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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2022, 07/08/2024, 02/06/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 2 (Figs.5A-5B) in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledge.
Applicant alleged that the claimed subject matter of Species 1-3 is so closely related that there would be no burden of search, see details on pages 2-3 of the Response to Election/Restriction Filed on 04/06/2026. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are not persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species.
Specifically, Species 1 (as shown in Fig.4), Species 2 (as shown in Figs.5A-5B), and Species 3 (as shown in Figs.7A-9) are independent or distinct because they contain the mutually exclusive feature of electromagnetic shielding layer disposed between the choke cover and the choke unit. Furthermore, the choke cover of Species 2 contains two portions that are connected integrally, wherein the first portion constructed of a first material, and the second portion constructed of a second material different from the first material; however, the choke covers of Species 1 and Species 3 each contains a continuous cover having only one material. In addition, these Species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. To be more specific,
Species 1. As shown in Fig.4. Fig.4 shows a shielding device including a choke unit 240 and a choke cover 230. Par.0006 describes in this embodiment, the choke cover 230 is hook-coupled to the choke unit to reinforce rigidity of the choke and to protect the choke from foreign substances when cooking food or cleaning the door. There is no electromagnetic shielding layer disposed between the choke cover 230 and the choke unit 240.
Species 2. As shown in Figs.5A-5B. Figs.5A-5B shows a shielding device including a choke unit 50 and a choke cover 60. Par.0038 describes in this embodiment, the choke cover 60 includes first portions 61 and 62 constructed of a first material, and Par.0039 describes the choke cover 60 includes a second portion 63 constructed of a second material. There is no electromagnetic shielding layer disposed between the choke cover 60 and the choke unit 50.
Species 3. As shown in Figs.7A-9. Figs.7A-9 shows a shielding device including a choke unit 30 and a choke cover 230. Par.0048 describes the choke unit 30 may include first and second portions 31 and 33, an outer portion 34, and an inner portion 32, and a free end of each of the outer portions 34 may be spaced apart from the first side portion 31. Par.0049 describes the second side portion 33 of the choke unit 30 may include a plurality of portions extending in an equidistantly split manner while extending from the inner portion 32, wherein the portions 33 may have at least one coupling hole h constructed to couple the choke cover 230. Furthermore, Par.0053 describes the electromagnetic shielding layer 40 may be disposed between the choke cover 230 and the outer portion 34 of the choke unit 30.
Therefore, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search, e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electric resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries; and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s argument that there is no burden of search is not persuasive.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s assertation that “Species 2, FIG. 5A-B for examination on which claims 1-7 are readable” – see page 2 of the Response to Election/Restriction Filed on 04/06/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to note that claim 2 does not belong to the elected Species 2 (as shown in Figs.5A-5B); in contrast, claim 2 belongs to the non-elected Species 3 (as shown in Figs.7A-9). Specifically, claim 2 requires: “wherein the second side portion has at least one coupling hole” in line 6 of claim 2; however, there is only one place in the specification that mentions “coupling hole”, which is in Par.0049, specifically, Par.0049 describes: “According to an embodiment, the second side portion 33 may include a plurality of portions extending in an equidistantly split manner while extending from the inner portion 32. According to an embodiment, the portions may have at least one coupling hole h constructed to couple the choke cover 230.”. As explained previously, the side portion 33 and the choke cover 230 belong to Species 3 (Figs.7A-9). Fig.9 also shows the coupling hole(s) h and the side portion 33. The specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not indicate there is a coupling hole associated with the choke unit 50 of the Species 2, or there is coupling hole constructed to couple the choke cover 60 of the Species 2. Furthermore, claim 2 recites “wherein the choke unit comprises: a first side portion bent at a first angle from the door frame; an inner portion bent at a second angle from the first side portion; a second side portion bent at a third angle from the inner portion and parallel to the first side portion, wherein the second side portion has at least one coupling hole; and an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion.” in lines 2-7 of claim 2, and the specification of the Instant Application Par.0048 describes: “Referring to FIG. 7A to FIG. 9, according to an embodiment, a door (e.g., the door 12 of FIG. 1) may include a choke unit 30 (e.g., the choke unit 240 of FIG. 4) extending from a door frame (e.g., the door frame 220 of FIG. 3). According to an embodiment, the choke unit 30 may include first and second portions 31 and 33, an outer portion 34, and an inner portion 32. According to an embodiment, the choke unit 30 is constructed of a metal material, and may include the first side portion 31 bent at a first angle from the door frame 220. For example, the first angle may be approximately 90 degrees. According to an embodiment, the choke unit 30 may include the inner portion 32 bent at a second angle from the first side portion 31. For example, the second angle may be approximately 90 degrees. According to an embodiment, the choke unit 30 may include the second side portion 33 bent at a third angle from the inner portion 32. For example, the third angle may be approximately 90 degrees. According to an embodiment, the choke unit 30 may include the outer portion 34 bent at a fourth angle from the inner portion 32. For example, the fourth angle may be approximately 90 degrees. According to an embodiment, a free end of each of the outer portions 34 may be spaced apart from the first side portion 31.”, and Par.0049 describes: “According to an embodiment, the second side portion 33 may include a plurality of portions extending in an equidistantly split manner while extending from the inner portion 32. According to an embodiment, the portions may have at least one coupling hole h constructed to couple the choke cover 230.”. Therefore, claim 2 belongs to the non-elected Species 3 (as shown in Figs.7A-9), not the elected Species 2 (as shown in Figs.5A-5B).
Accordingly, claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-4, 6 are withdrawn from consideration because they belong to the non-elected species (Species 3).
For given above reasons, the Examiner’s requirement for restriction/election dated 11/26/2025 is deemed proper. Accordingly, species 1 & 3 and claims 2-4, 6, 8-15 are withdrawn from consideration; claims 1, 5, 7 are examined as follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “112” is shown in Fig.1, “330” and “231” are shown in Fig.7B, and “120” is shown in Fig.8 but they are not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0312808 A1) in view of Lerssen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,789,724 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tsujimoto discloses a microwave oven (microwave oven 21, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) (Tsujimoto Par.0001 discloses: “The present invention relates to a high-frequency cooking device such as a microwave oven”) comprising:
a main body (device body 22, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) including a cooking chamber (heating chamber 23, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) (Tsujimoto Par.0024 discloses: “a heating chamber 23 configured to mount a food thereon in heating is provided in a device body 22 of a microwave oven 21 (a high-frequency cooking device)”) and a front panel (front panel, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below);
a door (door 25, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) to the main body (device body 22, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) including a door frame (metal plate 26, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) corresponding to the front panel (front panel, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below); and
a shielding device (shielding device includes the choke portion 27 [Tsujimoto Fig.1a], the choke cover 28 [Tsujimoto Fig.1a] and the elastic ripple 32 [Tsujimoto Fig.1b]) connected to the door (door 25, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) to shield electromagnetic waves leaking from the cooking chamber (heating chamber 23, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) (since Tsujimoto Par.0009 discloses that the objective of the invention is to provide a high-frequency cooking device capable of ensuring a sealing property between a choke portion and a choke cover without deteriorating an assembling workability of the device, therefore, the shielding device comprises the choke portion 27, the choke cover 28 and the elastic ripple 32 connected to the door 25 as shown in Tsujimoto Figs.1a-1b is capable of shielding electromagnetic waves leaking from the heating chamber 23),
wherein the shielding device (shielding device includes the choke portion 27 [Tsujimoto Fig.1a], the choke cover 28 [Tsujimoto Fig.1a] and the elastic ripple 32 [Tsujimoto Fig.1b]) comprises:
a choke unit (choke portion 27, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) extending from the door frame (metal plate 26, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) and including a plurality of portions (plurality of portions, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) constructed by being bent at least once (Tsujimoto Fig.1a shows the choke portion 27 including a plurality of portions constructed by being bent at least once, or as shown in Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below); and
a choke cover (choke cover 28 and elastic ripple 32, Tsujimoto Figs.1a-1b) (Tsujimoto Par.0027 discloses: “The choke cover 28 has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view, and an elastic ripple 32 is integrally formed over a whole periphery of an end on a central side of the choke cover 28.”) covering the choke unit (choke portion 27, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) (Tsujimoto Par.0025 discloses: “The choke cover 28 is formed by a polypropylene resin and covers over the groove of the choke portion 27 to hide the groove.”), wherein the choke cover (choke cover 28 and elastic ripple 32, Tsujimoto Figs.1a-1b) comprises:
a first portion (choke cover 28, Tsujimoto Figs.1a-1b) constructed of a first material (“polypropylene resin”, Tsujimoto Par.0025) (Tsujimoto Par.0025 discloses: “The choke cover 28 is formed by a polypropylene resin”) coupled to a portion of the choke unit (inner portion of the choke portion 27, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below); and
a second portion (elastic ripple 32, Tsujimoto Fig.1b) connected integrally with the first portion (choke cover 28, Tsujimoto Figs.1a-1b) (Tsujimoto Par.0027 discloses: “The choke cover 28 has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view, and an elastic ripple 32 is integrally formed over a whole periphery of an end on a central side of the choke cover 28.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsujimoto does not explicitly disclose:
the second portion constructed of a second material different from the first material
Lerssen teaches a microwave oven (microwave oven 110, Lerssen Fig.11) comprising a choke cover (choke cover 32, Lerssen Fig.1), wherein the choke cover (choke cover 32, Lerssen Fig.1) is constructed of a first portion (choke cover member 38, Lerssen Fig.1) and a second portion (choke cover member 34, Lerssen Fig.1), and wherein:
the second portion (choke cover member 34, Lerssen Fig.1) constructed of a second material different from a first material of the first portion (choke cover member 38, Lerssen Fig.1) (Lerssen Col.5 lines 37-51 teaches: “The second inner choke cover member 38 of the inner choke cover 32 is preferably made of a microwave safe material. Such a material is transparent to RF energy and is capable of withstanding temperatures in excess of 500° F. without warpage or other structural impairment. Such a material is also temperature resistant, non-hygroscopic (does not absorb moisture), flame resistant, non-toxic (meets National Sanitation Foundation standards), non-brittle, cleaner resistant, and animal fats and food byproducts resistant. Accordingly, the material used for the second inner choke cover member 38, for example, may be a thermoplastic polyimide having a 40% mineral fill. The fill may be glass or any other suitable mineral. The thermoplastic polyimide may be supplied by RTP Company under catalog number 4299X-65690BLK.”, and Lerssen Col.5 lines 60-67 teaches: “The material for the first inner choke cover member 34, for example, is sufficient if it withstands temperatures of around 350° F. The material which may be used for the first inner choke cover member 34 may be a thermal set vinyl ester having approximately 15% glass, 2% titanium oxide, and 60% calcium carbonate which can be ordered under catalog number 840-6506 from BMC (Bulk Molding Compounds, Inc.)”; therefore, Lerssen teaches different materials selected for the choke cover based on thermal/mechanical requirements.)
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 microwave oven of Tsujimoto, by making the second portion of the choke cover to be constructed of second material different from first material of the first portion of the choke cover, as taught by Lerssen, in order to optimize thermal resistance and mechanical performance, since the ripple portion in Tsujimoto functions as a sealing element requiring flexibility, while the main body of the choke cover provides structural support, thus, the main body of the choke cover requires rigidity and heat resistance; thereby achieving improvements in sealing performance, durability and thermal resistance.
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0312808 A1) in view of Lerssen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,789,724 A), and further in view of Nagamune (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0387648 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tsujimoto in view of Lerssen teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first material includes a high permittivity shielding material, and the high permittivity shielding material includes one of a Carbon Nano Tube (CNT) material or a Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE) material.
Nagamune teaches an electromagnetic wave shield structure (Nagamune Abstract):
wherein the first material includes a high permittivity shielding material, and the high permittihity shielding material includes one of a Carbon Nano Tube (CNT) material or a Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE) material (It is noted that the limitation “one of a Carbon Nano Tube (CNT) material or a Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE) material” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Nagamune teaches high permittivity shielding material including Carbon Nano Tube (CNT) material because Nagamune Par.0011 teaches: “The inventor consequently discovered that, for example, an electromagnetic wave shield structure including an electromagnetic wave shield layer that contains fibrous carbon nanostructures such as carbon nanotubes and has a surface density in a predetermined range delivers excellent electromagnetic wave shield performance in a high frequency band.”.)
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 microwave oven of Tsujimoto in view of Lerssen, by making the first material includes high permittivity shielding material, and the high permittivity shielding material includes Carbon Nano Tube (CNT) material, as taught by Nagamune, in order to improve electromagnetic shielding performance, as recognized by Nagamune [Nagamune, Pars.0011-0012, 0019]. Thus, the radiation is contained within the cooking chamber and does not leak through the door gap. Therefore, the modification enhances user safety and improves energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Tsujimoto in view of Lerssen teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, the primary reference Tsujimoto further discloses: “The choke cover 28 is formed by a polypropylene resin and covers over the groove of the choke portion 27 to hide the groove.” in Par.0025, and “The choke cover 28 has a substantially rectangular shape in plan view, and an elastic ripple 32 is integrally formed over a whole periphery of an end on a central side of the choke cover 28.” in Par.0027. However, Tsujimoto does not explicitly disclose the elastic ripple 32 includes a polypropylene material.
Therefore, Tsujimoto in view of Lerssen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second material includes a polypropylene material.
Nagamune teaches an electromagnetic wave shield structure (Nagamune Abstract):
wherein the second material includes a polypropylene material (It is noted that the primary reference Tsujimoto discloses the ripple 32 is elastic ripple that is configured to perform elastic sealing function in Par.0027; specifically, the ripple 32 of Tsujimoto is configured to contact opposing surface and seal a gap, which requires a material capable of elastic. And in this case, Nagamune Par.0073 teaches: “The electromagnetic wave shield layer may further contain any resin in a small amount as other components.”, and Nagamune Par.0108 teaches examples of the resin as the base material include natural rubber including polypropylene resin.).
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 microwave oven of Tsujimoto in view of Lerssen, by making the second material includes polypropylene material, as taught by Nagamune, in order to improve both sealing performance and electromagnetic shielding. Polypropylene resin provides sufficient flexibility, fatigue resistance, and moldability to maintain sealing contact under repeated use (in this case, opening and closing microwave oven door); therefore, the second material includes polypropylene resin would maintain sealing performance in harsh kitchen environment and create a stable seal without excessive deformation.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ha et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0021145 A1) discloses a structure for shielding electromagnetic waves, a door and a cooking appliance. A choke is disposed on an outer periphery of a door seal, which is a structure for shielding electromagnetic waves for preventing the electromagnetic waves in the cooking chamber from leaking through the gap between the cooking chamber and the door.
Ishino et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,525,614 A) discloses a microwave absorber device for a microwave heater having a main body with an opening and a door for closing said opening with a leakage path between the door and the main body.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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 04/13/2026
Prosecution Insights