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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 2/18/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 1 and 3-7 have been noted in addition to canceled Claim 2 and new Claim 8. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending.
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “a detection unit including at least one sensor”. While a single sensor is disclosed, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the specification for “at least one sensor” which can include a single sensor or a plurality of sensors.
Similarly, Claim 1 now recites the limitation “a control unit including at least one processor”. While a single processor is disclosed, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the specification for “at least one processor” which can include a single processor or a plurality of processors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 16, change “configured to cause” to -- configured to then cause --
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (US 2006/0289512 A1) in view of Lindsey et al. (US 2022/0151431 A1) (hereinafter “Lindsey”) and Eskildsen et al. (WO 00/52392 A1) (hereinafter “Eskildsen”) (see attached original document for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwamoto teaches of a heating cooking apparatus (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a heating cooking unit (1) including an opening (3a) and a heating cooking chamber (3) communicating with the opening (see at least [0028] and Figs. 2, 5-6);
a lid portion (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, at which the lid portion does not cover the opening (as is shown in Figs. 2, 5) (see at least [0030] and Figs. 2, 5-6);
a detection unit (detection unit comprising elements (27) and (26)) (see at least [0035], lines 6-11) including at least one sensor (26) configured to detect whether the lid portion is present at the closed position or the open position (see at least [0036], lines 1-7, and Figs. 5-6);
a light source unit (unit that provides “illumination in the heat chamber”) (see at least [0043], lines 8-12, and Figs. 2, 5-6) configured to emit light into the heating cooking chamber (via “illumination in the heat chamber”) (see at least [0043], lines 8-12, and Figs. 2, 5-6); and
a control unit (40) configured to control the light source unit (see at least [0037], [0040] and Figs. 2, 5-6, 8).
Iwamoto fails to explicitly teach that the control unit comprises at least one processor.
Lindsey discloses a relatable oven appliance (100) (see Fig. 1) that comprises a control unit (“controller” - (140)) (see at least [0020]) that is configured to control all aspects of the oven appliance (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1). Lindsey teaches that the control unit (140) comprises at least one processor (“one or more processing devices”) (see at least [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 at least one processor as claimed.
Furthermore, Iwamoto (and Lindsey) fails to explicitly teach that the control unit and its at least one 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, at least one 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 at least one sensor detects that the lid portion has moved from the open position to the closed position.
Eskildsen discloses a relatable oven apparatus (Fig. 1) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) that comprises a closeable lid portion (“oven door”) (see at least Col. 3 lines 28), a light source (“light in the cavity” (see at least Col. 4 line 7) provided by element (7)) (see at least Col. 4 lines 1, 7 and Figs. 1-2) and a control unit (10) (see at least Col. 4 lines 4-5 and Fig. 1). 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 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 Col. 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 lest 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 at least one 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 at least one 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 4, Iwamoto also teaches of a connecting member (25) configured to connect the heating cooking unit and the lid portion when the lid portion is positioned at the closed position (as is shown in Fig. 6), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect whether the connecting member is present at the closed position (see at least [0034]-[0036] and Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Iwamoto also teaches of a drive mechanism including at least one motor (drive mechanism comprising the “motor” and/or “moving mechanism” in addition to drive rails (7)) configured to move the lid portion along a predetermined direction with respect to the heating cooking chamber (see at least [0006], [0009], [0030] and Figs. 2, 5-6).
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 a 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 Specht et al. (US 2015/0359048 A1) (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 (11) configured to supply microwaves into the heating cooking chamber (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3), wherein the heating cooking unit includes a first face (20a) disposed at an outer periphery of the opening (as is shown in Fig. 3) and the lid portion includes a second face (5a) facing the first face (as is shown in Fig. 3).
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 (see Fig. 1) that comprises a heating unit (12) with 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 Henze et al. (US 2004/0164075 A1) (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 (10) (see Fig. 1) 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 (2) and a second glass plate (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
The arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Anschutz et al. (US 2003/0131841 A1)
Seo (US 6,137,096)
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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/27/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights