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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 04/22/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1 and 5-6 has /have been amended, claim 2 has /have been cancelled, claim 21 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-6 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1 and 3-6 are as follow.
The previous office action sent out on 01/24/2025, which was examined by examiner Frederick F Calvetti. The present application is now being examined by examiner Kuangyue Chen as follow.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Koichiro et al. (JP 2007 132 566 A).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Koichiro et al. disclose a heating cooking apparatus comprising:
a heating cooking chamber (4 is the cooking chamber, [0043], Fig 1) configured to accommodate an object to be heated (cooking chamber for containing food to be cooked, [0006]);
a microwave supply unit (magnetron 6, waveguide 7, excitation port 8, [0009], motor 14, [0010], Fig 3) configured to supply microwaves to the heating cooking chamber; and
a pull-out body (rail 15, grilling net 16, groove 19, door 21, [0011], Fig 1) configured to be freely pulled out from the heating cooking chamber in a first direction (the grill 16 is pulled out of the cooking chamber 4 by pulling the front engaging portion 17 to the flange portion 26 of the connecting member 25, and the food to be cooked is also taken out from the cooking chamber 4; configuration, the grill 16 can be taken in and out in conjunction with the opening and closing of the door 21, Figs 1-3),
wherein the microwave supply unit includes:
a microwave generation unit (magnetron 6, Fig 3) configured to generate the microwaves,
a radiation port (excitation port 8, Fig 3) for radiating the microwaves into the heating cooking chamber, and
a waveguide (waveguide 7, Fig 3) configured to guide the microwaves from the microwave generation unit to the radiation port ("microwave emitted from the magnetron 6 is supplied from the excitation port 8 to the cooking chamber 4 through the waveguide 7. "), the pull-out body includes:
a pull-out main body (grilling net 16, [0011], Fig 1) on which the object to be heated is placed, and
a support member (connecting members 25, [0015], Fig 1) configured to support the pull-out main body (see Fig 1),
the waveguide and the support member extends are positioned outside the heating cooking chamber (7 and 25 are positioned outside 4, Figs 1-3) and extend in the first direction (7 and 25 are extend in the first direction, Figs 1-3), and
the support member and the waveguide are disposed in parallel to each other in a second direction (7 and the base portion of 25 are disposed in parallel to each other in a second direction- from left side to right side of the outer box 2, Figs 1-3) intersecting the first direction and a vertical direction (the second direction- from left side to right side of the outer box 2 intersecting the first direction and a vertical direction, Figs 1-3).
Claim 4, wherein the support member includes a first member extending in the first direction, and a second member extending in the first direction (25 includes a first member extending in the first direction, and a second member extending in the first direction, Fig 1), and
the waveguide is positioned between the first member and the second member in the second direction. (one portion of the waveguide is located between the first member and the second member in the second direction, the drawer main body has a grill 16 which is a placement part on which the object to be heated is to be placed, the placement part and be pulled out of the cooking chamber and can be accommodated inside the cooking chamber, the base portion of 25 are located below the placement part, an upper heater 9 that is located inside the cooking chamber and heats the object to be heated is also provided, and the upper heater is located at the upper section of the cooking chamber. Figs 1-3).
Claim 5, wherein the pull-out main body includes a placing portion on which the object to be heated is placed (16 includes a placing portion on which the object to be heated is placed, Fig 1),
the placing portion is capable of being pulled out from the heating cooking chamber and being accommodated in the heating cooking chamber (details see Fig 1), and
the support member is positioned below the placing portion (25 is positioned below the placing portion, Fig 1).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichiro et al. (JP 2007 132 566 A) in view of Teruhiro (JP 2008 008 562 A).
Regarding claim 3, Koichiro et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose claim 3.
Teruhiro further teaches a drive mechanism (a drawer in a microwave having a motor 7 and pinion gear 6 for a slide mechanism 4, [Abstract], Figs 1-6) configured to drive the support member (Note: “the support member” taught by Koichiro et al. already),
wherein the drive mechanism, the support member, and the waveguide (Note: “the waveguide” taught by Koichiro et al. already) are positioned at different positions in the second direction (see Fig 1 of Teruhiro and Fig 3 of Koichiro et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Koichiro et al. with Teruhiro’s further teaching of claim 3; because Teruhiro teaches with an opening and closing door to automatically open and close it for operation convenience.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichiro et al. (JP 2007132566).
Regarding Claim 6, Koichiro et al. further comprising:
a heater (an upper heater 9, [0010], Fig 3) positioned in the heating cooking chamber and configured to heat the object to be heated,
wherein the heater is positioned at an upper portion of the heating cooking chamber (9 is positioned at an upper portion of the heating cooking chamber 4, Fig 3), and
the heater has a U shape when viewed from the vertical direction (an upper heater 9, [0010], Fig 3). Koichiro et al. do not explicitly disclose that the heater has a U shape when viewed from the vertical direction; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the heater has a U shape when viewed from the vertical direction as claimed, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component, a change in thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; besides, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Application Spec. [0046 & 0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Koichiro et al. with further teaching of the heater has a U shape when viewed from the vertical direction; because Koichiro et al. teach, in Para. [0001] that providing an excellent cooking appliance capable of microwave heating of food to be cooked, wherein the grilling rack or cooking plate used during microwave heating is extended and retracted in conjunction with the door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights