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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Prosecution Application
In view of the appeal brief filed on June 15th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY
REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following
two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing
below:
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16-22, 24-25, 27, 29, and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (JP Patent No. 06168780) in view of Jo (KR Patent No. 940005390 Y1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ishii teaches a household microwave appliance (Paragraph 19, Microwave Oven), comprising: a microwave treatment chamber having a loading opening (Paragraph 19, Heating Chamber with loading opening); a door for closing the loading opening of the microwave treatment chamber (Paragraph 19, Door 2 for closing the loading opening); and a microwave trap configured to prevent microwaves escaping when the door is closed (Figure 1 and Paragraph 1, Door Choke used to prevent any leakages), said microwave trap being a bent sheet-metal component with a main bending edge (Paragraph 19 and Figure 27, Door choke is made of metal and has a main bending edge), which is adjoined by a row of teeth at a distance (Figure 27, Showcases row of teeth adjoined at a distance), said microwave trap including a row of bending slots in the main bending edge, with at least one of the bending slot being interrupted by at least one web to define slot sections (Figure 27, Showcases row of bending slots in the main bending edge with at least on web a1 interrupting the bending slots and splitting into bending sections b2). Where in the row of teeth is arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap (Figure 27, Showcases that the teeth are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap), the row of bending slots is arranged along the longitudinal direction (Figure 27, Showcases that the bending slots are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap),
Ishii fails to teach a first bending slot of the bending slots aligns with a first tooth of the teeth at a position along the longitudinal direction such that no part of the first bending slot aligns, in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with a gap between the first tooth and a second tooth adjacent the first tooth.
Jo teaches a choke of the microwave door (Figure 1, Choke of the microwave door) where a first bending slot of the bending slots aligns with a first tooth of the teeth at a position along the longitudinal direction (Figure 2, Showcases that the groove 6, acting as the bending slots, that are near the base of the choke algins with a tooth along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap as seen in Annotated Figure 2) such that no part of the first bending slot aligns, in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with a gap between the first tooth and a second tooth adjacent the first tooth (Figure 2, Showcases that the groove 6, acting as the bending slots, do not algin with the gaps between the two tooth in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction as seen in Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
587
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Microwave Choke With Description
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishii by modifying the placement of the existing bending slots to be aligned with a first tooth at a position along the longitudinal direction but not with a gap as stated in Jo. The grooves 6 location and orientation help bends the bending portion 7 into the desired shape (Page 2, Grooves).
Regarding Claim 17, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the bending slots are arranged in parallel to the teeth (Ishii: Figure 27, Bending slots are parallel to teeth).
Regarding Claim 18, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the slot sections have a length which is not greater than 1 cm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Slot Sections b2 is 7 mm which converts to 0.7 cm).
While Ishii may not expressly teach the that the slots sections have a length no greater than 1 cm of the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the slot sections is no greater than 1 cm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the slot sections have a length which is not greater than 0.9 cm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Slot Sections b2 is 7 mm which converts to 0.7 cm).
While Ishii may not expressly teach the that the slots sections have a length no greater than 0.9 cm of the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the slot sections is no greater than 0.9 cm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 20, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the slot sections have a length which is not greater than 0.8 cm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Slot Sections b2 is 7 mm which converts to 0.7 cm).
While Ishii may not expressly teach the that the slots sections have a length no greater than 0.8 cm of the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the slot sections is no greater than 0.8 cm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 21, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that at least one of the bending slots is interrupted by precisely one said web (Ishii: Figure 27, Bending slots is interrupted precisely by one web a1).
Regarding Claim 22, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that at least one web traverses the at least one of the bending slots centrally (Ishii: Figure 27, The web a1 traverse Bending slot centrally).
Regarding Claim 24, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the at least one of the bending slots is interrupted by multiple of said web (Ishii: Figure 27, Showcases Bending slot interrupted by multiple webs).
Regarding Claim 25, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that multiple webs traverse the at least one of the bending slots equidistantly (Ishii: Figure 27, Showcases webs are traversing the Bending slot with equal distance from edge to edge).
Regarding Claim 27, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that at least one web has a length of at least approximately 2 mm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Web a1 is 3 mm).
While Ishii may not expressly teach the that the webs have a length of at least approximately 2 mm as stated in the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the webs is at least approximately 2 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 29, Ishii teaches a method for producing a microwave trap of a household microwave appliance from a sheet-metal component (Paragraph 19, Producing Door Choke for microwave oven using metal sheet), said method comprising: forming bending slots in the sheet-metal component along an intended main bending edge at a distance from a row of teeth arranged on a remote edge (Paragraph 19, 55-56, and Figure 27, Showcases row of bending slots in the main bending edge with row of teeth adjoined at a distance), with each of the bending slots being interrupted by a web to define slot sections; and bending the sheet-metal component at the intended main bending edge (Paragraph 19 and 55-56, and Figure 27, Showcases row of bending slots in the main bending edge of metal sheet with at least on web a1 interrupting the bending slots and splitting into bending sections b2). wherein the row of teeth is arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap (Figure 27, Showcases that the teeth are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap), the row of bending slots is arranged along the longitudinal direction (Figure 27, Showcases that the bending slots are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap),
Ishii fails to teach a first bending slot of the bending slots aligns with a first tooth of the teeth at a position along the longitudinal direction such that no part of the first bending slot aligns, in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with a gap between the first tooth and a second tooth adjacent the first tooth.
Jo teaches a choke of the microwave door (Figure 1, Choke of the microwave door) where a first bending slot of the bending slots aligns with a first tooth of the teeth at a position along the longitudinal direction (Figure 2, Showcases that the groove 6, acting as the bending slots, algins with a tooth along a longitudinal direction of the microwave trap) such that no part of the first bending slot aligns, in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with a gap between the first tooth and a second tooth adjacent the first tooth (Figure 2, Showcases that the groove 6, acting as the bending slots, do not algin with the gaps between the two tooth in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishii to incorporate the position of the first bending slots in relation to the first and second tooth as stated in Jo. The grooves 6 help bends the bending portion 7 into the desired shape (Page 2, Grooves).
Regarding Claim 31, Ishii in view of Ishii teaches that the slot sections have a length along the main bending edge of not more than 0.9 cm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Slot Sections b2 is 7 mm, converts to 0.7 cm, and is along main bending edge).
While Ishii (Embodiment 1) may not expressly teach the that the slots sections have a length no greater than 0.9 cm of the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the slot sections is no greater than 0.9 cm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 32, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the slot sections have a length along the main bending edge of not more than 0.8 cm (Ishii: Page 11 Table 4 Example 25 refers to Figure 27, Slot Sections b2 is 7 mm, converts to 0.7 cm, and is along main bending edge).
While Ishii in view of Ishii (Embodiment 2) may not expressly teach the that the slots sections have a length no greater than 0.8 cm of the instant claim. Ishii teaches a length that falls within the length range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the length range of the slot sections is no greater than 0.8 cm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 33, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the bending slots are formed in the sheet-metal component in parallel to the teeth (Ishii: Paragraph 19 and 55-56, and Figure 27, Bending slots formed in metal sheet are parallel to teeth).
Regarding Claim 34, Ishii in view of Ishii Jo teaches that no part of the web aligns, in the transverse direction, with the gap between the first tooth and the second tooth (Ishii: Figure 27, Showcases that the web (b3) does not algin with the gaps between the two tooth in a transverse direction).
Regarding Claim 35, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the web aligns, in the transverse direction, with a center of the first tooth (Ishii (Embodiment 1): Figure 27, Showcases that the web (b3) does algin with the center of the tooth in the transverse direction).
Regarding Claim 36, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that no part of the web aligns, in the transverse direction, with the gap between the first tooth and the second tooth (Ishii: Figure 27, Showcases that the web (b3) does not algin with the gaps between the two tooth in a transverse direction).
Regarding Claim 37, Ishii in view of Jo teaches that the web aligns, in the transverse direction, with a center of the first tooth (Ishii (Embodiment 1): Figure 27, Showcases that the web (b3) does algin with the center of the tooth in the transverse direction).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (JP Patent No. 06168780) in view of Jo (KR Patent No. 940005390 Y1) and further in view of Kitayama (JP Patent No. 08083680).
Regarding Claim 28, Ishii in view of Jo fails to teach that the bending slots is arranged completely inside a longitudinal section of a corresponding one of the teeth which is arranged in parallel to the one of the bending slots.
Kitayama teaches a radio wave sealing device for shielding high frequency radio waves (Paragraph 1, radio wave sealing device) where one of the bending slots is arranged completely inside a longitudinal section of a corresponding one of the teeth which is arranged in parallel to the one of the bending slots (Figure 7, Bending slots 26a and 26b are arraigned parallel and completely inside a longitudinal section of the teeth).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishii in view of Jo by arranging bending slots in the manner stated in Boemmels. The bending slots help bend the teeth to create the right shape for the microwave trap (Paragraph 4, Bending Slots).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (JP Patent No. 06168780) in view of Jo (KR Patent No. 940005390 Y1) and further in view of Boemmels (DE Patent No. 102006042992).
Regarding Claim 30, Ishii in view of Jo fails to teach the method of how to shape the metal of the Microwave Trap.
Boemmels teaches a microwave door with a microwave trap (Paragraph 1-2, Microwave Trap) that is created by reshaping the sheet-metal component by deep drawing (Paragraph 60, microwave trap metal is reshaped deep drawing).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishii in view of Jo by utilizing a deep drawing method as stated in Boemmels. Deep drawn method of reshaping metallic component is the preferable method to due to increased strength (Paragraph 60, preferable method).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-10, filed June 15th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 16 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Jo (KR Patent No. 940005390 Y1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
