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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I comprising claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/5/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/5/25.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT Application No. PCT/AU2021/051122 and of the foreign patent application AU2020903533 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 9/27/2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 3/29/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, line 4, “engage configuration” should read “engagement configuration” (emphasis added) to align with ‘engagement configuration’ as recited in parent claim 1. Any subsequent recitations of “engage configuration” throughout the claims should also read “engagement configuration” for consistency, such as the recitation in claim 4.
Regarding Claims 2-10, in the preamble, “A cooking appliance…” should be amended to read “The cooking appliance…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, lines 9-12: biased member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “biased”, “to engage the catch when the catch is at the extended position”, and “adapted to bias the catch into the extended position and bias the catch to the release configuration”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a swing arm and a torsion spring, as specified in Par. 0013, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 5, lines 2-3: soft close mechanism. The nonce term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “soft close” and “for biasing the catch to the retracted position whereupon the door closes the opening”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a retraction spring and a damper, as specified in Par. 0026, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 7, lines 2-4: guide structure. The nonce term “structure” is modified by functional language “guide”, “for guiding the catch between the extended position and the retracted position”, and “configured to rotate the catch into the release configuration at the extended position”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is two parallel tracks and equivalents thereof. Examiner notes this interpretation is based on reference character ‘206’ in Fig. 2 and Par. 0082, which discloses reference character ‘206’ is a guide structure, and Par. 0073, which discloses reference character ‘206’ is two parallel tracks. Given reference character ‘206’ includes a reference to two parallel tracks, a structure that corresponds to the depiction of ‘206’ in Fig. 2, it’s the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is two parallel tracks and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9, line 3 recites “the swing arm” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that the ‘swing arm’ is the same structure as the ‘arm’ recited earlier in the claim. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 9.
Claim 10, line 3 recites “the retraction spring” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that the ‘retraction spring’ recited in claim 10 is the same structure as the ‘retraction spring’ recited in claim 6. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Esterle et al. (US 20190178001 A1, hereafter Esterle).
Regarding claim 1, Esterle discloses a cooking appliance (Abstract) including:
a body (Fig. 1, cabinet 102) with an interior for food to be cooked (Par. 0018, “Cabinet 102 defines a cooking chamber 104 for receipt of food items for cooking”), the body having an opening providing access to the interior (Implicitly disclosed. See Par. 0020, “Microwave oven 100 includes a door 120 that is rotatably attached to cabinet 102 in order to permit selective access to cooking chamber 104.”);
a door (Fig. 1, door 120) attached to the body to selectively open and close the opening (Par. 0020, as quoted above), the door having a latch (Fig. 1, striker 150. Examiner notes a latch is designed to fasten something, therefore striker 150 is a ‘latch’ because it is designed to fasten door 120 to cabinet 102), and the body having a catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282. Examiner notes a catch is designed to capture something, therefore latch arm 282 is a ‘catch’ because it is designed to catch or capture striker 150) for engaging the latch (Par. 0040, “By contrast, when door 120 is pulled toward the open position, striker 150 pulls on catch element 202 (e.g., via latch arm 282 described below)”), the catch being movable between a retracted position (Fig. 5, which shows catch latch arm 282is retracted or drawn in towards the right end of damped closure assembly 200 and is therefore in a ‘retracted position’) and an extended position (Fig. 3, which shows latch arm 282 is extended further away from the right end of damped closure assembly 200 than the position of latch arm 282 shown in Fig. 5 and is therefore in an ‘extended position’), and the catch being configurable in an engagement configuration (Fig. 4, which shows latch arm 282 is engaged with striker 150, therefore latch arm 282 is in an ‘engagement configuration’) for engaging the latch and a release configuration (Fig. 3, which shows latch arm 282is not engaged with striker 150, therefore latch arm 282 is in a ‘release configuration’) for disengaging the latch; and,
the body having a biased member (Figs. 3-5, spring mechanism 240 and engagement surface 268 & Par. 0040, “More specifically, during operation, as door 120 is moved toward the closed position, striker 150 engages engagement surface 268, thereby rotating catch element 202 toward the closed position. The momentum of door 120 and the force of spring mechanism 240 draw catch element 202 into the closed position”. Examiner notes spring mechanism 240 and engagement surface 268 are equivalent to the “swing arm and torsion swing” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) to engage the catch when the catch is at the extended position; wherein,
the biased member is adapted to bias the catch into the extended position (Par. 0036, “spring mechanism 240 is configured for urging catch element 202 toward the open position when catch element 202 is positioned between the open position (see, e.g., FIG. 3) and an over-center position (see, e.g., FIG. 4)”) and bias the catch to the release configuration (Par. 0036, as quoted above).
Regarding claim 3, Esterle discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein during use, contact between the latch (Fig. 1, striker 150, as explained in claim 1) and the catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282, as explained in claim 1) as the door closes (Par. 0040, “More specifically, during operation, as door 120 is moved toward the closed position, striker 150 engages engagement surface 268, thereby rotating catch element 202 toward the closed position. The momentum of door 120 and the force of spring mechanism 240 draw catch element 202 into the closed position”), moves the catch to the engaged configuration (Fig. 4, as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Esterle discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein during use, the catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282, as explained in claim 1) is in the engaged configuration (Fig. 4, as explained in claim 1) when moving between the extended position (Fig. 3, as explained in claim 1) and the retracted position (Fig. 5, as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Esterle discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the body (Fig. 1, cabinet 102) has a soft close mechanism (From Kozlovic: Figs. 2a-2c, damping element 260. Examiner notes tension spring 24 and damper 25 are equivalent to the “retraction spring and damper” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) for biasing the catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282, as explained in claim 1) to the retracted position (Fig. 5, as explained in claim 1) whereupon the door (Fig. 1, door 120) closes the opening (Implicitly disclosed, as noted in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Esterle discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the body (Fig. 1, cabinet 102) has a guide structure (Par. 0032, “base plate 204 defines a guide channel 220 that is curved around pin 206 to guide the rotation of catch element 202.” Examiner notes guide channel 220 is equivalent to the “two parallel tracks” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) for guiding the catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282, as explained in claim 1) between the extended position (Fig. 3, as explained in claim 1) and the retracted position (Fig. 5, as explained in claim 1), the guide structure being configured to rotate the catch into the release configuration (Fig. 3, as explained in claim 1) at the extended position (Par. 0032, as quoted above).
However, Esterle does not disclose two parallel tracks. However, it’s the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize and arrive at two parallel tracks, recognizing that more tracks is directly correlated to increased stability of the extension and retraction of actuator 19 and thereby increased reliability of opening and closing the door, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed a new and unexpected result for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kozlovic, as modified above, discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the biased member (Figs. 3-5, spring mechanism 240 and engagement surface 268 & Par. 0040, as explained in claim 1) has an arm (Figs. 3-5, engagement surface 268. Examiner notes an arm is a slender part that projects from a main part of a structure, therefore engagement surface 268 is an ‘arm’ because it is a slender part that projects from the main body of catch element 202) and a torsion spring (Figs. 3-5, spring mechanism 240 and Par. 0035, “spring mechanism 240 is a torsional spring” and Par. 0036, “In this regard, spring mechanism 240 is configured for urging catch element 202 toward the open position when catch element 202 is positioned between the open position (see, e.g., FIG. 3) and an over-center position (see, e.g., FIG. 4). By contrast, when catch element 202 is positioned at a angle between the over-center position and the closed position (see, e.g., FIG. 5), spring mechanism 240 urges catch element 202 toward the closed position.”), such that the arm rotates into biased contact with the catch (Fig. 4, latch arm 282, as explained in claim 1. See movement of latch arm 282 between Figs. 3 and 4) when in the extended position (Fig. 3, as explained in claim 1) and the release configuration (Fig. 5, as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 8, wherein the arm (Figs. 3-5, engagement surface 268, as explained in claim 8) is mounted within the body (Fig. 1, cabinet 102) such that contact with the latch (Fig. 1, striker 150, as explained in claim 1) as the door closes, rotates the swing arm away from the catch (Fig. 1, latch arm 282. See movement of engagement surface 268 between Figs. 3 and 4).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlovic et al. (US 2020217120 A1, hereafter Kozlovic. Examiner notes this reference is in the same patent family as GB 2563672 A that is cited in the IDS dated 3/29/2023) in view of Esterle et al. (US 20190178001 A1, hereafter Esterle).
Regarding claim 1, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, cooker 10) including:
a body (annotated Fig. A) with an interior (Fig. 1, inside of oven 11) for food to be cooked, the body having an opening (Fig. 1, implicitly disclosed by the presence of door 12 and the well-known function of oven 11) providing access to the interior;
a door (Fig. 1, door 12) attached to the body to selectively open and close the opening (implicitly disclosed by Par. 0022, which discloses door 12 can be opened, and Par. 0025, which discloses door 12 can be closed), the door having a latch (Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, trigger 17. Examiner notes a latch is designed to fasten something, therefore trigger 17 is a ‘latch’ because it is designed to fasten door 12 to oven 11), and the body having a catch (Figs. 2a-2c, actuator 19. Examiner notes a catch is designed to capture something, therefore actuator 19 is a ‘catch’ because it is designed to catch or capture trigger 17) for engaging the latch (Figs. 2a-2c), the catch being movable between a retracted position (Fig. 2c, which shows actuator 19 is retracted or drawn in towards the right end of mechanism 13 and is therefore in a ‘retracted position’) and an extended position (Fig. 2a, which shows actuator 19 is extended further away from the right end of mechanism 13 than the position of actuator 19 shown in Fig. 2c and is therefore in an ‘extended position’), and the catch being configurable in an engagement configuration (Fig. 2b, which shows actuator 19 is engaged with trigger 17, therefore actuator 19 is in an ‘engagement configuration’) for engaging the latch and a release configuration (Fig. 2a, which shows actuator 19 is not engaged with trigger 17, therefore actuator 19 is in a ‘release configuration’) for disengaging the latch; and,
the body having a biased member (Figs. 2a-3c, spring 29 and tumbler 30 & Par. 0022, “This sliding movement of the actuator 19 takes place initially against the biassing action of both the return spring 24”. Examiner notes spring 29 and tumbler 30 are equivalent to the “swing arm and torsion swing” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above).
However, Kozlovic does not disclose the biased member engages the catch when the catch is at the extended position, and
the biased member is adapted to bias the catch into the extended position and bias the catch to the release configuration.
Esterle discloses a closure assembly for a microwave oven (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Esterle further discloses it is known for a biased member (Figs. 3-4, spring mechanism 240) to engage a catch (Figs. 3-4, catch element 202) when the catch is at an extended position (Fig. 3, which shows catch element 202 extends away from the right end of damped closure assembly 200 and is therefore in an ‘extended position’), and
the biased member to be adapted to bias the catch into the extended position (Par. 0036, which discloses spring mechanism 240 biases catch element 202 towards the position of catch element 202 shown in Fig. 3) and bias the catch to a release configuration (Fig. 3, which shows catch element 202 is not engaged with the striker 150, therefore actuator is in a ‘release configuration’ and Par. 0036, which discloses spring mechanism 240 biases catch element 202 towards the configuration of catch element 202 shown in Fig. 3. Examiner notes a latch is designed to fasten something, therefore striker 150 is a ‘latch’ because it is designed to fasten door 120 to cabinet 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biased member of Kozlovic with the same of Esterle and receiving slot 244 of Esterle so the biased member engages the catch when the catch is at the extended position and is adapted to bias the catch into the extended position and release configuration, thereby making it easier for users to open the door so users with a wider range of abilities can operate the cooking appliance.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Kozlovic showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the latch (Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, trigger 17, as explained in claim 1) is configured to disengage the biased member (Figs. 2a-2c, spring 29 and tumbler 30 & Par. 0022, as explained in claim 1) from the catch (Figs. 2a-2c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1) as the latch engages the catch (See Fig. 2c, which shows finger 34 of tumbler 30 becomes disengaged from actuator 19 as trigger 17 engages with actuator 19 and pushes actuator 19 further into mechanism 13).
Regarding claim 3, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein during use, contact between the latch (Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, trigger 17, as explained in claim 1) and the catch (Figs. 2a-2c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1) as the door closes (Par. 0015, “As the oven door 12 closes, the trigger 17 will move in the direction of arrow A and come into contact with the actuator 19.”), moves the catch to the engaged configuration (Fig. 2b, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes that as the door closes, trigger 17 moves actuator 19 from the release configuration shown in Fig. 2a, to the engagement configuration shown in Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 4, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein during use, the catch (Figs. 2a-3c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1) is in the engaged configuration (Fig. 2b, as explained in claim 1) when moving between the extended position (Fig. 2a, as explained in claim 1) and the retracted position (Fig. 2c, as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kozlovic, as modified above, discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the body (annotated Fig. A) has a soft close mechanism (From Kozlovic: Figs. 2a-2c, tension spring 24 + damping device 25. Examiner notes tension spring 24 and damper 25 are equivalent to the “retraction spring and damper” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) for biasing the catch (From Kozlovic: Figs. 2a-3c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1) to the retracted position (From Kozlovic: Fig. 2c, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Esterle explained in claim 1. To elaborate Par. 0036 of Esterle discloses spring mechanism 240 biases catch element 202 towards the position of catch element 202 shown in Fig. 5. Examiner notes Fig. 5 shows catch element 202 is retracted or drawn towards the right end of damped closure assembly 200 and is therefore in a ‘retracted position’. As a result, modified Kozlovic reads on biasing the catch to the retracted position as claimed) whereupon the door (From Kozlovic: Fig. 1, door 12) closes the opening (From Kozlovic: Fig. 1, the opening implicitly disclosed by the presence of door 12 and the well-known function of oven 11. See Par. 0021, “Thus, the two springs 24 and 29 act in parallel in exerting force on the door 12 in a sense to close it and hold it shut”).
Regarding claim 6, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 5, wherein the soft close mechanism (Figs. 2a-2c, tension spring 24 + damping device 25, as explained in claim 5) has a retraction spring (Figs. 2a-2c, tension spring 24. Examiner notes tension spring 24 draws actuator 19 further into the right end of mechanism 13, therefore tension spring 24 is a ‘retraction spring’ See Par. 0015, “the trigger, and hence also the oven door 12, will be carried along with the actuator as it is drawn by the force of the spring 24.”) and damper (Figs. 2a-2c, damper 25) to slow movement of the catch to the retracted position (Fig. 2c, as explained in claim 1) by the retraction spring (Par. 0013, which discloses damping device 25 imparts a resistive force to the actuator 19 in a direction opposite to arrow A).
Regarding claim 7, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the body (annotated Fig. A) has a guide structure (Figs. 2a-2c, guide tracks 22 and 23 and Par. 0011, “The guide tracks 22, 23 extend generally parallel to the direction of sliding travel of the actuator 19”. Examiner notes guide tracks 22 and 23 are equivalent to the “two parallel tracks” and their equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) for guiding the catch (Figs. 2a-2c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1) between the extended position (Fig. 2a, as explained in claim 1) and the retracted position (Fig. 2c, as explained in claim 1), the guide structure being configured to rotate the catch into the release configuration (Fig. 2a, as explained in claim 1) at the extended position.
Furthermore, to the extent the Applicant disagrees that Kozlovic discloses two parallel tracks, it’s the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize and arrive at two parallel tracks, recognizing that more tracks is directly correlated to increased stability of the extension and retraction of actuator 19 and thereby increased reliability of opening and closing the door, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed a new and unexpected result for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kozlovic, as modified above, discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the biased member (From Kozlovic: Figs. 2a-2c, spring 29 and tumbler 30 & Par. 0022, as explained in claim 1) has an arm (From Kozlovic: Figs. 2a-2c, finger 24. Examiner notes an arm is a slender part that projects from a main part of a structure, therefore finger 24 is an ‘arm’ because it is a slender part that projects from the main body of tumbler 30) and a torsion spring (From Esterle: Par. 0035, “spring mechanism 240 is a torsional spring” and Par. 0036, “In this regard, spring mechanism 240 is configured for urging catch element 202 toward the open position when catch element 202 is positioned between the open position (see, e.g., FIG. 3) and an over-center position (see, e.g., FIG. 4). By contrast, when catch element 202 is positioned at a angle between the over-center position and the closed position (see, e.g., FIG. 5), spring mechanism 240 urges catch element 202 toward the closed position.”), such that the arm rotates into biased contact with the catch (Figs. 2a-3c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1. See movement of finger 24 between Fig. 2b and 2c) when in the extended position (Fig. 2a, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Esterle explained in claim 1. To elaborate, given Kozlovic discloses the arm of the biased member is in biased contact with the catch and Esterle discloses the biased member is in biased contact with the catch at the extended position, modified Kozlovic necessarily reads on this limitation) and the release configuration (Fig. 2a, as explained in claim 1. Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Esterle explained in claim 1. To elaborate, given Kozlovic discloses the arm of the biased member is in biased contact with the catch and Esterle discloses the biased member is in biased contact with the catch at the release configuration, modified Kozlovic necessarily reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 8, wherein the arm (Figs. 2a-2c, finger 24, as explained in claim 8) is mounted within the body (annotated Fig. A) such that contact with the latch (Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, trigger 17, as explained in claim 1) as the door closes, rotates the swing arm away from the catch (Figs. 2a-2c, actuator 19, as explained in claim 1. See movement of finger 24 between Fig. 2b and 2c).
Regarding claim 10, Kozlovic discloses a cooking appliance according to claim 9, wherein the arm (Figs. 2a-2c, finger 24, as explained in claim 8) is configured for sliding contact with the latch (Figs. 1 and 2a-2c, trigger 17, as explained in claim 1), and the retraction spring (Figs. 2a-2c, tension spring 24, as explained in claim 6) has a bias exceeding any friction caused by the sliding contact (Examiner notes that when the finger 24 and trigger 17 are indirectly in contact, they are both sliding. Therefore, tension spring 24 must necessarily have a bias that exceeds any friction caused by this sliding for trigger 17 to move towards the right end of mechanism 13 as shown in Figs. 2a-2c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762