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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 07/16/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. As directed, claim 1 has been amended; claims 2-4, 6, 8-15 have been withdrawn.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and the Specification filed on 07/16/2026 have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/16/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/16/2026 have created another Drawings Objections, see detail below in the Drawings Objections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C.103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/16/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. In this case, the prior art of record Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b discloses 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; and the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with the second side portion of the choke unit. However, the previously cited Embodiment Figs.1a-1b of Tsujimoto does not disclose: an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion; and the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with both the second side portion and the outer portion of the choke unit as required by independent claim 1. The newly cited Embodiment Fig.3 of Tsujimoto is relied upon to teach the newly added limitation “an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion” and the first portion of the choke cover “is in contact with the second side portion and the outer portion of the choke unit” as required by the independent claim 1.
Additionally, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s argument that “the choke cover 28 is shown to be connected to the backing plate 27, alleged to equate to the choke unit recited in claim 1” – see detail on page 10 of the Remarks dated 07/16/2026, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the prior art Tsujimoto explicitly identifies 27 as a choke unit, specifically, Par.0025 of Tsujimoto discloses: “A choke portion 27 and a choke cover 28 having a substantially rectangular shape are attached over a whole periphery at a back side of a peripheral edge portion of the metal plate 26, that is, the device body 22 side. The choke portion 27 is formed by processing the metal plate 26 so as to pull up nails which are formed at predetermined intervals and which have a substantially cylindrical shape in cross section.”. Therefore, Tsujimoto explicitly identifies 27 as a choke unit.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art Tsujimoto does not disclose the newly added limitations “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; and an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion” and “a first portion constructed of a first material which is in contact with the second side portion and the outer portion of the choke unit” as recited in claim 1 – see detail on pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 07/16/2026, Examiner would like to note that as explained previously, the prior art Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b discloses 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; and the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with the second side portion. However, the previously cited Embodiment Figs.1a-1b of Tsujimoto does not disclose: an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion; and the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with both the second side portion and the outer portion of the choke unit as required by independent claim 1. The newly cited Embodiment Fig.3 of Tsujimoto is relied upon to teach the newly added limitation “an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion” and the first portion of the choke cover “is in contact with the second side portion and the outer portion of the choke unit” as required by the independent claim 1. See detailed rejection of claim 1 below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. In this case, Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and Lerssen properly teaches all limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1 – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/16/2026, therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 generally applies to dependent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second side portion parallel to the first side portion as required by claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Fig.5B of the Instant Application shows that the second side portion 53 is vertical portion that makes 90-degree angle with the inner portion 52; however, the first side portion 51 is a tilted vertical portion that does not make 90-degree angle with the inner portion 52. Therefore, Fig.5B of the Instant Application does not illustrate the second side portion 53 parallel to the first side portion 51. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second side portion bent at a third angle from the inner portion and parallel to the first side portion” in lines 11-12. However, the originally filed specification and the drawings of the Instant Application do not describe the second side portion parallel to the first side portion. It is noted that Par.0041 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “the second portion 63 may extend from an end of the first portion 62, and may extend in a direction parallel to the front panel 210.”; however, the portions 62 and 63 are portions of the choke cover, not the choke unit. Fig.5B of the Instant Application shows that the second side portion 53 is vertical portion that makes 90-degree angle with the inner portion 52; however, the first side portion 51 is a tilted vertical portion that does not make 90-degree angle with the inner portion 52. Therefore, Fig.5B of the Instant Application does not illustrate the second side portion 53 parallel to the first side portion 51. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II., “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).”. See MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the second side portion 53 parallel to the first side portion 51, and the specification of the Instant Application does not indicate that Fig.5B or other figures are drawn to scale, nor does the written description provide dimensions, measurements, tolerances, or other disclosure establishing that the second side portion 53 parallel to the first side portion 51. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 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 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, previously cited) in view of Lerssen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,789,724 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b 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), wherein the choke unit (choke portion 27, Tsujimoto Fig.1a) comprises:
a first side portion (first side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) bent at a first angle (first angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) from the door frame (metal plate 26, Tsujimoto Fig.1a);
an inner portion (inner portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) bent at a second angle (second angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) from the first side portion (first side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below);
a second side portion (second side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) bent at a third angle (third angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) from the inner portion (inner portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.1a below) and parallel to the first side portion (first side portion, 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”) which is in contact with the second side portion (second side portion, 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
869
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b does not explicitly disclose:
an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion, and
the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with the outer portion of the choke unit
Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 teaches a microwave oven (as shown in Tsujimoto Fig.3) comprising a choke unit (choke portion 11, Tsujimoto Fig.3) comprises a first side portion (first side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) bent at a first angle (first angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) from the door frame (metal plate 2, Tsujimoto Fig.3); an inner portion (inner portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) bent at a second angle (second angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) from the first side portion (first side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below); a second side portion (second side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) bent at a third angle (third angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) from the inner portion (inner portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) and parallel to the first side portion (first side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below); and:
an outer portion (outer portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) bent at a fourth angle (fourth angle, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) from the second side portion (second side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below), and
the first portion (first portion of choke cover 6, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) of the choke cover (choke cover 6, Tsujimoto Fig.3) is in contact with the second side portion (second side portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) and the outer portion (outer portion, Tsujimoto annotated Fig.3 below) of the choke unit (choke portion 11, Tsujimoto Fig.3)
PNG
media_image2.png
900
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microwave oven of Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b, by adding an outer portion bent at a fourth angle from the second side portion and making the first portion of the choke cover is in contact with the outer portion of the choke unit, as taught by Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3, in order to provide a more enclosed overlapping relationship between the choke portion and the choke cover, thereby lengthening and shielding the leakage path at the door periphery, improving sealing against steam and foreign substance ingress, and providing additional support to the choke cover to improve its attachment reliability.
Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 does not explicitly teach:
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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0312808 A1, previously cited) in view of Lerssen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,789,724 A, previously cited), and further in view of Nagamune (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0387648 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and 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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and 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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and Lerssen teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, the primary reference Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b 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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and 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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b discloses the ripple 32 is elastic ripple that is configured to perform elastic sealing function in Par.0027; specifically, the ripple 32 of Tsujimoto Embodiment Figs.1a-1b 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 Embodiment Figs.1a-1b in view of Tsujimoto Embodiment Fig.3 and 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.
Hofmann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,549,438 B2) discloses a microwave oven with at least one wave choke system. The wave choke system comprises a plurality of choke members and a counter part. There is no direct electric contact between the choke members on the one hand and the counter part on the other hand.
Zbat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0297673 A1) discloses a wave choke system for a door of a microwave oven. The wave choke system comprises at least one wave trap formed as an elongated channel and bordered by four channel walls made of one or more conductive materials and by at least one gap. The wave trap comprises at least two adjoining wave choke recesses for a λ/4 transformation parallel to each other and parallel to the wave trap. Two neighbouring wave choke recesses are separated by an elongated wave barrier made of one or more conductive materials.
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.
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 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights