DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 08/16/2023 which claims foreign priority to Canada application CA3189376 filed on 02/03/2023. Claims 1 – 5 are examined.
Pro Se
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 02/03/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Canada application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “an external automated food insertion device can horizontally input the food product into the lower horizontally aligned oven compartment through the input access opening where the device is incorporated with the control interface module” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 3. No new matter should be entered. None of the original figures showed “an external automated food insertion device … incorporated with the control interface module”.
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 Objections
Claims 3 – 5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, Claims 3 – 5 have not been further treated on the merits. Refer to MPEP § 608.01(n)(I)(A) for examples of acceptable multiple dependent claim wording.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, Claims 4 and 5 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1 – 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 2 - 5 “aligned electronic component compartment for the generation of microwaves for the lower horizontally aligned oven below and with the said lower horizontally aligned microwave oven below having a separate closable opening access to input the food product and another separate closable opening access to output the food product after the heating cycle is completed where the wave distribution provides even product” is believed to be in error for --aligned electronic component compartment for the generation of microwaves for [[the]] a lower horizontally aligned microwave oven below and with [[the]] said lower horizontally aligned microwave oven [[below]] having a separate closable input opening a separate closable output opening microwave distribution provides even product-- to maintain consistent claim terminology and claim formatting.
Claim 1, ll. 6 - 8 “heating and the separate closable output access is securable and controlled using an electronic magnetic lock where a control interface module governs the system operation to include the exterior sanitizing of the output opening contact surface with ultraviolet light C” is believed to be in error for --heating and the separate closable output opening is securable and controlled using an electronic magnetic lock where a control interface module governs the of the microwave appliance to include the exterior of the separate closable output opening contact surface with ultraviolet light C-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 2, l. 1 “A microwave appliance for food products as defined in claim 1 where the said microwave is” is believed to be in error for --[[A]] The microwave appliance for food products as defined in claim 1 where [[the]] said microwave appliance is-- to indicate antecedant basis and maintain consistent claim terminology among the claims.
Claim 3, l. 1 “A microwave appliance” is believed to be in error for --[[A]] The microwave appliance-- to indicate antecedant basis.
Claim 3, l. 3 “oven compartment through the input access opening where the device is incorporated with the control interface module” is believed to be in error for --microwave oven separate closable input external automated food insertion device is incorporated with the control interface module-- to maintain consistent claim terminology among the claims.
Claim 4, l. 1 “A microwave appliance” is believed to be in error for --[[A]] The microwave appliance-- to indicate antecedant basis.
Claim 4, ll. 1 - 2 “…where the compact design of the appliance provided by the horizontal disposition of the upper and lower compartments having a horizontally elongated axis relative to its depth and height” is believed to be in error for --…where [[the]] a compact design of the microwave appliance provided by the horizontal disposition of the upper and lower compartments having a horizontally elongated axis relative to its depth and height-- to maintain consistent claim terminology among the claims.
Claim 5, l. 1 “A microwave appliance” is believed to be in error for --[[A]] The microwave appliance-- to indicate antecedant basis.
Claim 5, ll. 2 - 4 “…where the location of the microwave magnetron is positioned to allow asymmetrical horizontal placement relative to a wave stirrer to allow varying the number of wave stirrers in the upper horizontally aligned electronic compartment” is believed to be in error for --…where [[the]] a location of [[the]] a microwave magnetron is positioned to allow asymmetrical horizontal placement relative to a wave stirrer to allow varying the number of wave stirrers in the upper horizontally aligned electronic component compartment.-- to maintain consistent claim terminology and claim formatting among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feilders et al. (8,963,060) in view of Fullerton et al. (8,016,330) in view of Schumacher (11,524,085) as evidenced by Holden et al. (2009/0252646A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Feilders teaches, in Figs. 23, 25, 27, and 29, the invention as claimed, including a microwave appliance (200 – Col. 14, ll. 55 - 60) [The following is a statement of intended use and the microwave appliance of Feilders was capable of being used for food products.] for food products comprising a plurality of walls (A microwave oven naturally had a plurality of walls comprising an upper wall, a bottom wall, a left-side wall, a right-side wall, an entrance wall with an entrance opening, and an exit wall with an exit opening) with an upper horizontally aligned electronic component compartment (204) for the generation of microwaves for the lower horizontally aligned oven (202 - Col. 14, l. 55 to Col. 15, l. 5) below and with the said lower horizontally aligned microwave oven (202) below having a separate closable opening access (216 - Col. 15, ll. 5 - 20) to input the food product (210 – item heated by the microwave oven) and another separate closable opening access (218 - Col. 15, ll. 5 - 20) to output the food product (210) after the heating cycle is completed [Examiner notes that the phrase “the wave distribution provides even product heating” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Feilders can perform the function.] where the wave distribution provides even product heating, where a control interface module (208 - Col. 15, ll. 20 - 30) governs the system operation.
Feilders is silent on said separate closable output access is securable and controlled using an electronic magnetic lock.
Fullerton teaches, in Col. 15, ll. 35 – 45, household appliances that included microwave ovens. Fullerton teaches, in Figs. 7a – 7c and Col. 8, l. 60 to Col. 9, l. 30, an appliance door (6202) having a magnetic lock (6218). Fullerton teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 20 – 25, “…the correlated magnetic lock is an appliance door lock”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feilders with the magnetic lock of a microwave oven door, taught by Fullerton, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the microwave oven having a plurality of walls with an upper horizontally aligned electronic component compartment for the generation of microwaves for the lower horizontally aligned oven below and with the said lower horizontally aligned microwave oven below having a separate closable opening access to input the food product and another separate closable opening access to output the food product, and the magnetic lock for a microwave oven door, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., when locked the magnetic lock would have secured said separate closable output access/door (for example, during the food heating phase of the microwave oven) and when unlocked the magnetic lock would have allowed said separate closable output access/door to be opened (for example, after the microwave oven food heating phase was completed). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Feilders, i.v., Fullerton, is silent on said control interface module includes the exterior sanitizing of the output opening contact surface with ultraviolet light C.
Schumacher teaches, in Figs. 1 – 9 and Col. 1, l. 60 to Col. 2, l. 15, an electronic control module (54 – Fig. 9, Col. 5, ll. 1 - 50) that activates exterior sanitizing devices (201, 202, and 203) that used ultraviolet light C (wavelength range of about 100 nanometers to about 280 nm and known as ‘germicidal UV’) to sanitize the contact surfaces of door opening devices (14), e.g., handles, knobs, levers, etcetera. Holden teaches, in Para. [0012], that “UV light rays with wavelengths shorter than 300 nm are extremely effective in killing microorganisms. The most effective sterilizing range for UV is within the C bandwidth (UVC = 200 to 280 nm), and the apex of this range is generally considered to be 253.7 nm. This range is called the germicidal bandwidth.” Therefore, Schumacher’s ‘germicidal UV’ wavelength range of about 100 nanometers to about 280 nm encompassed the UVC, i.e., ultraviolet light C, bandwidth of 200 to 280 nm. Consequently, Schumacher’s ‘germicidal UV’ was just a different name for the claimed ‘ultraviolet light C’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feilders, i.v., Fullerton, with the control interface module controlling the exterior sanitizing of the output opening contact surface with ultraviolet light C, taught by Schumacher, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the microwave oven having a plurality of walls with an upper horizontally aligned electronic component compartment for the generation of microwaves for the lower horizontally aligned oven below and with the said lower horizontally aligned microwave oven below having a separate closable opening access to input the food product and another separate closable opening access to output the food product, and the control interface module controlling the exterior sanitizing of the output opening contact surface with ultraviolet light C, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating one or more ultraviolet light C (UVC) light sources aimed at the output opening contact surface would have facilitated the control interface module sanitizing the output opening exterior contact surfaces, e.g., door handle and exterior surface of output door, between uses thereby reducing the spread of communicable germs among the users of the microwave oven. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 2, Feilders, i.v., Fullerton and Schumacher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, where the said microwave is extended horizontally using similar upper and lower configuration of the appliance having a vertical separation between the appliance extension.
MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts cited “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feilders, i.v., Fullerton and Schumacher, to have said microwave oven extended horizontally using similar upper and lower configuration of the appliance, i.e., duplicating the parts, having a vertical separation (vertical wall) between the appliance extension because it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, Claim 2 failed to produce a new and unexpected result.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feilders et al. (8,963,060) in view of Fullerton et al. (8,016,330) in view of Schumacher (11,524,085) as evidenced by Holden et al. (2009/0252646A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Blazevich (2010/0193499A1).
Re Claim 2, Feilders, i.v., Fullerton and Schumacher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, where the said microwave is extended horizontally using similar upper and lower configuration of the appliance having a vertical separation between the appliance extension.
Blazevich teaches, in Abstract and Figs. 1 – 4d, a similar microwave oven (10) having a plurality of walls (shown in the figures) defining two horizontally spaced oven chambers (12a and 12b) separated by a vertical separation (vertical wall between 12a and 12b). Blazevich teaches, in Para. [0033], that the microwave oven having two independently controllable oven chambers (12a and 12b) facilitated cooking/heating multiple food items with improved efficiency and results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feilders, i.v., Fullerton and Schumacher, with the microwave oven being extended horizontally using similar upper and lower configuration of the appliance having a vertical separation between the appliance extension, taught by Blazevich, because Blazevich teaches, in Para. [0033], that having two or more independently controllable oven chambers (12a and 12b) facilitated cooking/heating multiple food items with improved efficiency and results. For example, a first food item required cooking for fifteen minutes at a 50% power setting is placed in the first oven chamber and cooking is started, five minutes later, a second food item that required cooking for ten minutes at the 100% (maximum) power setting is placed in the first oven chamber and cooking is started, so that after fifteen minutes both the first food item and the second food item with have finished cooking at their recommended power levels and cooking duration.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Edgar et al. (5,897,807) teaches, in Fig. 1, a microwave oven (30) for cooking a food item (52) where said microwave oven (30) had and inlet door (32) and an outlet door (34).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741