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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the_seating” this should be –the seating--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because under 37 C.F.R 1.84(b)(1) a single figure containing multiple distinct views must each be separately labeled, Fig. 3 distinct views but are not separately labeled. 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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
Choke mechanism in claim 5. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The choke mechanism may include metallic choke fingers, a choke gasket and choke locking members that engage with the container to allow the lid to fit tightly over the container.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are indefinite because they reference themselves for dependency. The scope of each of these claims cannot be determined.
For claim 4 since it references the plungers and locking sensors, the Office will assume that it is dependent on claim 3.
For claim 5 since it references the predefined gap, the Office will assume that it is dependent on claim 2.
For claim 7 since it references the weight sensors and locking sensors, the Office will assume that it is dependent on claim 3.
Claim 8 recites “wherein coupling of the lid with the containers enables heating of the contents of the container through the microwaves generated by the at least one microwave producing device.” It is unclear if “the containers” is referring to both the first and second container and if “the container” is referring to a singular container, either the first or second container. For examination, “the containers” and “the container” will be interpreted as –any one of the first or second containers--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 4987518 B2).
Claim 1. Sato discloses a heating apparatus (rice cooker 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a lid configured for movement between a raised position and a lowered position (lid body 5), wherein in the lowered position the lid is configured to cover a container (pot 2) containing items to be heated or cooked (rice 23 is in the pot, Fig. 1); and
at least one microwave generating device coupled with the lid as a source of microwaves (microwave oscillator 6), such that in the lowered position of the lid, the heating apparatus enables microwave heating using the at least one microwave generating device () in combination with any of: application of heat to the container from bottom using another heat source (pot heating device 3) and a preparatory operation on contents of the container (rice is soaked in water in the container, Fig. 1; where the broadest reasonable interpretation of “preparatory operation on contents” include soaking rice in water).
wherein the lid comprises a sensing mechanism to sense proper closing of the container by the lid to ensure that microwaves generated by the at least one microwave generating device do not leak out (lid open/close detection unit 58).
Claim 6. Sato discloses the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lid is pivotally configured with a base for pivotal movement between the raised position and the lowered position (lid pivots on a hinge 53 connected to the rear end of the cooker body, par. 24, Fig. 1); and
wherein the base includes a conventional source of heat (induction coils 31, Fig. 1, par. 22) and the container is positioned to receive heat from the conventional source of heat in addition to heating by microwaves generated by the at least one microwave generating device (rice cooker receives heat through induction heating and microwaves, par. 5).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudhir (WO 2018025095 A1) in view of Sato (JP 4987518 B2).
Claim 1. Sudhir discloses a heating apparatus comprising:
a lid configured for movement between a raised position and a lowered position (par. 59, Fig. 1B), wherein in the lowered position the lid is configured to cover a container (cooking container 300, Fig. 1A) containing items to be heated or cooked (food is cooked in the container, par. 53); and
at least one microwave generating device coupled with the lid as a source of microwaves (magnetron 502 is coupled to the lid, Fig. 1A), such that in the lowered position of the lid, the heating apparatus enables microwave heating (after the lid is closed, the microwave function can be turned on, par. 60) using the at least one microwave generating device in combination with any of: application of heat to the container from bottom using another heat source (induction heating, par. 60) and a preparatory operation on contents of the container (the bottom portion of the cooking container can be used for mixing, adding, and browning).
Sudhir does not disclose wherein the lid comprises a sensing mechanism to sense proper closing of the container by the lid to ensure that microwaves generated by the at least one microwave generating device do not leak out
Sato discloses a cooking device with a conventional heater and a microwave wherein a lid open/close detection unit 58 detects whether the lid has been closed or not.
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 Sudhir to incorporate the teachings of Sato and have the lid detection unit. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing microwaves from leaking out and affecting the user (par. 62, Sato).
Claim 8. Sudhir discloses the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lid is configured with a chimney by a lifting and lowering mechanism for vertical movement between the raised position and the lowered position (Fig. 1H has a flexible shaft that lowers and raises the lid, par. 50); and
wherein the container is any one of a first container placed over a conventional source of heat (container 300 is placed over the induction coil, Fig. 1H), and a second container for preparatory operations comprising any or a combination of blending, stirring, grinding and mixing (mixing, par. 50); and
wherein coupling of the lid with the containers enables heating of the contents of the container through the microwaves generated by the at least one microwave producing device (lid couples with the container to heat it using microwaves, Fig. 1H, par. 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art does not disclose a plurality of retractable plungers provided on periphery of the lid, the plungers being biased outward and configured to linearly move inward on coming in contact with a seating surface of the container as the lid is closed over the container; wherein the plungers are configured such that contact with the seating surface of the container takes place if a gap between the lid and the seating surface of the container is less than a predefined gap value; and wherein the plungers are electrically connected such that the connection is completed when the plungers make contact with the container, and wherein the completion of the connection is used as a confirmation that the lid is properly closed over the container.
Lin (CN 107734736) discloses a microwave cooking device with a trigger 141 which triggers the micro switch 14 (Fig. 3, par. 73). The microswitch 14 will inform the controller if the cover is safely secured or not (par. 73). Lin does not disclose that the signal that the cover is safely secured is due to the trigger on the device’s base is electrically connecting with the lid.
Tibbs (GB 1238402) discloses a microwave wherein a plunger 15 (Fig. 2) operates a microswitch 16 which controls the microwave energy of the oven (page 2, col 1, lines 15-40). However, Tibbs does not disclose that the plunger is electrically connecting with the microwave’s frame, wherein this electrical connection what determines if the lid is closed or not. It is well known that within a microswitch, a plunger pushes a lever or switch that is electrically connecting with another connector in order to switch power. However, this is not the same as applicant’s structure in claim 2. The plunger itself is not connecting with a lever or switch but rather the container body which forms an electrical connection that is detected by a controller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761