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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18278155 filed 8/21/2023. Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a microwave supply unit… configured to supply microwaves to the heating cooking chamber” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushima 4661669.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Matsushima teaches a heating cooking apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising:
a heating cooking unit (1) including a heating cooking chamber (4, see Fig. 2);
a microwave supply unit fixed to the heating cooking unit and configured to supply microwaves to the heating cooking chamber (magnetron 9);
an air blowing mechanism (as discussed below, includes 10/13) configured to blow air onto the microwave supply unit (see Fig. 8); and
a fixing member fixed to the heating cooking unit (see Fig. 1: Annotated Fig. 8 from Matsushima below, includes annotated 1st plate, 2nd plate, horizontal plate),
wherein the air blowing mechanism includes
a fan (10),
a motor (13) configured to drive the fan, and
a first attachment member disposed on a side, in a predetermined direction, of the fan (annotated 1st attachment member is disposed on a side, in a rightward direction in the figure, of 10), and
the fixing member includes
a support portion (includes annotated horizontal plate) configured to support the first attachment member (via connection to 4c through the plate which extends vertically from the annotated horizontal plate and in is contact with 4c), and
an attachment portion (combined regions of annotated horizontal plate and annotated 1st plate to which the annotated 1st attachment member and the annotated engagement portion are attached) to which the first attachment member is attached.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 8 from Matsushima
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Matsushima further teaches the fixing member further includes
a first plate (annotated 1st plate) extending along a vertical direction, and
a second plate (annotated 2nd plate) extending from the first plate along a direction opposite to the predetermined direction (extends from annotated 1st plate along a leftward direction, which is opposite to the rightward direction discussed for claim 1 above),
the support portion includes
a horizontal plate (annotated horizontal plate) disposed on a side, in the direction opposite to the predetermined direction, of the first plate (horizontal plate is to a leftward side of the 1st plate, with the leftward direction opposite to the rightward direction discussed above for claim 1), and
the first attachment member includes
an engagement portion (annotated engagement portion) configured to engage with the horizontal plate (engagement portion engaged with horizontal plate at the right-hand edge of the horizontal plate).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Matsushima further teaches
the microwave supply unit is fixed below the heating cooking chamber (9 is below 4), and
the fixing member is fixed below the heating cooking chamber (1st plate, 2nd plate, horizontal plate are all below 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the first attachment member is disposed between the horizontal plate and the inclined plate.
The closest prior art is Matsushima. Matsushima’s Fig. 8 was relied upon for the rejection of claim 2 above, however, the “microwave supply unit” could be interpreted as including both the magnetron 8 and the high-voltage transformer 9. In such a case, Fig. 2 could be relied upon in much the same way as Fig. 8, except that the fan of Fig. 2 cools the high-voltage transformer 9 portion of the microwave supply unit and Fig. 2 includes an inclined plate (14e). The first attachment member, which is part of the air blowing mechanism and would be interpreted as the same nominally C-shaped bracket shown in Fig. 2 surrounding 13 as is also shown in Fig. 8, is not “disposed between the horizontal plate and the inclined plate” (the first attachment member in Fig. 2 is not positioned between the horizontal plate 14a and the inclined plate 14e but is rather wholly positioned to the right of both 14a and 14e in Fig. 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the second attachment member is placed on the placing portion.
The closest prior art is Matsushima as discussed for claim 2 above. Matsushima does teach a placing portion disposed at an upper end of the second plate (an upper surface or other upper part of the annotated second plate can be called the “placing portion”) and a second attachment member (vertical portion of bracket surrounding 13 in combination with horizontal portion of bracket surrounding 13 at the lower end of the bracket which attaches to the bottom of 1). Matsushima’s second attachment member, however, is not “placed on” the placing portion in any reasonable interpretation, as they are only connected to each other via the first attachment member and the first plate.
Dependent Claims 5 & 6 depend from claim 4, which is objected to for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights