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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their August 25, 2026 response to the Office Action filed July 2, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 have been amended and claim 4 has been cancelled (along with previously cancelled claim 2). Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previous objections to the specification and those objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the previous objection to this claim and that objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “at least one drive motor”. However, the originally filed disclosure only discloses a single drive motor (as at paragraph [0024] and Fig 2). Since “at least one drive motor” would include a single drive motor or a plurality of drive motors, the limitation as written is not supported by the original disclosure. Therefore, this limitation is considered new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0289512 by Iwamoto (hereinafter “Iwamoto”) in view of US 2022/0151431 A1 by Lindsey et al. (hereinafter “Lindsey”) and WO 00/52392 A1 by Eskildsen et al.(hereinafter “Eskildsen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwamoto teaches of a heating cooking apparatus (Fig. 2; Abstract) comprising:
a heating cooking unit (Fig 2 microwave oven body 1) including an opening (Fig 2 opening 3a) and a heating cooking chamber (Fig 2 heat chamber 3) communicating with the opening (see at least [0028] and Figs. 2, 5-6);
a lid portion (Fig 2 opening/closing door 4) configured to move between a closed position, at which the lid portion covers the opening (as is shown in Fig. 6), and an open position (as is shown in Figs. 2, 5), at which the lid portion does not cover the opening (see at least [0030] and Figs. 2, 5-6);
a detection unit (Fig 6 microwave oscillation stop switch 26 comprising oscillation switch 27 and short-circuit switch 28; see at least paragraph [0035]) including a sensor configured to detect whether the lid portion is present at the closed position or the open position (see at least [0036], and Figs. 5-6);
a light source unit (paragraph [0043], unit that provides “illumination in the heat chamber”) configured to emit light into the heating cooking chamber (via “illumination in the heat chamber” in paragraph [0043] lines 8-12); and
a control unit (Fig 7 control means 40) configured to control the light source unit (see at least paragraphs [0037] and [0040] and Figs. 2, 5-6, 8),
wherein:
the heating cooking unit further includes a first face disposed on an outer periphery of the opening (Fig 3 front wall 20a; paragraph [0033]),
the lid portion is a substantially rectangular plate-like member including a second face facing the first face (Fig 3 front plate 5a connected to lid 4; paragraph [0029]),
a support portion, that is configured to support a placing portion on which an object to be heated is placed, is attached to the lid portion (Fig 3 bottom plate 5d supports a portion on which object to be heated 6 is placed and is attached to lid portion 4 via 5a),
a connecting member, that is configured to connect the heating cooking unit to the lid portion when the lid portion is at the closed position, is attached to the second face (Fig 4 slide rail 7 comprising fixed rail 9 and movable rail 10, where at least movable rail 10 is attached to second face 5a via L-figured angle member 8, and which connects heating cooking unit to lid portion when lid portion is closed; paragraph [0031]),
the connecting member includes a claw portion configured to press a switch of the sensor when the lid portion is at the closed position (Figs 5-6, operation lever 25 on slide rail 7 and which is configured to press switch 26; paragraph [0034]-[0036]), and
the sensor is configured to output a closing signal to the processor upon the claw portion pressing the switch (paragraph [0036]-[0037], sensor communicates with processor to determine door closed when claw portion presses switch), and
after receiving the closing signal, the control unit is further configured to start counting a predetermined period of time (Fig 8 and paragraph [0035] – “The switch for starting a count of a timer is the oscillation switch 27.” And paragraph [0038] – “ after the opening/closing door 4 is confirmed to be closed (door switch ON) (52) ... and the time count of the timer for measuring the first period and second period is set to 0 (S3)” and paragraph [0039] – “That is, a count starts by regarding a time t after the door is opened as a door opening detection period.”).
Iwamoto fails to explicitly teach that the control unit comprises a processor.
Lindsey discloses a relatable oven appliance (Fig. 1, oven appliance 100) that comprises a control unit (Fig 1 controller 140; paragraph [0020]) that is configured to control all aspects of the oven appliance (see at least paragraph [0020] and Fig. 1). Lindsey teaches that the control unit (140) comprises at least one processor (see at least paragraph [0021] lines 1-6 - “Controller 140 may include a memory and one or more processing devices such as microprocessors, CPUs, or the like, such as general or special purpose microprocessors operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of oven appliance 100.”). Lindsey teaches that configuring the control unit to comprises at least one processor, inter alia, makes the controller “operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of oven appliance 100” (see at least [0021] lines 1-6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Iwamoto by configuring the existing control unit to comprise at least one processor as is taught by Lindsey. Doing so would have made the control unit operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of the apparatus. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the control unit comprising a processor as claimed.
Iwamoto (and Lindsey) fails to explicitly teach that the control unit and its processor (as is taught by Lindsey in the combined apparatus as presented above) is configured to control the light source unit to cause the light source unit to emit light or to stop emitting the light, wherein in a case that the light source unit emits the light and the lid portion is at the open position, the processor is configured to cause the light source unit to stop emitting the light in response to determining that a predetermined period of time, or longer, has passed from when the sensor detects that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position.
However, Eskildsen discloses a relatable oven apparatus (Fig. 1; Abstract) that comprises a closeable lid portion (oven door 1 shown in Fig 1), a light source (Fig 1 lamp 7; “light in the cavity”, see page 4 line 7) and a control unit (Fig 1 control electronics 10). Eskildsen teaches that the control unit is configured to control the light source unit to cause the light source unit to emit light or to stop emitting the light (as is evident from at least the disclosure that “the oven door and oven cavity light are linked such that any manual closure or opening of the oven door causes a gradual change in light intensity from full light to dark and from dark to full light respectively”, see at least pg. 2 lines 18-20 and Figs. 1-2), wherein in a case that the light source unit emits the light and the lid portion is at the open position (as is the case prior to time “t3” as shown in Fig. 2 wherein the lid portion is open prior to “closing” and the light is on; see at least pg. 4 lines 7-13 and Figs. 1-2), the control unit is configured to cause the light source unit to stop emitting the light (which occurs at time “t4” in Fig 2) in response to determining that a predetermined period of time, or longer, has passed (the predetermined period of time from “t3” to “t4” as shown in Fig. 2; see at least page 4 lines 7-8 and Fig. 2) from when it is detected that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position (which occurs at time “t3”; see at least pg. 4 lines 7-8 - “As shown in Fig. 2, upon closing the light in the cavity will gradually decrease, which is shown at the middle part of the graph (t3 - t4)”. Note that at time t4, light emission is zero, as is shown in Fig. 2, wherein the light source is off.). Eskildsen teaches that such configuration, inter alia, creates “a sense of elegance, of luxuriousness, thereby adding value to the product” (see at least pg. 4 lines 13-17 and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus taught by configuring the existing control unit and its existing processor to control the existing light source unit in such a way that in a case when the light source unit emits light and the lid portion is at the open position, the processor is configured to then cause the light source unit to stop emitting the light in response to determining that a predetermined period of time, or longer, has passed from when it is detected that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position based on the teachings of Eskildsen. Doing so would have enabled the apparatus to create a sense of elegance and luxuriousness, thereby adding value to the product. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Eskildsen also teaches that the control unit configuration of the combined apparatus is configured to cause the light source unit to emit the light in response to determining that another predetermined period of time, or longer, has passed from when it is detected that the lid portion has moved from the closed position to the open-position (as is the case when, at least, an “opening” of the lid portion occurs and the time period of a “gradual change in light intensity” passes from “dark to full light” wherein “full light” is emitted after passage of the time period; see pg. 2 lines 18-20 and Figs. 1-2). Thus, the combination of Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Eskildsen also teaches of a drive mechanism including at least one motor configured to move the lid portion along a predetermined direction with respect to the heating cooking chamber (Fig 1; see at least page 3 line 28-29 and page 4 line 16-17 – “ the closing of the door does not need to be performed manually but may occur through motor drive”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating cooking apparatus of Lee/Lindsey/Eskildsen by further including a drive mechanism including at least one motor configured to move the lid portion along a predetermined direction with respect to the heating cooking chamber, in order to provide an automatic mechanism for opening/closing the apparatus lid. Such an automatic opening/closing would further enhance the sense of luxuriousness and would be advantageous for allowing the user to open the oven more easily, for example when holding a dish with one or both hands.
Regarding Claim 8, Eskildsen also teaches that the control unit configuration of the combined apparatus is further configured not to cause the light source unit to stop emitting the light in response to determining that the predetermined period of time, or longer, (the predetermined period of time from “t3” to “t4” as shown in Fig. 2 wherein light is “gradually” decreasing; see pg. 4 lines 7-8 and Fig. 2) has not passed (as is the case when time is between “t3” to “t4” as shown in Fig. 4 wherein light is “gradually” decreasing; see pg. 4 lines 7-8 and Fig. 2) from when it is detected that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position (as is the case at time “t3” which occurs “upon closing”; see at least pg. 4 lines 7-8 and Figs. 1-2). Thus, the combination of Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen further in view of US 2015/0359048 A1 by Specht et al. (hereinafter “Specht”).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen teach the heating cooking apparatus according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Iwamoto also teaches of a microwave supply unit (Fig 3 microwave generation device 11) configured to supply microwaves into the heating cooking chamber (see at least [0032]).
Iwamoto (in addition to Lindsey and Eskildsen) fails to explicitly teach that a predetermined distance is provided between the first face and the second face when the lid portion is positioned at the closed position.
Specht discloses a relatable microwave cooking apparatus (Abstract) that comprises a heating unit (Fig 1 chassis 12) having a first face (face of element 12 exposed to gap 34 as shown in Fig. 1) and a lid portion (lid portion in the form of a “door 10”; see at least [0027] and Fig. 1) with a second face (face of element 10 exposed to gap 34 as shown in Fig. 1; see at least [0027], [0031]-[0033] and Figs. 1-2). Specht teaches that a predetermined distance (distance of gap 34) is provided between the first face and the second face when the lid portion is positioned at a closed position (as is shown in Fig. 1; see at least [0038] and Fig. 1). Specht teaches that the predetermined distance between the faces enables the inclusion of a gasket element (20) between the faces that, inter alia, enhances sealing, “tightness” and provides “a compensation of tolerances of the first gap” (see at least [0038] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by implementing a gap of a predetermined distance between the existing first face and second face when the existing lid portion is positioned at the closed position, such that a gasket element could be disposed in the gap at the closed position, as is taught by Specht. Doing so would have provided means for implementing a gasket element that would have, inter alia, enhanced sealing and tightness between the first and second faces. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen further in view of US 2004/0164075 A1 by Henze et al. (hereinafter “Henze”).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwamoto, Lindsey and Eskildsen teach the heating cooking apparatus according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the lid portion includes a first glass plate and a second glass plate facing the first glass plate.
Henze discloses a relatable microwave cooking apparatus (Abstract; Fig. 1 microwave unit 10) that comprises a lid portion (lid portion in the form of a “microwave unit door” that comprises frame 1; see at least [0029] and Fig. 1). Henze teaches that the lid portion includes a first glass plate (Fig 1 outer glass pane 2) and a second glass plate (Fig 1 interior glass pane 3) facing the first glass plate (as is shown in Fig. 1; see at least [0029] and Fig. 1). Henze teaches that configuring the lid portion to include first and second glass plates in this arrangement, inter alia, improves “observability of the interior of the microwave unit without losing the microwave shielding effect” (see at least Abstract, [0029] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing lid portion to include a first glass plate and a second glass plate facing the first glass plate as is taught by Henze. Doing so would have improved observability without losing microwave shielding effect. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Iwamoto, Lindsey, and Eskilden do not teach all of the limitations of claim 1, particularly the newly amended limitations reciting “the lid portion is a substantially rectangular plate-like member including a second face facing the first face, a support portion, that is configured to support a placing portion on which an object to be heated is placed, is attached to the lid portion, a connecting member, that is configured to connect the heating cooking unit to the lid portion when the lid portion is at the closed position, is attached to the second face, the connecting member includes a claw portion configured to press a switch of the sensor when the lid portion is at the closed position, the sensor is configured to output a closing signal to the processor upon the claw portion pressing the switch.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “connecting member” is a broad term, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, is interpreted to be taught by Iwamoto, particularly the slide rail portion of the device which is connected to the second face (5a) and which functions to connect the lid portion (4) with the heating cooking unit (1), including when the lid is closed, and which is also interpreted to include the claw portion (25). Although Iwamoto does not explicitly teach that “the processor is further configured to cause the light source unit to stop emitting the light in response to determining that a predetermined period of time, or longer, has passed from when the at least one sensor detects that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position,” this is taught by Eskilden, as discussed in the rejection above.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend claim 1 to include additional structural details and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record, possibly including further details related to the “connecting member” or the configuration of the processor.
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 Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights