the rear plate includes the magnetic body defining a bottom vent opening of the at least one vent opening, the appliance-facing surface, and the opposing wall-facing surface.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 22 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.
Claim 23 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 22.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 8, KR’075 discloses a microwave cooking appliance having a connector system comprising: a microwave cooking appliance having an exhaust and one or more first attachment mechanisms; a mounting bracket includes one or more second attachment mechanisms adapted to engage the one or more first attachment mechanisms to mount the microwave cooking appliance on the mounting bracket, a rear plate, wherein the rear plate of the mounting bracket includes a body defining at least one vent opening to engage the exhaust of the microwave cooking appliance; an adaptor having a plate, a sleeve, and a flange defining a through opening, wherein the sleeve projects from the plate towards an external vent in a first direction, the flange projects away from the plate towards the mounting bracket in a second direction opposite to the first direction; and wherein the adaptor engages the rear plate of the mounting bracket and the sleeve of the adaptor is configured to engage the external vent; when the adaptor is engaged with the mounting bracket, the exhaust of the microwave cooking appliance is in fluid communication with the external vent via the through opening of the adaptor and the at least one vent opening.
Master Flow teaches an adaptor having a plate, a sleeve, and a flange defining a through opening, wherein the sleeve projects from the plate towards an external vent in a first direction and the flange projects away from the plate towards the mounting bracket in a second direction opposite to the first direction, wherein the flange includes an inner periphery defining a through opening and an outer periphery.
Kelly teaches a mounting bracket includes a magnetic body defining at least one vent opening to engage the exhaust, the plate includes one or more magnets; and wherein the one or more magnets of the adaptor releasably engages the flange to the magnetic body of the top plate or the rear plate of the mounting bracket and the sleeve of the adaptor is configured to engage the external vent.
It is noted that Jin (CN 1704653 A) discloses a microwave cooking appliance having an adaptor, the outer periphery of the flange projecting from the adaptor includes a first chamfered periphery and wherein the inner periphery of the at least one vent opening includes a second chamfered periphery, and when the adaptor is engaged with the mounting bracket, the first chamfered periphery and the second chamfered periphery align to orient the adaptor relative to the mounting bracket in a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation. However, it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Jin’s teachings with KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly because: first, Jin does not teach a mounting bracket for mounting the microwave appliance, thus, the vent opening is not vent opening of the mounting bracket, but of the microwave appliance; second, the mounting bracket and adapter of the primary reference KR’075 do not include L-shaped mounting bracket as taught by Jin, thus, the feature of the first chamfered periphery and the second chamfered periphery align to orient the adaptor relative to the mounting bracket in a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation cannot be applied if adding Jin’s teachings to KR’075 in view of Master Flow and Kelly because L-shaped mounting bracket of Jin is the feature that enables a single orientation and prevents the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation since all four corners of the mounting bracket have the same shape of chamfered edge.
Therefore, Applicant’s claim 8 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant’s claim 8 recites:
a top plate, wherein the top plate of the mounting bracket includes a magnetic body defining at least one vent opening to engage the exhaust of the microwave cooking appliance, and
wherein the outer periphery of the flange of the adaptor and the inner periphery of the at least one vent opening of the mounting bracket include at least one orientation feature to orient the adaptor in a single orientation relative to the mounting bracket when assembled preventing the adaptor from assembling with the mounting bracket in orientations different from the single orientation
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 9-14, 24-27 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 on (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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 01/10/2026