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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/31/2026, have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendments to the specification. The objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, with respect to the interpretation of “a first light source unit” in claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The limitation “a first light source unit” is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The limitations “a microwave supply unit” in claim 1, and “a second light source unit” in claim 6 continue to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as set forth in the claim interpretation section below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the new ground of rejection relies on Matsuyuki (JP 2017129295 A) for the limitation “the first tubular portion has a truncated conical shape a diameter of which becomes smaller toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber.” See the rejection of claim 1 below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a truncated conical shape a diameter of which” should read “a truncated conical shape, a diameter of which.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a microwave supply unit” in claim 1; and
“a second light source unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “microwave supply unit” in claim 1, the specification describes the corresponding structure for the “microwave supply unit” as a microwave supply unit configured to supply microwaves into the heating cooking chamber (paragraph [0037]), and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “second light source unit” in claim 6, the recited function is emitting light toward the back wall of the heating cooking chamber (paragraph [0072]). The specification describes the corresponding structure as including a second light source unit disposed in a second recessed portion formed in a left wall of the heating chamber, wherein the second recessed portion includes a second inclined wall, and the second light source unit is disposed on the second inclined wall and configured to emit light toward the back wall of the heating cooking chamber (paragraph [0070]-[0075]), and equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (JP 2013257061, in view of Matsuyuki (JP 2017129295 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimura teaches,
a heating cooking apparatus (Fig. 1: 1, “microwave oven”) comprising:
a heating cooking chamber (Fig. 1: 3, “heating chamber”) including an opening portion (annotated Fig. 1: “opening portion”) that opens in a predetermined direction (annotated Fig. 1: D1), a back wall (annotated Fig. 1: “back wall”) disposed in a direction opposite to the predetermined direction with respect to the opening portion (“opening portion”) (annotated Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the back wall), and a plurality of walls (annotated Fig. 1 shows the heating chamber 3 comprises a plurality of walls) extending from the back wall (“back wall”) in the predetermined direction (D1) (annotated Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the plurality of walls);
a first recessed portion (Fig. 6: 10a, “recess”) located in a first wall (Fig. 6: 10, “wall plate”) of the plurality of walls (shown in annotated Fig. 1) and recessed from the first wall (10) (Fig. 6 shows the configuration of the recess 10a in the wall plate 10); and
a first light source unit (Fig. 6: 20, “illumination unit”) including a light emitting diode (LED) (Fig. 6: 23, “light emitting element”; Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 12-13: “[t]he illumination unit 20 includes a substrate 22 on which a light emitting element 23 made of LEDs is mounted”); and
a microwave supply unit (Fig. 2: 6, “magnetron”) configured to supply a microwave into the heating cooking chamber (3) (Sugimura (translation), p. 1, ln. 31-p. 2, ln. 2: “[a] magnetron 6 that generates microwaves …, and the microwave is stirred to uniformly supply the microwave to the heating chamber 3”),
wherein:
the first recessed portion (10a) includes a first inclined wall (Fig. 6: 10b, “peripheral wall”) that is inclined with respect to the first wall (10) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, ln. 9: “[t]he peripheral wall 10b of the recess 10a is formed by an inclined surface”),
the first light source unit (20) is disposed on the first inclined wall (10b) (Fig. 6 shows the configuration),
the first light source unit (20) emits first light toward the back wall (“back wall”) of the heating cooking chamber (3) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 12-21: “[t]he illumination unit 20 includes a substrate 22 on which a light emitting element 23 made of LEDs is mounted. … Light emitted from the light emitting element 23… is irradiated toward diagonally back”),
the first inclined wall (10b) includes
a first communication hole (Fig. 6: 11, “through hole”) through which an inside and an outside of the heating cooking chamber (3) communicate with each other (Fig. 6 shows the configuration), and
a first tubular portion (Fig. 6: 11a, “standing part”) extending from the communication hole (11) toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber (3) (Fig. 6 shows the configuration),
the first light source unit (20) is disposed outside the heating cooking chamber (3) and faces the first tubular portion (11a) (Fig. 6 shows the configuration).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sugimura, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
356
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Sugimura
PNG
media_image3.png
250
287
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Sugimura
Regarding claim 1, Sugimura does not explicitly teach the first tubular portion has a truncated conical shape, a diameter of which becomes smaller toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber.
However, Matsuyuki teaches, in Fig. 6, a heating cooking apparatus (title; Fig. 1, “grill”) comprising a light source (62a, “LED”) disposed outside a heating cooking chamber (Fig. 2: 22, “grill cabinet”) and a tubular portion (66, “light guide path”) through which light from the light source (62a) passes toward the heating cooking chamber (22), wherein
the first tubular portion (66) has a truncated conical shape (Matsuyuki (translation), p. 2, lns. 15-16: “The light diffused by the diffusing lens 63 passes through the conical cylindrical light guide 66”), a diameter of which becomes smaller toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber (22) (Fig. 6 shows the light guide path 66 narrowest at the diffusing lens 63 adjacent the LED 62a and widening toward the heating cooking chamber; Matsuyuki (translation), p. 2, lns. 20-21: “The storage portion 42 is formed to be recessed downward from the bottom portion 41 of the bottom plate 4 so as to be positioned immediately above the heat-resistant glass 5”).
Sugimura and Matsuyuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking device that heats food in a heating chamber and illuminates the inside of the heating chamber with a light source disposed outside the heating chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the first tubular portion of Sugimura with the truncated conical shape, a diameter of which becomes smaller toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber, as taught by Matsuyuki, such that the tubular portion accommodates light irradiated “with a predetermined spread” (Matsuyuki (translation), p. 2, ln. 15), in order for “the illumination range [to] be widened” (Matsuyuki (translation), p. 2, ln. 25).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Matsuyuki
PNG
media_image5.png
389
501
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 & 2 of Matsuyuki
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (JP 2013257061, in view of Matsuyuki (JP 2017129295 A), and further in view of Kawazoe (WO 2019167583), as evidenced by Toray (NPL).
Regarding claim 3, Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki teaches, in Fig. 6 of Sugimura,
the heating cooking apparatus according (Sugimura: 1) to claim 1, wherein:
the first light source unit (20) further includes
a light source substrate (22, “substrate”) including a light source (23, “light emitting element”),
a glass plate (24, “sealing material”) through which the first light passes (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 13-14: “a sealing material 24 made of a transparent resin”), and
an attachment member (21, “holder”) having a thermal conductivity lower than a thermal conductivity of the first inclined wall (10b) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, ln. 14: “a holder 21 made of a resin molded product”; p. 2, ln. 3: “[t]he heating chamber 3 has a metal wall surface [which the peripheral wall 10b is part of”; Toray, p. 1, lns. 8-10: “plastic materials such as [resin] are insulating materials that do not have free electrons, so have a lower thermal conductivity than metals”], and
the light source substrate (22) is attached to the first inclined wall (10b) via the attachment member (21) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 14-15: “[t]he substrate 22 is held by a holder 21 … attached to the wall surface plate 10[, which is formed with the peripheral wall 10b of the recess 10a]”).
Regarding claim 3, Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki does not explicitly teach the plate is a glass plate through which the first light passes, and the glass plate is disposed between the first tubular portion and the light source substrate.
However, Kawazoe teaches, in Fig. 5,
a heating cooking apparatus (abstract: “cooker”) comprises:
a glass plate (25, “translucent member”; Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, lns. 33-34: “[t]he translucent member 25 is formed of … a glass plate”) through which the light passes (Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, ln. 33: “[t]he translucent member 25 … can transmit light emitted from the illuminator 21”), and
the glass plate (25) is disposed between the tubular portion (5cb, “curved section”) and the light source substrate (21a, “first illuminator”) (Fig. 5 shows the configuration).
Sugimura, Matsuyuki and Kawazoe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking device that heats food in a heating chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the glass plate and the configuration thereof as taught by Kawazoe in the first light source unit of Sugimura and Matsuyuki, for the purpose of allowing the light emitted from the illuminator to transmit into the heating chamber (Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, ln. 33), while reliably preventing leakage of the generated steam from the heating chamber through the hole (Kawazoe (translation), p. 5, ln. 28).
PNG
media_image6.png
554
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Kawazoe
Regarding claim 4, Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki and Kawazoe teaches,
the heating cooking apparatus (Sugimura: 1) according to claim 3, wherein:
the first light source unit (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 21&23; 21, “illuminator”; 23, “heat shielding metal plate”; the examiner interprets the combination of 21 and 23 as the “first light source unit”) further includes a metal member (Kawazoe: 23),
the metal member (Kawazoe: 23) includes
a second communication hole (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 23a, “hole”) through which the inside and the outside of the heating cooking chamber (Kawazoe, Fig. 2: 5, “heating chamber”) communicate with each other (Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, lns. 28-29: “[t]he hole 23a allows the light emitted from the illuminator 21 to pass through,” which the examiner interprets as the inside and the outside of the heating cooking chamber communicate with each other through the communication hole), and
a second tubular portion (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 23c, “flange”) extending from the second communication hole toward the outside of the heating cooking chamber (Fig. 5 of Kawazoe shows the configuration),
the metal member (Kawazoe: 23) is disposed between the glass plate (Kawazoe: 25) and the light source substrate (Kawazoe: 21a), and
the second communication hole (Kawazoe: 23a) of the metal member (Kawazoe: 23), and the first communication hole (Sugimura: 11) of the first inclined wall (Sugimura: 10b).
Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki and Kawazoe does not explicitly teach a size of the communication hole of the metal member is smaller than a size of the communication hole of the first inclined wall.
However, Sugimura discloses, in Fig. 6, a wall structure similar to the instant invention, wherein the first communication hole (11), having a hole diameter “d”, of the first inclined wall (10b) through which light from the light source substrate (22) passes to transmit into the heating cooking chamber (3). Further, Kawazoe teaches, in Fig. 5, an assembly structure comprising the light source unit (21&23) similar to the instant invention, wherein the metal member (23) having the second communication hole (23a) is located between the glass plate (25) and the light source substrate (21a); and the inside and the outside of the heating cooking chamber (5) communicate with each other through the second communication hole (23a) (Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, lns. 28-29: “[t]he hole 23a allows the light emitted from the illuminator 21 to pass through”). Accordingly, both Sugimura and Kawazoe recognize that communication holes are provided along the optical path and permit transmission of light into the heating chamber, and thus the size of the communication holes would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a design parameter affecting an amount of light supplied by the light source unit into the heating cooking chamber.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select appropriate relative sizes of the communication holes, including configuring the hole diameter d of the first communication hole (Sugimura: 11) being greater than the size of the second communication hole (Kawazoe: 23a) of the metal member (Kawazoe: 23), in an attempt to achieve the desired result of supplying a sufficient amount of light “irradiated into the heating chamber 3 through the through hole 11, … [t]hereby, the state of the cooked food can be visually recognized through the window 4a of the door 4.” Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 18-20.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter choice of design to modify Sugimura and Kawazoe to adjust the size of the communication holes in order for “the light emitted from the illuminator 21 to pass through” (Kawazoe (translation), p. 3, lns. 28-29) the communication holes to irradiate the inside of the heating chamber, since applicant has not disclosed that having a specific size ratio solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears the configuration of Sugimura, Matsuyuki and Kawazoe would perform equally well at a variety of size ratio between the communication holes, such that selecting a particular ratio, including the size of the second communication hole of the metal member being smaller than the size of the first communication hole of the first inclined wall, would have been a matter of routine design selection in order to ensure sufficient light transmission through the aligned openings.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (JP 2013257061, in view of Matsuyuki (JP 2017129295 A), Kawazoe (WO 2019167583), and further in view of Yuki et al. (US 20170090113) hereinafter Yuki.
Regarding claim 5, Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki and Kawazoe teaches, in Fig. 8 of Kawazoe,
the heating cooking apparatus (Sugimura: 1) according to claim 4, wherein:
the attachment member (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 27, “cover”),
the metal member (Kawazoe: 23) further includes another metal plate (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 23e, “metal plate”) in which the second communication hole (Kawazoe, Fig. 5: 12ca, “hole”) of the metal member (Kawazoe: 23) is located, and
the first tubular portion (Sugimura: 11a) of the first inclined wall (Sugimura: 10b).
Sugimura, Matsuyuki and Kawazoe does not explicitly teach,
the attachment member includes:
a plurality of wall portions made of metal, and
a metal plate disposed between the plurality of wall portions and including a through hole,
the other metal plate of the metal member faces the metal plate of the attachment member, and
the first tubular portion passes through the through hole of the attachment member and is surrounded by the metal member and the attachment member except for a portion corresponding to the second communication hole of the metal member.
However, Yuki teaches, in Fig. 1, a lighting device (paragraph 0001),
wherein an attachment member (13, “bezel”) includes a plurality of wall portions (13b, “outer covering portion” and 13a, “panel holding portion”) made of metal (paragraph 0062: “[t]he bezel is made of metal”), and
a metal plate (15a, “bottom plate”; paragraph 0064: “[t]he chassis 15 [including a bottom plate 15a] is made of metal”) disposed between the plurality of wall portions (13b & 13a) (Fig. 3 shows the configuration) and including a through hole (29, “communication hole”),
the other metal plate (15a) of the metal member (15) faces the metal plate (13a) of the attachment member (13), and
a tubular portion (33, “cap”) passes through the through hole (annotated Fig. 1: “through hole”) of the attachment member (13) and is surrounded by the metal member (15) and the attachment member (13) except for a portion corresponding to the communication hole (29) of the metal member (15) (Fig. 3 shows the configuration).
Sugimura, Matsuyuki, Kawazoe and Yuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an attachment structure for a light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the attachment structure including the light source as taught by Yuki in the cooking apparatus of Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki and Kawazoe, in order for the light source to be “sealed with the through hole-side sealing member between the opening edges of the panel through hole in the [plates].” Yuki, paragraph 0025.
PNG
media_image7.png
739
451
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Yuki, annotated
PNG
media_image8.png
410
680
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Yuki
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura (JP 2013257061, in view of Matsuyuki (JP 2017129295 A), and further in view of Nakajima et al. (JP 2019190771) hereinafter Nakajima.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimura in view of Matsuyuki teaches, in Fig. 6 of Sugimura,
The heating cooking apparatus (Sugimura: 1) according to claim 1, further comprising:
a recessed portion (10a) located in a wall (10) of the plurality of walls (annotated Fig. 1 of Sugimura) and recessed from the wall (10); and
a light source unit (20) disposed in the recessed portion (10a),
the recessed portion (10a) includes an inclined wall (10b) inclined with respect to the wall (10) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2 ln. 9: “[t]he peripheral wall 10b of the recess 10a is formed by an inclined surface”),
the light source unit (20) is disposed on the inclined wall (10b) (Fig. 6 shows the configuration), and
the light source unit (20) emits light toward the back wall (“back wall”) of the heating cooking chamber (3) (Sugimura (translation), p. 2, lns. 12-21: “[t]he illumination unit 20 includes a substrate 22 on which a light emitting element 23 made of LEDs is mounted. … Light emitted from the light emitting element 23… is irradiated toward diagonally back”).
Sugimura and Matsuyuki does not explicitly teach
a second recessed portion located in a second wall of the plurality of walls and recessed from the second wall; and
a second light source unit disposed in the second recessed portion, wherein:
the second wall and the first wall face each other,
the second recessed portion includes a second inclined wall that is inclined with respect to the second wall,
the second light source unit is further disposed on the second inclined wall, and
the second light source unit emits second light toward the back wall of the heating cooking chamber.
However, Nakajima teaches, in Fig. 14, it is known for a heating cooking apparatus (abstract: “heating cooker”) to include a first light source unit (170c, “right illumination unit”) disposed in a first wall (111c, “right wall”), and an identical second light source unit (170b, “left illumination unit”) disposed in the opposing second wall (111b, “left wall”). Nakajima further sets forth that multiple lights are utilized to ensure sufficient lighting of the cooking chamber. Nakajima (translation), p. 6, ln. 55.
Sugimura, Matsuyuki and Nakajima are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking device that heats food in a heating chamber. Further, Nakajima clearly sets forth it is known to duplicate illumination components and place them on opposing walls for the purpose of “supplying a sufficient amount of light [in the heating cooking chamber].” Nakajima (translation), p. 6, ln. 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an additional identical light source as taught by Nakajima to the opposing wall of Sugimura and Matsuyuki in an attempt to ensure sufficient lighting within the cooking chamber. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no significance unless an unexpected result is produced. In the instant rejection, there is no unexpected result as Nakajima clearly sets forth that increasing the number of lights should provide “a sufficient amount of light [in the heating cooking chamber,] … [in order to] improve the recognition accuracy [when observing an object being heated in the heating cooking chamber].” Nakajima (translation), p. 6, lns. 55-56.
PNG
media_image9.png
284
435
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 of Nakajima
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 F. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights