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
The amendment filed 14 July 2026 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Specification objections. The Specification objections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 have overcome the 35 USC § 102 rejection. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claim. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 14 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 26 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for claim 26 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 14 July 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 12, 16, 19, 25-26, and 31 have been amended. Claims 14-15, 24, and 30 have been cancelled.
Claims 12-13, 16-23, 25-29, and 31 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 is a duplicate of claim 16.
Claim 20 is a duplicate of claim 17.
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.
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.
Claims 12, 16-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US-20210235555-A1, effective filing date of 23 January 2020) in view of Kwon et al. (US-5698125-A, cited in 892 form filed 14 April 2026).
Regarding claim 12, Lim teaches a cooking appliance (cooking appliance 100, fig. 2) comprising:
a casing (cabinet 102, fig. 1) having an open front (opening of the cabinet where the door 106 is located, fig. 2), the casing defining a cooking space (cooking chamber 104, fig. 2) therein, the casing having an opening at one side thereof (opening in the bottom wall 150 where the filter 160 is located, fig. 4; the bottom wall 150 is part of the cabinet 102, fig. 2; the bottom wall 150 is construed as being a bottom side of the cabinet 102);
a microwave generator (magnetron 130, fig. 3) configured to generate and direct a microwave toward the cooking space (para 0028);
an induction coil (induction heating coil 136, fig. 3) facing the opening (the coil 136 is construed as facing the opening in the wall 150, fig. 4), the induction coil being located outside the cooking space (the coil 136 is below the bottom wall 150 which demarks the cooking chamber, fig. 4); and
a shielding plate (filter 160, fig. 4; the filter “limits or restricts passage of microwave radiation or microwaves,” para 0036, and is construed as being a shielding plate) arranged between the induction coil (coil 136, fig. 4) and the opening (opening in wall 150, fig. 4).
Lim, fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
1320
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
278
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lim does not explicitly disclose the shielding plate including: an insulator having a first surface facing the opening and a second surface opposite the first surface; a first pattern on the first surface of the insulator, the first pattern having a slit in a region facing the opening; and a second pattern on the second surface of the insulator, the second pattern being arranged perpendicular to the first pattern, wherein the first pattern comprises a plurality of parallel first metal wire lines, wherein the second pattern comprises a plurality of parallel second metal wire lines, wherein the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines and the plurality of parallel second metal wire lines are formed in directions perpendicular to each other, wherein in the electromagnetic wave generated by the microwave generator, one of a horizontal polarization and a vertical polarization is removed by the first pattern, and the other of the horizontal polarization and the vertical polarization is removed by the second pattern, wherein each of the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines include: a first portion facing the opening; and a second portion contacting the casing, wherein the slit is provided in the first portion, and wherein each of the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines is disconnected by the slit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of combined microwave/induction heating systems, Kwon teaches the shielding plate (shielding plate 200, fig. 2) including:
an insulator (“The shielding plate 200 is provided with an insulating material between the first metal line part 201 and the second metal line part 202 where the facing distance "d" exists,” column 3, lines 30-33; “the shielding plate 200 may also be formed by stacking a plurality of shielding plates shown in FIG. 3(A) by as many as predetermined number,” column 4, lines 5-8; the arrangement in fig. 3A is construed as being arbitrary, i.e., part 202 can be on top of part 201 in fig. 3A) having a first surface facing the opening (the insulator is located at “d,” fig. 3A; construed as having an “first surface” that faces part 202, fig. 3A) and a second surface opposite the first surface (opposite surface of the insulator that faces part 201, fig. 3A);
a first pattern (part 202’, fig. 3B) on the first surface of the insulator, the first pattern having a slit in a region facing the opening (the “slit” is annotated in fig. 3b; construed as being located between the lines 202’, fig. 3B); and
a second pattern (part 201’, fig. 3B) on the second surface of the insulator, the second pattern being arranged perpendicular to the first pattern (parts 201 and 202 are perpendicular to each other, figs. 2 and 3A),
wherein the first pattern comprises a plurality of parallel first metal wire lines (column 3, lines 25-27),
wherein the second pattern comprises a plurality of parallel second metal wire lines (column 3, lines 35-36),
wherein the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines and the plurality of parallel second metal wire lines are formed in directions perpendicular to each other (the lines in parts 201 and 202 are perpendicular to each other, figs. 2 and 3A),
wherein in the electromagnetic wave generated by the microwave generator, one of a horizontal polarization and a vertical polarization is removed by the first pattern, and the other of the horizontal polarization and the vertical polarization is removed by the second pattern (“an induction coil is provided below the shielding plate in order to cut off microwave energy,” column 1, lines 9-10; the part 202’ is construed as cutting off vertical microwave energy and the part 201’ is construed as cutting off horizontal microwave energy, fig. 3B),
wherein each of the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines include:
a first portion facing the opening (inner portion of the part 202’, annotated in fig. 3B); and
a second portion contacting the casing (outer portion of the part 202’, annotated in fig. 3B),
wherein the slit is provided in the first portion (there are three slits in the first portion, annotated in fig. 3B), and
wherein each of the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines is disconnected by the slit (each of the lines in part 202’ are disconnected by construed slits, annotated fig. 3B).
Kwon, fig. 3B (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
265
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lim, in view of the teachings of Kwon, by using the shielding plate 200 based on the embodiment in fig. 3B, as taught by Kwon, instead of the filter 160, as taught by Lim, in order to use a shielding plate with dimensions that are optimized for the cut-off performance against the microwave energy (Kwon, column 4, lines 58-65).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Kwon teaches wherein the slit is located in the first pattern at a distance of 15 mm or less from a periphery of the opening (periphery is annotated in fig. 3B; the distance “w” is 1.2 mm, column 5, line 9; the three slits are construed as being a distance within 4.8 mm of the periphery).
Kwon, fig. 3B (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Kwon teaches wherein the slit has a length of 0.5 mm or less (the length of the construed slits is construed as being the width of the lines in part 202’; “the width of each metal line is 0.125 mm.,” column 5, line 10).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Kwon teaches further comprising a film or coating on the first surface of the insulator to cover the first pattern (column 3, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Kwon teaches further comprising a first film or coating on the first surface of the insulator to cover the first pattern (column 3, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Kwon teaches further comprising a second film or coating on the second surface of the insulator to cover the second pattern (column 3, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Kwon teaches further comprising a first film or coating on the first surface of the insulator to cover the first pattern (column 3, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lim in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 25. Specifically, Kwon teaches wherein the plurality of parallel metal wire lines of the second pattern (lines in part 201’, fig. 3B) extend uninterrupted across the second surface of the insulator (extend uninterrupted from left to right, fig. 3B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US-20210235555-A1, effective filing date of 23 January 2020) in view of Kwon et al. (US-5698125-A) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Noda et al. (JP-2008159337-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Lim teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the shielding plate is larger than the opening such that a peripheral portion of the shielding plate contacts a periphery of the opening.
However, in the same field of endeavor of combined microwave/induction heating systems, Noda teaches wherein the shielding plate (perforated plate 42 and plate fitting 41, fig. 5; the perforated plate 42 blocks microwaves, para 0004; construed as being a shield plate) is larger than the opening (the fitting 41 is larger than the ventilation passage T1, fig. 4) such that a peripheral portion (top of perforated plate 42, fig. 5) of the shielding plate contacts a periphery of the opening (“the ventilation passage (or first ventilation passage) T1 above the perforated plate 42,” para 0062; construed such that the top of plate 42 makes contact with the passage T1, fig. 4).
Noda, fig. 5
PNG
media_image5.png
676
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lim, in view of the teachings of Noda, by using a mounting plate and insulating members 43 and 44, as taught by Noda, such that they were mounted directly above the filter 160, as taught by Lim, where the filter 160 was the shielding plate 200, as taught by Kwon, in order to use a mounting plate and insulators that suppress the conduction of heat and that prevent warping of the filter, because at high temperatures, warping of the filter can occur, which reduces the efficiency of induction heating and can cause the mounting base to become extremely hot, increasing the dielectric loss and reducing the efficiency of microwave heating (Noda, paras 0005-0006, 0013, and 0072).
Claims 26-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US-20210235555-A1, effective filing date of 23 January 2020) in view of Noda et al. (JP-2008159337-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Louie et al. (US-20090008386-A1).
Regarding claim 26, Lim teaches a cooking appliance (cooking appliance 100, fig. 2) comprising:
a casing (cabinet 102, fig. 1) having an open front (opening of the cabinet where the door 106 is located, fig. 2), the casing defining a cooking space (cooking chamber 104, fig. 2) therein, the casing having an opening at one side thereof (opening in the bottom wall 150 where the filter 160 is located, fig. 4; the bottom wall 150 is part of the cabinet 102, fig. 2; the bottom wall 150 is construed as being a bottom side of the cabinet 102);
a microwave generator (magnetron 130, fig. 3) configured to generate and direct a microwave toward the cooking space (para 0028);
an induction coil (induction heating coil 136, fig. 3) facing the opening (the coil 136 is construed as facing the opening in the wall 150, fig. 4), the induction coil being located outside the cooking space (the coil 136 is below the bottom wall 150 which demarks the cooking chamber, fig. 4);
a shielding plate (filter 160, fig. 4; the filter “limits or restricts passage of microwave radiation or microwaves,” para 0036, and is construed as being a shielding plate) arranged between the induction coil (coil 136, fig. 4) and the opening (opening in wall 150, fig. 4),
the shielding plate including:
an insulator (insulation layer 192, fig. 9) having a first surface (top surface of insulation layer 192, fig. 9) facing the opening and a second surface (bottom surface of insulation layer 192, fig. 9) opposite the first surface;
a first pattern (upper layer 172, fig. 9; fig. 8) on the first surface of the insulator; and
a second pattern (lower layer 170, fig. 9; fig. 7) on the second surface of the insulator, the second pattern being arranged perpendicular to the first pattern (“perpendicular,” para 0007; the bands in fig. 8 and are perpendicular to the bands in fig. 7).
Lim does not explicitly disclose a spacer made of an insulating material located between the opening and the first pattern such that the first pattern is spaced apart from a periphery of the opening; wherein the first pattern comprises a plurality of parallel first metal wire lines, wherein the second pattern comprises a plurality of parallel second metal wire lines, wherein the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines and the plurality of parallel second metal wire lines are formed in directions perpendicular to each other, and wherein in the electromagnetic wave generated by the microwave generator, one of a horizontal polarization and a vertical polarization is removed by the first pattern, and the other of the horizontal polarization and the vertical polarization is removed by the second pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of combined microwave/induction heating systems, Noda teaches a spacer (insulating materials 43 and 44, fig. 5; materials 43 and 44 are construed as being a spacer for the perforated plate 42, fig. 4) made of an insulating material (“mica plates,” para 0058) located between the opening (opening T1, fig. 4) and the first pattern (top surface of perforated plate 42 and plate fitting 41, fig. 5; the perforated plate 42 blocks microwaves, para 0004; construed as being a shield plate) such that the first pattern is spaced apart from a periphery of the opening (fig. 4 and para 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lim, in view of the teachings of Noda, by using a mounting plate and insulating members 43 and 44, as taught by Noda, such that they were mounted directly above the filter 160, as taught by Lim, in order to use a mounting plate and insulators that suppress the conduction of heat by creating a ventilation passage T1 above the insulating members, for the advantage of preventing warping of the filter, because at high temperatures, warping of the filter can occur, which reduces the efficiency of induction heating and can cause the mounting base to become extremely hot, increasing the dielectric loss and reducing the efficiency of microwave heating (Noda, paras 0005-0006, 0013, 0062, and 0072).
Lim/Noda do not explicitly disclose wherein the first pattern comprises a plurality of parallel first metal wire lines, wherein the second pattern comprises a plurality of parallel second metal wire lines, wherein the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines and the plurality of parallel second metal wire lines are formed in directions perpendicular to each other, and wherein in the electromagnetic wave generated by the microwave generator, one of a horizontal polarization and a vertical polarization is removed by the first pattern, and the other of the horizontal polarization and the vertical polarization is removed by the second pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of combined microwave/induction heating systems, Louie teaches wherein the first pattern (comb-shaped layer 14a, fig. 1) comprises a plurality of parallel metal wire lines (“plurality of metal parallel wires,” para 0017; wires 14e, figs. 1-2), wherein the second pattern (comb-shaped layer 14b, fig. 1) comprises a plurality of parallel metal wire lines (“plurality of metal parallel wires,” para 0017; wires 14b, figs. 1-2); wherein the plurality of parallel first metal wire lines and the plurality of parallel second metal wire lines are formed in directions perpendicular to each other (lines 14e are perpendicular to lines 14b, fig. 1), and wherein in the electromagnetic wave generated by the microwave generator, one of a horizontal polarization and a vertical polarization is removed by the first pattern, and the other of the horizontal polarization and the vertical polarization is removed by the second pattern (“there is no leakage of microwaves through the bottom wall 16,” para 0018; construed such that wires 14e block microwave energy in a horizontal direction and that wires 14b block microwave energy in a vertical direction, fig. 1).
Louie, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
482
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lim, in view of the teachings of Louie, by using wires, as taught by Louie, instead of conductive bands, as taught by Lim, and by grounding the wires, as taught by Louie, to the cabinet 102, as taught by Lim, in order to use parallel wires that are made of copper and that are grounded, for the advantage of using wires that are easy to obtain, facilitating a distributed connection to ground that prevent deformation of the insulator due to the multitude of conduction pathways to a grounded terminal (Louie, paras 0005, 0009, and 0012).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lim in view of Noda and Louie as set forth above regarding claim 26 teaches the invention of claim 27. Specifically, Noda teaches wherein a size of the spacer (insulating materials 43 and 44, fig. 4) is larger than the opening (the opening T1 is inside the materials 43 and 44, fig. 5; construed such that the materials 43 and 44 have a larger diameter than the opening T1) such that the spacer contacts the periphery of the opening (the materials 43 and 44 are in contact with the outer edge of opening T1, fig. 5; para 0062).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lim in view of Noda as set forth above regarding claim 26 teaches the invention of claim 28. Specifically, Lim teaches wherein a portion of the shielding plate (outer portion of filter 160, fig. 4) overlaps the casing (portion of wall 150 under the filter 160, fig. 4). Additionally, Noda teaches wherein the shielding plate (perforated plate 42 and plate fitting 41, fig. 5) supports the spacer (insulating materials 43 and 44, fig. 5; bolted together by screws and nuts, paras 0058 and 0057).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Lim in view of Noda and Louie as set forth above regarding claim 26 teaches the invention of claim 31. Specifically, Louie teaches wherein the plurality of parallel metal wire lines (wires 14b, figs. 1-2) of the second pattern extend uninterrupted (wires 14b extend uninterrupted from top to bottom, fig. 1) across the second surface of the insulator (face 12b of glass sheet 12, fig. 2; para 0017).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US-20210235555-A1, effective filing date of 23 January 2020) in view of Noda et al. (JP-2008159337-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Louie et al. (US-20090008386-A1) as applied to claim 26 above and further in view of Ogasawara et al. (US-5177333-A).
Lim teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacer is a coating layer on the first surface of the insulator.
However, in the same field of endeavor of combined microwave/induction heating systems, Ogasawara teaches wherein the spacer is a coating layer (top layer 14, fig. 3) on the first surface of the insulator (top surface of mesh 9, fig. 3; “the mesh 9 is sandwiched between layers 14 of electrically insulating dielectric material and fixed in place by means of silicone adhesive,” column 4, lines 15-18; a layer 14 of dielectric material is construed as a “film or coating”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lim, in view of the teachings of Ogasawara, by using a layer 14 of dielectric material, as taught by Ogasawara, instead of the insulating members 43 and 44, as taught by Noda, in order to use insulating layers that prevent the filter from deforming, for the advantage of using the insulating layers to absorb eddy current loss, because eddy current loss cause deformation or thermal expansion of the filter (Ogasawara, abstract, column 2, lines 29-31; the top layer 14 teaches the limitations attributed to the “spacer” of claim 26, i.e., the top layer 14 is made if of an insulating dielectric material that is located between the top of the opening where the turntable 7 protrudes from and the mesh 9, fig. 3).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claims 12, 13, 16-23, and 25
Pages 10-14 of the Applicant’s argument’s have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Lim combined with Kwon.
Claims 26-29 and 31
The examiner fully considered the arguments regarding Lim in view of Noda and Louie, but the examiner was not persuaded.
On pages 15-18 of the arguments, the Applicant argues that a modifying reference (Noda/JP2008159337A) does not teach the limitation: “a spacer made of an insulating material located between the opening and the first pattern such that the first pattern is spaced apart from a periphery of the opening.”
In the rejection for claim 26, the examiner is construing the punch plate 42 that is taught by Noda as being equivalent to the filter 160 that is taught by the primary reference Lim. Noda teaches using insulating members 43 and 44 above the punch plate 42 (fig. 4). The proposed modification to Lim was to insert the insulating members 43 and 44 (construed as being a “spacer”), as taught by Noda, above the filter 160 (construed as being a “shielding plate,” which includes a ”first pattern”), as taught by Lim. If these insulating members were placed above the filter 160, then the disputed limitation would be met, i.e., the insulating members would cause a change in Lim where the filter 160 would be spaced further away from the opening in the wall 150, satisfying the limitation: “the first pattern is spaced apart from a periphery of the opening.” In other words, Noda is being used as a modifying reference to show that it is known in the art to place insulating members above filters such as the one taught by Lim.
On page 16 of the arguments, the Applicant references Noda and states that “Noda’s ventilation passage T1 is not an opening formed at one side of a casing.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Instead, the examiner submits that the T1 passage is an opening that is above the punch plate 42 (construed as being equivalent to the filter 160 that is taught by Lim). Figure 4 of Noda shows the T1 ventilation passage as being an opening above the punch plate 42.
On page 16 of the arguments, the Applicant references Noda and states that “T1 is a ventilation passage formed above punched plate 42, with punched plate 42 forming a lower boundary of the passage, placement plate 45 forming an upper boundary, and insulating members 43 and 44 forming peripheral sides of the passage.” The examiner agrees with this statement. This arrangement is shown in fig. 4 of Noda.
On pages 16-17 of the arguments, the Applicant appears to be making an argument that the examiner made a mistake. Specifically, the Applicant states that “the actual casing opening is shown as the larger circular opening formed in bottom plate 40.” In other words, it appears that the Applicant is stating the claimed “opening” in Noda should not be mapped to the T1 ventilation passage but instead should be mapped to the opening to the bottom plate 40, which Noda teaches is used to fix the perforated plate 42 (paragraph 0057).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the examiner did not make a mistake. In Lim, the claimed “opening” was construed as the opening in the wall 150 in fig. 4. In fig. 4 of Lim, the opening in the wall 150 is above the filter 160. Moreover, fig. 3 of the Instant Application shows an opening 13 that is located above the shielding plate 50 in fig. 3. Therefore, the opening in Noda should be above the perforated plate 42 and not located in the opening in which the perforated plate 42 is inserted into. i.e., the opening within the bottom plate 40. As a result, the examiner maintains that the claimed “opening” should be the T1 ventilation passage and not the opening in the bottom plate 40. In other words, the mappings for Noda are correct in the rejection above.
On page 18 of the arguments, the Applicant states the following:
“Mounting Noda's insulating members generally above filter 160 of Lim may provide an additional ventilation or anti-warping structure, but the Office Action does not explain how that modification would position the insulating members between Lim's casing opening and upper layer 172 such that upper layer 172 is spaced apart from the periphery of the casing opening 152. Further, the Office Action relies on Noda's insulating members which create a ventilation passage and restrain warping of the filter, but do not suggest relocating the insulating members to the peripheral mounting interface between Lim's casing opening and upper layer 172.”
The examiner disagrees that the “Office action does not explain how the modification would position the insulating members” or that the Office action “does not suggest relocating the insulating members to the peripheral mounting interface.” In the rejection, the proposed modification is to “use a mounting plate and insulating members 43 and 44, as taught by Noda, such that they were mounted directly above the filter 160, as taught by Lim.” Thus, the examiner submits that the rejection clearly states how the primary reference (Lim) should be modified based on Noda’s teachings.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights