DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/443100, filed on 07/20/2021.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek).
“A multifunctional microwave metamaterial layer ….and attenuating to microwave radiation and simultaneously transparent to optical radiation, comprising:” (Gwarek teaches in paragraph [ 9] “a microwave-sealed shielding for a viewing opening of a door of a microwave appliance, which combines a particularly advantageous combination of the properties: preventing an escape of microwave radiation from the viewing opening, keeping the microwave losses in the shielding low and having good optical visibility through the shielding.” The shielding corresponds to the metamaterial layer in the instant claim.)
“an electrically insulating, optically transparent substrate; and” (Paragraph [24-25] teaches a door pane, and the door pane “may be a glass pane or a plastic pane.” Here glass pane corresponds to the substrate.)
“a structured array of metallic wire patterns supported by the substrate, wherein each metallic wire in each pattern of the array is electrically connected to at least one point on the periphery of the layer, wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.” (Fig. 1 teaches an array of wires. Paragraph [49] teaches width of metallic wires between 10 to 25 micrometers, the width anticipates the claimed range of 100 nm to 30 micrometer.)
PNG
media_image1.png
625
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Gwarek teaches an array of metallic wires
“arranged to be reflective” (Even though Gwarek is silent about the array of metallic wires being reflective, Gwarek teaches an array of metallic wires on an insulating, optically transparent substrate which is identical to the claimed metamaterial layer. Thus, the layer in Gwarek would have the reflective property similar to the claimed layer. MPEP 2112.01-I teaches "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek) and further in view of Millett, US 20180035495 (hereafter Millett).
“A screen for shielding RF radiation comprising: a frame defining a perimeter of an opening,”( Gwarek teaches in paragraph [ 9] “a microwave-sealed shielding for a viewing opening of a door of a microwave appliance”. Here door comprises frame. )
“a window spanning the opening, wherein the window is arranged to not transmit RF radiation therethrough, wherein the window is optically transparent, the window comprising: an electrically insulating substrate; and a structure of metallic wires supported by the substrate,” (Gwarek teaches in paragraph [ 9] “a microwave-sealed shielding for a viewing opening of a door of a microwave appliance, which combines a particularly advantageous combination of the properties: preventing an escape of microwave radiation from the viewing opening, keeping the microwave losses in the shielding low and having good optical visibility through the shielding.”
Paragraph [11] teaches “a door for a household microwave appliance, having at least one perforated electrically conductive lattice, which covers a viewing opening of the door”.
Paragraph [24-25] teaches the lattice is applied on a door pane, and the door pane “may be a glass pane or a plastic pane.” Here opening corresponds to window, glass or plastic pane is the insulating substrate, and conductive lattice corresponds to the metallic wires. )
“wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.”( Paragraph [49] teaches width of metallic wires between 10 to 25 micrometers, the width anticipates the claimed range of 100 nm to 30 micrometer.)
PNG
media_image2.png
339
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [49] of Gwarek teaches parameters of the conductive lattice
“wherein the frame is conductive and grounded;… wherein each metallic wire of the structure is electrically connected to the frame,” (Gwarek is silent about a grounded frame.
Millett teaches a microwave 10 with door 30 and glass panel 32. Paragraph [12] teaches “The door 30 is provided with at least one transparent glass panel 32 encompassed by a choke frame 34 where the cooking cavity 26 is viewable through the door 30 through a transparent glass panel 32 when the door 30 is in the closed position. As discussed below, the transparent glass panel 32 is constructed to be optically transparent but not transparent to microwaves.”
Paragraph [22] teaches “Faraday cage is an enclosure, all of whose external surfaces are electrically conducting. For maximum attenuation, the electrically conductive glass coating must be conductively connected to the window frame all around its periphery, which in turn should be connected to the wall of such enclosure.”
Fig. 2 and paragraph [21] teaches “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity.” The frame is conductive and grounded because frame is conductively connected to conductive glass coating.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the conductive and grounded frame as taught in Millett in the door in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.)
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Tung et al., high optical visibility and shielding effectiveness metal mesh film for microwave oven application, IEEE trans. On electromagnetic compatibility, August 2020 (hereafter Tung).
Regarding claim 22,
“The metamaterial layer of claim 21, wherein the DC sheet resistance averaged over any sub-area of the metamaterial layer is less than 2 Ohm per square, and the optical transparency is greater than 75%.” (Gwarek is silent about sheet resistance and optical transparency values of metallic lattice.
PNG
media_image3.png
281
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2(a) of Tung teaches optical transparency varies with wire width and spacing
Tung teaches “high optical visibility and shielding effectiveness metal mesh film for microwave oven” in title. Page 1077, column 1 teaches “ As shown in Fig. 2(a), the theoretical OT according to the mesh space and mesh width are plotted following (3). s ranges from 0.005 to 0.1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. The OT decreases as w increases and increases as s increases. This trend makes sense because an increase in w and/or decrease in s result from a decrease in the ratio of the see-through area to the total area, and thus a decrease in OT of the MMF.” OT is optical transparency, MMF is metal mesh film. Fig. 2 (a) further teaches values of mesh width and spacing to achieve optical transparency greater than the claimed 75%. Thus, Tung teaches optical transparency is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing.
PNG
media_image4.png
534
641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Tung
Page 1078, column 1 teaches “The effect of mesh dimensions, including mesh width (w) and mesh space (s), on MMF sheet resistance (RS) is calculated and shown in Fig. 5. s ranges from 50 μm to 1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. RS decreases as w and/or s increase. For s = 234 μm, w = 21 μm, and t = 2.0 μm, the calculated sheet resistance of the MMF is 0.1 Ω/sq.” Fig. 5 teaches values of mesh width and spacing to achieve the claimed sheet resistance values less than 2 Ohm per square. Thus, Tung teaches sheet resistance is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing.
PNG
media_image5.png
575
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Tung teaches a metallic mesh
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the values of optical transparency and sheet resistance as taught in Tung in the metallic lattice in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the MMF showed better shielding effectiveness, more realistic colors, higher FoM, higher mechanical stability, and lower-cost fabrication than ITO. This result proves that MMF is the most suitable candidate to enhance the visibility and shielding effectiveness in a microwave oven in the market at present” as taught in conclusion in Tung.
Additionally, the claimed ranges of optical transparency and sheet resistance overlap disclosed by Tung. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP §2144.05-I.)
Regarding claim 23,
“The metamaterial layer of claim 21, wherein the DC sheet resistance averaged over any sub-area of the metamaterial layer is less than 5 Ohm per square, and the optical transparency is greater than 90%.”(Gwarek is silent about sheet resistance and optical transparency values of metallic lattice.
Page 1078, column 1 in Tung teaches “The effect of mesh dimensions, including mesh width (w) and mesh space (s), on MMF sheet resistance (RS) is calculated and shown in Fig. 5. s ranges from 50 μm to 1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. RS decreases as w and/or s increase. For s = 234 μm, w = 21 μm, and t = 2.0 μm, the calculated sheet resistance of the MMF is 0.1 Ω/sq.” Fig. 5 teaches values of mesh width and spacing to achieve the claimed sheet resistance values less than 5 Ohm per square. Thus, Tung teaches sheet resistance is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP §2144.05-I.
Tung teaches “high optical visibility and shielding effectiveness metal mesh film for microwave oven” in title. Page 1077, column 1 teaches “ As shown in Fig. 2(a), the theoretical OT according to the mesh space and mesh width are plotted following (3). s ranges from 0.005 to 0.1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. The OT decreases as w increases and increases as s increases. This trend makes sense because an increase in w and/or decrease in s result from a decrease in the ratio of the see-through area to the total area, and thus a decrease in OT of the MMF.” OT is optical transparency, MMF is metal mesh film. Thus, Tung teaches optical transparency is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing. Fig. 2(a) of Tung further teaches optimizing lattice width and spacing values to achieve optical transparency of greater than 80% which is close to the claimed range of greater than 90%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the values of optical transparency and sheet resistance as taught in Tung in the metallic lattice in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the MMF showed better shielding effectiveness, more realistic colors, higher FoM, higher mechanical stability, and lower-cost fabrication than ITO. This result proves that MMF is the most suitable candidate to enhance the visibility and shielding effectiveness in a microwave oven in the market at present” as taught in conclusion in Tung.)
Regarding claim 24,
“The metamaterial layer of claim 21, wherein the DC sheet resistance averaged over any sub-area of the metamaterial layer is less than 100 Ohm per square, and the optical transparency is greater than 98%.” (Gwarek is silent about sheet resistance and optical transparency values of metallic lattice.
Page 1078, column 1 in Tung teaches “The effect of mesh dimensions, including mesh width (w) and mesh space (s), on MMF sheet resistance (RS) is calculated and shown in Fig. 5. s ranges from 50 μm to 1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. RS decreases as w and/or s increase. For s = 234 μm, w = 21 μm, and t = 2.0 μm, the calculated sheet resistance of the MMF is 0.1 Ω/sq.” Fig. 5 teaches values of mesh width and spacing to achieve the claimed sheet resistance values less than 100 Ohm per square. Thus, Tung teaches sheet resistance is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP §2144.05-I.
Tung teaches “high optical visibility and shielding effectiveness metal mesh film for microwave oven” in title. Page 1077, column 1 teaches “ As shown in Fig. 2(a), the theoretical OT according to the mesh space and mesh width are plotted following (3). s ranges from 0.005 to 0.1 mm, whereas w changes from 5 to 50 μm. The OT decreases as w increases and increases as s increases. This trend makes sense because an increase in w and/or decrease in s result from a decrease in the ratio of the see-through area to the total area, and thus a decrease in OT of the MMF.” OT is optical transparency, MMF is metal mesh film. Thus, Tung teaches optical transparency is a design choice that is optimized by varying mesh width and spacing. Fig. 2(a) of Tung further teaches optimizing lattice width and spacing values to achieve optical transparency of greater than 80% which is close to the claimed range of greater than 98%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the values of optical transparency and sheet resistance as taught in Tung in the metallic lattice in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the MMF showed better shielding effectiveness, more realistic colors, higher FoM, higher mechanical stability, and lower-cost fabrication than ITO. This result proves that MMF is the most suitable candidate to enhance the visibility and shielding effectiveness in a microwave oven in the market at present” as taught in conclusion in Tung.)
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Uprety et al., US 20170150659 (hereafter Uprety).
“The metamaterial layer of claim 21, wherein the layer is arranged to have transmissive optical haze less than either of the 10%, 5%, 2%.” (Gwarek is silent about haze values less than 10%.
PNG
media_image6.png
691
321
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 28 and 29 of Uprety teaches a metallic wire structure
Uprety teaches “a transparent substrate and a plurality of electrically conductive lines on the transparent substrate, at least one of the electrically conductive lines intersecting at least one other electrically conductive line,” in abstract. Paragraph [129] teaches “The transparency including the electrically conductive lines shown in FIGS. 28-30 exhibited a light transmittance of 77.4% and a haze of 2.60%.” Paragraph [131] teaches “The transparency including the electrically conductive lines shown in FIGS. 32-34 exhibited a light transmittance of 75.4% and a haze of 1.78%.” Thus, Uprety teaches that haze value of less than 10%.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the haze value to be less than 10% as taught in Uprety in the metallic lattice in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Haze measures the clearness and transparency of the film (the film should not be translucent and diffuse light),” as taught in paragraph [129] in Uprety.)
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek) and further in view of Millett, US 20180035495 (hereafter Millett).
Regarding claim 1,
“A microwave device comprising: …wherein the frame is conductive and grounded; and a window spanning the opening,….wherein the window is optically transparent, the window comprising: an electrically insulating substrate; and a structure of metallic wires supported by the substrate, wherein each metallic wire of the structure is electrically connected to the frame, wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.” (Gwarek teaches a household microwave appliance. Similar scope to claim 19 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“a microwave cavity; a frame defining a perimeter of an opening in the microwave cavity” (Gwarek is silent about microwave cavity.
Millett teaches “A microwave oven includes a cooking cavity having an opening, a source of microwave radiation that transmits microwaves into the cooking cavity, a door positioned adjacent the opening and movable between an open position where the cooking cavity can be accessed through the opening and a closed position where the cooking cavity is inaccessible through the opening. The door further includes a transparent glass panel where the cooking cavity is viewable through the door when the door is in the closed position. A conductive metal transparent coating on at least one surface of the transparent glass panel attenuates microwave transmission from the cooking cavity through the door. The conductive metal transparent coating has a sheet resistance and is electrically grounded.”)
“wherein the window is arranged to reflect RF radiation back into the cavity and to shield the outside of the microwave cavity from RF radiation,” ( The claim describes the functional limitation of a window with a metallic lattice. Paragraph [21] of Millett teaches “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity.”
PNG
media_image7.png
413
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Millett teaches a microwave device
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the cavity as taught in Millett in the microwave device in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.)
Regarding claim 2,
“The microwave device of claim 1, wherein the structure of metallic wires is periodic.” (Fig. 1 of Gwarek.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The microwave device of claim 1 , wherein the period of the periodic structure is less than 500 micrometres.” (Paragraph [47] of Gwarek teaches “A pitch L of adjacent microholes in particular lies between 50 micrometers and 100 micrometers.”)
Regarding claim 4,
“The microwave device of claim 1, wherein the structure of metallic wires is a rectangular grid of intersecting wires.” (Fig. 1 of Gwarek.)
Regarding claim 5,
“ The microwave device of claim 1, wherein each metallic wire of the structure has in-plane curvature.” (Fig. 1 of Gwarek.)
Regarding claim 6,
“ The microwave device of claim 5, wherein the structure of metallic wires comprises a plurality of wire portions, wherein each wire portion is an arc being approximately a quarter of a circle, wherein each connection between adjacent wire portions is a T-junction.” (Page 4 of the original disclosure describes “Each connection between adjacent wire portions is a T-junction, in other words, the point of connection between two adjacent wire portions is an end of one wire portion meeting an intermediate position of the other wire portion, wherein the adjacent wire portions are approximately perpendicular at the point of connection.” Fig. 1 of Gwarek.)
Regarding claim 7,
“The microwave device of claim 1, wherein the width of one or more metallic wire differs along the length of the metallic wire.” (Fig. 1 of Gwarek.)
Regarding claim 8,
“The microwave device of claim 1, wherein the total metallized area of the structure of metallic wires is less than 20% of the area of the opening.” (Paragraph [47] of Gwarek teaches “an edge length K of the micro holes 5 in particular may lie between 40 micrometers and 75 micrometers. A pitch L of adjacent micro holes in particular lies between 50 micrometers and 100 micrometers.” Combining paragraph [47] and Fig. 2, for example for a length of 48 um, area of a micro hole is about 2304 sq.micro meter, metallized area=(50x50-2304)=196 sq.micro meter. The percentage of metallized area is (196/2500)=7.84% of opening.
The claimed range of less than 20% overlaps with the range taught in Gwarek. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP §2144.05-I.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The microwave device of claim 1, wherein the window further comprises: a secondary layer in a plane substantially parallel to the structure of metallic wires, wherein the second layer is arranged to reflect RF radiation back into the cavity and to shield the outside of the microwave cavity from RF radiation.” (Paragraph [30] in Gwarek teaches “In one embodiment, the at least one perforated lattice has a plurality of lattices arranged one behind the other on the door in a front view,”. Paragraph [9] teaches “a microwave-sealed shielding for a viewing opening of a door of a microwave appliance, which combines a particularly advantageous combination of the properties: preventing an escape of microwave radiation from the viewing opening, keeping the microwave losses in the shielding low and having good optical visibility through the shielding.”
Gwarek is silent about reflecting RF radiation back into the cavity.
Paragraph [24] of Millett teaches “Referring now to FIG. 3, a cross-section of the transparent glass panel 100 with conductive metal transparent coatings 102, 104 is shown. The conductive metal transparent coatings 102, 104 may be any form of conductive metal applied to a surface of the transparent glass pane 106 and is on two opposing surfaces of the transparent glass panel 100.”
Paragraph [21] teaches “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the door in Gwarek to reflect RF radiation back as taught in Millett. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.)
Regarding claim 10,
“The microwave device of claim 9, wherein the secondary layer comprises a second structure of second metallic wires,” (Paragraph [30] in Gwarek teaches “In one embodiment, the at least one perforated lattice has a plurality of lattices arranged one behind the other on the door in a front view,”.)
“wherein each second metallic wire of the second structure is electrically connected to the frame, wherein the width of each second metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.”(Similar scope to the limitation “each metallic wire of the structure is electrically connected to the frame, wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres” in claim 1, therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The microwave device according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.”( Similar scope to the limitation “the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres” in claim 1, therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 13,
“The microwave device according to claim 1, wherein the window has one or more of the following properties: RF reflectance greater than 99%; RF absorbance of less than 1%; RF reflectance greater than 99% and RF absorbance of less than 1%; RF attenuation greater than 20 dB; RF attenuation greater than 40 dB; DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 2 Ohm per square and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 2 Ohm per square; optical transparency greater than 75%, DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 2 Ohm per square, and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 2 Ohm per square; DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 5 Ohm per square and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 5 Ohm per square; optical transparency greater than 90%, DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 5 Ohm per square, and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 5 Ohm per square; DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 100 Ohm per square and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 100 Ohm per square; optical transparency greater than 98%, DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 100 Ohm per square, and RF sheet resistance the structure of metallic wires less than 100 Ohm per square; transmissive optical haze less than 10%; transmissive optical haze less than 5%; and transmissive optical haze less than 2%.” (The scope is similar to the scope “optical transparency greater than 75%, DC sheet resistance of the structure of metallic wires less than 2 Ohm per square” in claim 22, and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 14,
“The microwave device according to claim 1, wherein the microwave cavity includes a door, wherein the door comprises the frame and the window.” (Gwarek is silent about a frame and cavity.
Fig. 2 of Millett teaches a door with frame and window covering cavity of microwave device.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the frame as taught in Millett in the door in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.)
Regarding claim 15,
“The microwave device according to claim 1, further comprising: a source of RF radiation arranged to emit RF radiation at an operating frequency into the microwave cavity, wherein the window is arranged to reflect RF radiation back into the cavity at the first wavelength and to shield the outside of the microwave cavity from RF radiation at the operating frequency.” (Gwarek is silent about a cavity.
Millett teaches in paragraphs [15-16] “The source of microwave radiation 12 may include a magnetron or a solid-state based microwave generator…. The frequencies of microwaves transmitted by the source of microwave radiation 12 may include a narrow range of frequencies such as 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz.” Paragraph [21] teaches “to attenuate microwave radiation, provide a radiant heat barrier and enable a user to readily view the cooking cavity 26, the door 30 of the microwave oven 10 includes an electrically conductive coated transparent glass panel 32. The electrically conductive glass panel 32 acts as a Faraday cage shield for the viewable window of the microwave oven door 30, while also providing a radiant heat barrier for the combination of the conventional cooking and microwave heating elements. A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the source, and cavity as taught in Millett in the microwave device in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.)
Regarding claim 16,
“ The microwave device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of frames including the frame, wherein each frame defines a perimeter of a respective opening of the microwave cavity, wherein each frame is conductive and grounded; and a plurality of windows including the window, wherein each window spans the respective opening of a respective frame, wherein each window comprises: an electrically insulating substrate; and a structure of metallic wires supported by the respective substrate, wherein each metallic wire of the structure is electrically connected to the respective frame, wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres.” (The claim is a duplication of the limitations in claim 1 yielding the expected result. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B teaches “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” )
Regarding claim 17,
“The microwave device of claim 16, wherein the plurality of frames collectively covers the majority of the surface area of the microwave cavity.” (Fig. 1 of Millett teaches frame covering microwave cavity.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the frame, and cavity as taught in Millett in the microwave device in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A combination of metal coatings on glass, when grounded to chassis ground 36, effectively shields and reflects microwaves back into the cooking cavity of the microwave oven while providing clear visibility into the cooking cavity” as taught in paragraph [21] in Millett.
Regarding duplicating frames, MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B teaches “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” )
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwarek et al., US 20200288544 (hereafter Gwarek) and Millett, US 20180035495 (hereafter Millett) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Boxman et al., US 8772687 (hereafter Boxman).
“The microwave device of claim 9, wherein the secondary layer is separated from the first structure, in a direction perpendicular to the plane, by between 0.08 and 0.42 times the effective wavelength of an operating frequency of the microwave device.” (Primary combination of references is silent about a spacing of 0.08 to 0.42 times the effective wavelength between the layers.
Boxman teaches “An observation window for a microwave device exhibiting microwave radiation of a predetermined frequency, the observation window comprising two optically transparent panels to which an optically transparent conductive film has been applied to a single side thereof, each of the transparent conductive films primarily reflecting incident microwave radiation and being substantially parallel and spatially separated from each other by a predetermined distance, the predetermined distance being equal to an odd integer multiple of one quarter of the wavelength of the microwave radiation of the predetermined frequency in the interstice between the transparent films, the predetermined distance having a tolerance of plus or minus 0.15 of the wavelength in the interstice” in abstract. Here the range of wavelength between (0.25-0.15)=0.1, to (0.25+0.15)=0.4 overlaps the claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the spacing between the two layers of conductive film as taught in Boxman to the screen in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to obtain “a microwave oven window exhibiting improved visibility while attenuating microwave radiation” as taught in column 3, lines 45-46 in Boxman.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millett and further in view of Gwarek and Kobrin et al., US 9244356 (hereafter Kobrin).
“A method of manufacturing a screen for shielding RF radiation, the method comprising: … attaching a window to a frame, wherein the frame defines a perimeter of an opening, such that the window spans the opening, wherein the window is optically transparent, wherein the window comprises: an electrically insulating substrate;…and electrically connecting each metallic wire to the frame.” (Millett teaches a microwave oven with a door in Fig. 2. Abstract teaches “The door further includes a transparent glass panel where the cooking cavity is viewable through the door when the door is in the closed position. A conductive metal transparent coating on at least one surface of the transparent glass panel attenuates microwave transmission from the cooking cavity through the door. The conductive metal transparent coating has a sheet resistance and is electrically grounded.” )
However, Millett is silent about metallic wires.
“wherein the width of each metallic wire is between 100 nanometres and 30 micrometres;.. and the periodic structure of metallic wires supported by the substrate;” (Fig. 1 of Gwarek teaches periodic metallic wires. Paragraph [49] teaches width of metallic wires between 10 to 25 micrometers, the width anticipates the claimed range of 100 nm to 30 micrometer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the conductive coating in Millett with the metallic wire taught in Gwarek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to provide a microwave-sealed shielding for a viewing opening of a door of a microwave appliance, which combines a particularly advantageous combination of the properties: preventing an escape of microwave radiation from the viewing opening, keeping the microwave losses in the shielding low and having good optical visibility through the shielding” as taught in paragraph [9] of Gwarek.)
However, primary combination of references is silent about depositing the wires on a pattern generated on a photosensitive material.
“producing a pattern on a photosensitive material; depositing a structure of metallic wires on the photosensitive material according to the pattern,” (Kobrin teaches “a metal mesh structure and a method of fabrication thereof. The metal mesh structure includes a metal mesh formed on a substrate. The metal mesh is a 2D or 3D pattern of lines. The lines in the first and second set are characterized by a linewidth that is less than 2 microns” in abstract.
PNG
media_image8.png
606
567
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A-4D of Kobrin teaches patterning metal
Column 4, lines 50-60 teaches “In this technique, a layer of photosensitive material 404 (e.g., a positive or negative resist) is formed on a substrate 402, as shown in FIG. 4A. The substrate 402 can be, e.g., glass or a polymer material. The photosensitive layer 404 can be patterned using RML, e.g., as discussed above, and then developed. The developed photosensitive layer includes a pattern of openings 405 that expose underlying portions of the substrate 402, as shown in FIG. 4B. A layer of metal 401 is deposited over the patterned photosensitive material 404 as shown in FIG. 4C.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the metallic wires in Gwarek by the method taught in Kobrin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Metal-containing materials can be chosen to attach only to template materials or only to substrate material exposed through the template. The width and pitch of the metal mesh structures is determined by the corresponding pitch and width in the patterned rolling mask that is used to pattern the photosensitive layer. The thickness of the metal structures can be controlled by optimization of process transfer speed, viscosity of precursor, number of contact cycles with the roller, and other processing parameters” as taught in column 5, lines 7-16 in Kobrin.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached on (571)272-8648. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights