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 for Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 16-31) in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II (claims 32-35) is withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 and 07/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Ogasawara (US 5177333).
Regarding claim 16, Ogasawara discloses
A cooking appliance (cooking heater 1, fig.3) comprising:
a housing (housing of cooking heater 1, fig.3) having a cavity (heating chamber 2, fig.3);
a door (door of cooking heater 1, fig.3) connected to the housing (housing of cooking heater 1), the door (door of cooking heater 1) being configured to open and close the cavity (heating chamber 2);
a microwave heating module (magnetron 3, fig.3) configured to emit microwaves into the cavity (heating chamber 2);
a working coil module (electromagnetic induction coil 10, fig.3) configured to emit a magnetic field into the cavity (heating chamber 2);
a plate (mesh 9, fig.3) located at a bottom of the cavity (heating chamber 2), the plate (mesh 9) including a central hole (central hole of mesh 9, fig.3) therein and a plurality of grooves (mesh 9 has plurality of grooves) extending from the central hole (central hole of mesh 9); and
a shielding filter (insulating layers 14, fig.3) disposed between the plate and the working coil module (electromagnetic induction coil 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Ogasawara discloses
the shielding filter (insulating layers 14, fig.3) is a two-layer structure in which a first substrate (top insulating layers 14, fig.3) with a slit in a first direction (top with respect to mesh 9) and a second substrate (bottom insulating layers 14, fig.3) with a slit in a second direction (bottom with respect to mesh 9) different from the first direction.
Regarding claim 24, Ogasawara discloses
a bracket (container 6a, fig.3) on which at least one of the shielding filter (insulating layers 14, fig.3) and the working coil module (electromagnetic induction coil 10, fig.3) is seated.
Regarding claim 25, Ogasawara discloses
a holder (turntable 7, fig.3) coupled between the bracket (container 6a, fig.3) and the plate (mesh 9, fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 17-21 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 5177333) in view of Bowen et al (US 4132239).
Regarding claim 17, Ogasawara does not disclose
the plate includes a plurality of resilient members spaced apart by the plurality of grooves.
Bowen discloses a plate (disc 30, fig.2) includes a plurality of resilient members (spring tabs 34, fig.2) spaced apart by a plurality of grooves (gaps between tabs 34, fig.2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the plate of Ogasawara, by including a plurality of resilient members spaced apart by the plurality of grooves, as taught by Bowen, in order to improve a sealing method.
PNG
media_image2.png
309
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Ogasawara does not disclose
the plurality of resilient members are leaf springs.
Bowen discloses the plurality of resilient members (spring tabs 34, fig.2) are leaf springs (spring tabs 34, fig.2, are leaf springs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of resilient members of Ogasawara, are leaf springs, as taught by Bowen, in order to improve a sealing method, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 19-20, Ogasawara does not disclose
a length of a section where the plate and the shielding filter overlap in a vertical direction is 30 mm or less in a radial direction from a center of the shielding filter; and a width of each groove is 5 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ogasawara’s invention, with a length of a section where the plate and the shielding filter overlap in a vertical direction is 30 mm or less in a radial direction from a center of the shielding filter; and a width of each groove is 5 mm or less, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 21, Ogasawara does not disclose
each of the plurality of resilient members includes a protrusion protruding toward the shielding filter.
Bowen discloses each of the plurality of resilient members (spring tabs 34, fig.2) includes a protrusion (spring tabs 34, fig.2, are protrusions) protruding toward to the top.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the plate of Ogasawara, by using each of the plurality of resilient members includes a protrusion, as taught by Bowen, in order to improve a sealing method, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 22 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 5177333).
Regarding claim 22, Ogasawara does not disclose
the shielding filter is made of graphite.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shielding filter of Ogasawara, is made of graphite, in order to provide an excellent filtration method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 26, Ogasawara does not disclose
the holder is coupled to the bracket by a bolt and is welded to the plate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the holder and the bracket of Ogasawara, is coupled each other by a bolt and is welded to the plate, in order to make the part in compact, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, because the present invention has not disclosed “a bolt and is welded…” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claims 27-28, Ogasawara does not disclose
the holder includes at least one welding part welded to the plate and at least one fastening part coupled to the bracket; and the at least one welding part includes a plurality of welding parts, wherein the at least one fastening part includes a plurality of fastening parts, and wherein the welding parts and the fastening part are alternately arranged.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the holder of Ogasawara, by including at least one welding part welded to the plate and at least one fastening part coupled to the bracket; and the at least one welding part includes a plurality of welding parts, wherein the at least one fastening part includes a plurality of fastening parts, and wherein the welding parts and the fastening part are alternately arranged, in order to make the part in compact, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, because the present invention has not disclosed “at least one welding part welded, at least one fastening part, …” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 29, Ogasawara discloses
the holder (turntable 7, fig.3) is ring-shaped (turntable 7, fig.3, is a righ-shaped).
Regarding claim 30, Ogasawara does not disclose
the plate includes a glass member covering the plurality of grooves.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the plate of Ogasawara, by including a glass member covering the plurality of grooves, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 31, Ogasawara does not disclose
a width of each groove is 5 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a width of each groove of Ogasawara, is 5 mm or less, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ushijima et al. (US 6147336) is considered as a relevant prior art in field of an induction heater, as shown in fig.1, with a housing, a cavity, a microwave heating module, and a working coil…, but does not disclose a shielding filter…
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
08/09/2026
Prosecution Insights