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 Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 1/28/26 response to the Office Action dated 10/28/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments claims have overcome the previously set forth objections so those objections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on pg. 9 that Dimitrov fails to specifically disclose the functions recited in the context of the claim, relating to the two-step opening of an oven door. However, this is not persuasive because although the concept of the claim is related to a two-step opening of an oven door, the primary reference to Dang is already directed to a two-step opening of an oven door; therefore any modification to Dang in view of Dimitrov will still result in this two-step opening of an door. It’s acknowledged that Dimitrov is not related to an oven, however it is the Examiner’s position that Dimitrov is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. For example, the first and second buttons as recited in amended claim 1 have first and second indications, respectively, that specify first and second distinct actions, respectively, which aid in operation of the two-step door opening action. Conceptually, Dimitrov discloses the same feature i.e., a first button with a first indication and a second button with a second indication which respectively specify first and second distinct actions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would 1) find the disclosure in Dimitrov to be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor and 2) find it obvious to incorporate Dimitrov with its expected benefits into Dang, as noted in the 10/28/25 Non-Final Rejection and this instant Final Office Action.
With regards to Applicant’s statement regarding Examiner taking Official Notice, Examiner notes Official Notice was not taken.
For the reasons above, the rejection to the claims is respectfully maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang et al. (CN 203757794 U, hereafter Dang) in view of Dimitrov et al. (US 20140160028 A1, hereafter Dimitrov).
Regarding claim 1, Dang discloses a two-step door opening mechanism (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “press the second button and press the first button at the same time as the button is opened by pressing the button”) for an oven (Pg. 14, “Technical field”, Par. 1, microwave oven), comprising:
first (Fig. 2, second button 50) and second buttons (Fig. 2, first button 40), arranged side-by-side on a front panel of the oven (Figs. 1-2, control panel 30 which is a panel located at the front of the oven and is therefore a ‘front panel’. First button 40 and second button 50 are on an underside/upper side to one another), the oven defining an oven cavity (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “risk of high temperature food scalding inside the microwave oven body”. Examiner notes an oven cavity is a cavity or unfilled space within an oven, therefore there must necessarily be a cavity or unfilled space within the microwave oven body to hold the food, i.e., an ‘oven cavity’) openable and closable by an oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “reducing the possibility of the child opening the door body by itself, thereby reducing the risk of high temperature food scalding inside the microwave oven body” and Pg. 17, Par. 5, “The door body 20 can be connected to the furnace body 10 in an open or closed manner”), the first and second buttons being separately actuatable one after the other for providing two distinct actions to be performed to open the oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “Specifically, the second button is movably mounted in the second button slot, the locking device is hinged on the back of the control panel, one end is rotatably connected with the second button, and the other end is pressed against the flap, when the first button is pressed When one button is pressed, because the other end of the locking device is pressed against the top surface of the flap, the flap and the locking device are mutually restrained by frictional force, and the flap cannot be rotated at this time…That is, the door body cannot be opened; when the second button is pressed first, and then the first button is pressed, since one end of the locking device and the second button are rotatably connected, the second button moves to drive the locking device to rotate…The other end of the device is disengaged from the flap, that is, the frictional force between the flap and the locking device is eliminated. At this time, the first button is pressed, the first The key rotates the flap to open the door body”),
wherein the first button, once actuated, is configured to unlock the second button, and the second button, once actuated, is configured to open the oven door when the second button is unlocked (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, as quoted in previous citation).
However, Dang does not disclose the first button is marked with a first indication specifying that a first of the two distinct actions is to be performed first to the first button, and the second button is marked with a second indication specifying that a second of the two distinct actions is to be performed second to the second button.
Dimitrov discloses a solution for identifying the function of a button (Pars. 0004 and 0033), similar to the problem of indicating which button in the two-step door opening mechanism should be pressed first in the present invention. Dimitrov further discloses it is known for a first button (Fig. 1, left instance of button 116, which is labeled ‘START’ and Par. 0062, “For example, relative to gaming machine or kiosk, instead of using one or more standard buttons, a “START” button 116 (or other buttons) of these devices is a button according to the invention”) to be marked with a first indication (Par. 0063, “Furthermore, if, a label (such as “START”) is no longer desired or appropriate, the button's 116 label 112 may be easily changed (such as to “GO”, “BEGIN”, “LOGIN”, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation)”) specifying that a first of two distinct actions is to be performed first to the first button (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘START’ is associated with starting an action), and a second button (Fig. 1, right instance of button 116, which is labeled ‘GAME’) is marked with a second indication (Par. 0062, “In addition, the invention allows the button label to be changed as desired, such as to reconfigure the gaming device to present a different game, or so that a kiosk can be used for a different purpose. Thus, for example, the label could change to “STOP”, “CASH OUT” in the case of a gaming machine, “ENTER” in the case of an ATM or kiosk, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation.”) specifying that a second of the two distinct actions is to be performed second to the second button (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘GAME’ is associated with switching the game, in light of the disclosure of Par. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two-step door opening mechanism of Dang with the buttons as disclosed by Dimitrov in order to label the function of the first and second buttons and thereby make operation of the two-step door opening mechanism intuitive to users (As suggested by Par. 0062 of Dimitrov: “Various advantages can be appreciated from the configuration illustrated in FIGS. 7A-7B. For example, relative to gaming machine or kiosk, instead of using one or more standard buttons, a “START” button 116 (or other buttons) of these devices is a button according to the invention. Thus, electronic devices using the invention remain intuitive to users”) and/or allow the indication for each button to be easily changed (As suggested by Par. 0063 of Dimitrov: “the button's 116 label 112 may be easily changed (such as to “GO”, “BEGIN”, “LOGIN”, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation) without physically modifying the electronic device or any component thereof”) to meet a wider variety of user preferences.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, it’s the examiner’s position that indications for buttons are well known in the art, as indicated by Pars. 0018-0020 and Figs. 9-11 of Zaharchuk et al. (US 20110266122 A1) referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 3, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 2, wherein the first of the two distinct actions is pressing the first button (Fig. 2, second button 50), and the second of the two distinct actions is pressing the second button (Fig. 2, first button 40) while the first button remains pressed (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, as quoted in claim 1 and Pg. 19, Pars. 4-5, “When the user needs to open the door, the second button 50 is pressed, the support post 51 moves through the hole in the bottom surface of the button slot, the second return spring 82 is compressed, and the pin 52 slides in the slot 712 to drive the connecting rod 71 to rotate, so that the connection is made. The end face of the other end of the rod 71 leaves the upper edge of the flap 60; Keeping the action unchanged, continue to press the first button 40, the first return spring 81 is compressed, and the flap 60 is flipped under the action of the first button 40 to realize the door opening action;”).
Regarding claim 4, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the first (Fig. 2, second button 50) and second buttons (Fig. 2, first button 40) are biased outward into an unpressed position (Fig. 3 and Pg. 17, Par. 1, “when the force applied to the first button 40 and the second button 50 is removed, the first return spring 81 and the second return spring 82 return to the undeformed state. The first button 40 and the second button 50 are reset,”).
Regarding claim 5, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a blocking slider (Fig. 4, locking device 70 which both rotates and slides as the second button 50 is pressed but blocks the movement of first button 40 when the second button 50 is not pressed and is therefore a ‘blocking slider’) configured to slide laterally between a first, locked position in which the blocking slider prevents inward movement of the second button (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “When the first button 40 is pushed, since the other end of the locking device 70 is pressed against the flap 60, the flap 60 and the locking device 70 are mutually restrained by friction. The flap 60 cannot be rotated, and the movement of the first button 40 cannot rotate the flap 60, that is, the door body 20 cannot be opened”) and a second, unlocked position in which the blocking slider allows the inward movement of the second button (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “when the second button 50 is first pressed, when the first button 40 is pressed…the second button 50 is moved to drive the locking device 70 to rotate, and the locking device 70 is rotated, so that the other end of the locking device 70 is disengaged from the flap 60, that is, the gap between the flap 60 and the locking device 70 is eliminated…At this time, the first button 40 is pressed, and the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”).
Regarding claim 6, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 5, wherein pressing of the first button (Fig. 2, second button 50) moves the blocking slider (Fig. 4, locking device 70, as explained in claim 5) from the first, locked position to the second, unlocked position, (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “when the second button 50 is first pressed, when the first button 40 is pressed…the second button 50 is moved to drive the locking device 70 to rotate, and the locking device 70 is rotated, so that the other end of the locking device 70 is disengaged from the flap 60, that is, the gap between the flap 60 and the locking device 70 is eliminated…At this time, the first button 40 is pressed, and the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”) and releasing of the first button moves the blocking slider from the second, unlocked position back to the first, locked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5 and Pg. 18, Par. 1, “when the force applied to the first button 40 and the second button 50 is removed, the first return spring 81 and the second return spring 82 return to the undeformed state. The first button 40 and the second button 50 are reset, and the connecting rod 71 and the flap 60 are returned to the initial state, thereby implementing the child lock function” Examiner notes connecting rod 71 is part of locking device 70, therefore if connecting rod 71 returns to its initial state, this necessarily means locking device 70 does as well. Given the initial state implements the child lock function, this necessarily means the locking device is pressed against flap 60 so flap 60 cannot be rotated (i.e., first, locked position)).
Regarding claim 7, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 6, wherein the second button (Fig. 2, first button 40) includes:
an elongate shaft (Fig. 5, middle shaft of first button 40) extending inwards into the oven; and
a key cap (Figs. 2 and 5, front face of first button 40 that is visible in Fig. 2) at a first end of the elongate shaft facing the exterior of the oven (Fig. 5, left end of middle shaft of first button 40), wherein
when the second button is pressed inwards and the blocking slider (Fig. 4, locking device 70, as explained in claim 5) is in the second, unlocked position (Pg. 17, Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5), a second end of the elongate shaft (Fig. 5, right end of middle shaft of first button 40) comes into contact with and pushes a door-opening mechanism (Fig. 5, flap 60 and Pg. 17, Par. 6, “the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘door opening mechanism’ is an elongated shaft and equivalents thereof. Given flap 60 has the same or substantially the function as the disclosed elongated shaft, flap 60 is an equivalent thereof) to cause the oven door of the oven to open, and
when the second button is pressed inwards and the blocking slider is in the first, locked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5), the blocking slider is located at least partially behind the key cap (Fig. 3), such that the second button is stopped against the surface of the blocking slider (First button 40 (i.e., second button) is functionally stopped against the surface of locking device 70 (i.e., blocking slider), therefore it reads on this limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation) and be unable to proceed inward to come into contact with the door-opening mechanism (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “When the first button 40 is pushed, since the other end of the locking device 70 is pressed against the flap 60, the flap 60 and the locking device 70 are mutually restrained by friction. The flap 60 cannot be rotated, and the movement of the first button 40 cannot rotate the flap 60, that is, the door body 20 cannot be opened”).
Regarding claim 10, Dang discloses an oven (Pg. 14, “Technical field”, Par. 1, microwave oven) comprising a two-step door opening mechanism (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “press the second button and press the first button at the same time as the button is opened by pressing the button”), comprising:
a housing (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, microwave oven body) that defines an oven cavity (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “risk of high temperature food scalding inside the microwave oven body”. Examiner notes an oven cavity is a cavity or unfilled space within an oven, therefore there must necessarily be a cavity or unfilled space within the microwave oven body to hold the food, i.e., an ‘oven cavity’);
an oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “reducing the possibility of the child opening the door body by itself, thereby reducing the risk of high temperature food scalding inside the microwave oven body”) to the oven cavity, configured (capable of) provide access to the oven cavity when open and seal the oven cavity for cooking when closed (Pg. 17, Par. 5, “The door body 20 can be connected to the furnace body 10 in an open or closed manner”);
a control panel provided on a front face of the oven (Figs. 1-2, control panel 30 which located at the front face of the oven); and
first (Fig. 2, second button 50) and second buttons (Fig. 2, first button 40), arranged side-by-side on the control panel (Figs. 1-2, first button 40 and second button 50 are on an underside/upper side to one another on control panel 30), the first and second buttons being separately actuatable one after the other for providing two distinct actions to be performed to open the oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “Specifically, the second button is movably mounted in the second button slot, the locking device is hinged on the back of the control panel, one end is rotatably connected with the second button, and the other end is pressed against the flap, when the first button is pressed When one button is pressed, because the other end of the locking device is pressed against the top surface of the flap, the flap and the locking device are mutually restrained by frictional force, and the flap cannot be rotated at this time…That is, the door body cannot be opened; when the second button is pressed first, and then the first button is pressed, since one end of the locking device and the second button are rotatably connected, the second button moves to drive the locking device to rotate…The other end of the device is disengaged from the flap, that is, the frictional force between the flap and the locking device is eliminated. At this time, the first button is pressed, the first The key rotates the flap to open the door body”),
wherein the first button, once actuated, is operable to unlock the second button, and the second button, once actuated, is operable to open the oven door when the second button is unlocked (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, as quoted in previous citation).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, Dang discloses a method for utilizing a two-step door opening mechanism (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “press the second button and press the first button at the same time as the button is opened by pressing the button”) including first (Fig. 2, second button 50) and second buttons (Fig. 2, first button 40), arranged side-by-side on a front panel of the oven (Figs. 1-2, control panel 30 which is a panel located at the front of the oven and is therefore a ‘front panel’. First button 40 and second button 50 are on an underside/upper side to one another), the first and second buttons being separately actuatable one after the other for providing two distinct actions to be performed to open an oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “Specifically, the second button is movably mounted in the second button slot, the locking device is hinged on the back of the control panel, one end is rotatably connected with the second button, and the other end is pressed against the flap, when the first button is pressed When one button is pressed, because the other end of the locking device is pressed against the top surface of the flap, the flap and the locking device are mutually restrained by frictional force, and the flap cannot be rotated at this time…That is, the door body cannot be opened; when the second button is pressed first, and then the first button is pressed, since one end of the locking device and the second button are rotatably connected, the second button moves to drive the locking device to rotate…The other end of the device is disengaged from the flap, that is, the frictional force between the flap and the locking device is eliminated. At this time, the first button is pressed, the first The key rotates the flap to open the door body”. Examiner notes the door body reads on the ‘oven door’), the method comprising:
actuating the first button to unlock the second button (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, as quoted in previous citation); and
once unlocked, actuating the second button to open the oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, as quoted in previous citation).
However, Dang does not disclose the first button being marked with a first indication specifying that a first of the two distinct actions is to be performed first to the first button, the second button being marked with a second indication specifying that a second of the two distinct actions is to be performed second to the second button.
Dimitrov discloses a solution for identifying the function of a button (Pars. 0004 and 0033), similar to the problem of indicating which button in the two-step door opening mechanism should be pressed first in the present invention. Dimitrov further discloses it is known for a first button (Fig. 1, left instance of button 116, which is labeled ‘START’ and Par. 0062, “For example, relative to gaming machine or kiosk, instead of using one or more standard buttons, a “START” button 116 (or other buttons) of these devices is a button according to the invention”) to be marked with a first indication (Par. 0063, “Furthermore, if, a label (such as “START”) is no longer desired or appropriate, the button's 116 label 112 may be easily changed (such as to “GO”, “BEGIN”, “LOGIN”, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation)”) specifying that a first of two distinct actions is to be performed first to the first button (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘START’ is associated with starting an action), and a second button (Fig. 1, right instance of button 116, which is labeled ‘GAME’) is marked with a second indication (Par. 0062, “In addition, the invention allows the button label to be changed as desired, such as to reconfigure the gaming device to present a different game, or so that a kiosk can be used for a different purpose. Thus, for example, the label could change to “STOP”, “CASH OUT” in the case of a gaming machine, “ENTER” in the case of an ATM or kiosk, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation.”) specifying that a second of the two distinct actions is to be performed second to the second button (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘GAME’ is associated with switching the game, in light of the disclosure of Par. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two-step door opening mechanism of Dang with the buttons as disclosed by Dimitrov in order to label the function of the first and second buttons and thereby make operation of the two-step door opening mechanism intuitive to users (As suggested by Par. 0062 of Dimitrov: “Various advantages can be appreciated from the configuration illustrated in FIGS. 7A-7B. For example, relative to gaming machine or kiosk, instead of using one or more standard buttons, a “START” button 116 (or other buttons) of these devices is a button according to the invention. Thus, electronic devices using the invention remain intuitive to users”) and/or allow the indication for each button to be easily changed (As suggested by Par. 0063 of Dimitrov: “the button's 116 label 112 may be easily changed (such as to “GO”, “BEGIN”, “LOGIN”, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation) without physically modifying the electronic device or any component thereof”) to meet a wider variety of user preferences.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees, it’s the examiner’s position that indications for buttons are well known in the art, as indicated by Pars. 0018-0020 and Figs. 9-11 of Zaharchuk et al. (US 20110266122 A1) referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 20, Dang discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising:
actuating the first button (Fig. 2, second button 50) by pressing the first button to slide a blocking slider (Fig. 4, locking device 70 which both rotates and slides as the second button 50 is pressed but blocks the movement of first button 40 when the second button 50 is not pressed and is therefore a ‘blocking slider’) from a first, locked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “When the first button 40 is pushed, since the other end of the locking device 70 is pressed against the flap 60, the flap 60 and the locking device 70 are mutually restrained by friction. The flap 60 cannot be rotated, and the movement of the first button 40 cannot rotate the flap 60, that is, the door body 20 cannot be opened”) into a second, unlocked position button (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “when the second button 50 is first pressed, when the first button 40 is pressed…the second button 50 is moved to drive the locking device 70 to rotate, and the locking device 70 is rotated, so that the other end of the locking device 70 is disengaged from the flap 60, that is, the gap between the flap 60 and the locking device 70 is eliminated…At this time, the first button 40 is pressed, and the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”), wherein in the first, locked position the blocking slider prevents inward movement of the second button (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “When the first button 40 is pushed, since the other end of the locking device 70 is pressed against the flap 60, the flap 60 and the locking device 70 are mutually restrained by friction. The flap 60 cannot be rotated, and the movement of the first button 40 cannot rotate the flap 60, that is, the door body 20 cannot be opened”) and in the second, unlocked position the blocking slider allows the inward movement of the second button (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “when the second button 50 is first pressed, when the first button 40 is pressed…the second button 50 is moved to drive the locking device 70 to rotate, and the locking device 70 is rotated, so that the other end of the locking device 70 is disengaged from the flap 60, that is, the gap between the flap 60 and the locking device 70 is eliminated…At this time, the first button 40 is pressed, and the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”); and
actuating the second button by pressing the second button when the blocking slider is in the second, unlocked position, to thereby cause a door-opening mechanism (Fig. 5, flap 60 and Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘door opening mechanism’ is an elongated shaft and equivalents thereof. Given flap 60 has the same or substantially the function as the disclosed elongated shaft, flap 60 is an equivalent thereof) to open the oven door (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “when the second button 50 is first pressed, when the first button 40 is pressed…the second button 50 is moved to drive the locking device 70 to rotate, and the locking device 70 is rotated, so that the other end of the locking device 70 is disengaged from the flap 60, that is, the gap between the flap 60 and the locking device 70 is eliminated…At this time, the first button 40 is pressed, and the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang et al. (CN 203757794 U, hereafter Dang) in view of Dimitrov et al. (US 20140160028 A1, hereafter Dimitrov) and further in view of 이강쇠 (KR 200292189 Y1, hereafter Untranslated).
Reference is made to the attached Korean to English Translation of Untranslated ‘189.
Regarding claim 2, Dang, as modified above, discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 1.
However, Dang, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the first indication is a single dot, protrusion, indentation, or the number 1, and the second indication is two dots, protrusions, indentations, or the number 2.
NOTE: Dimitrov discloses the label of the button may be any text or graphic: “the button's 116 label 112 may be easily changed (such as to “GO”, “BEGIN”, “LOGIN”, or any other text, graphic, video, or animation) without physically modifying the electronic device or any component thereof” (Par. 0063).
Untranslated discloses a button-type door lock (Par. 0020) similar to the present invention and Untranslated further discloses it is known for a first indication to be the number 1 (Fig. 1, the first button in the first row is denoted by “1” and Par. 0020, “door lock is unlocked when a button corresponding to a predetermined password is pressed using a unique number assigned to each button”), and a second indication to be the number 2 (Fig. 1, the second button in the first row is denoted by “2” and Par. 0020, as quoted above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first indication and second indication of Dang, as modified above, to be the number 1 and number 2 as taught by Untranslated. Dang, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except Dang, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose using the number 1 for the first indication and using the number 2 for the second indication. Untranslated shows that using numbers to specify the sequence buttons need to be pressed in order to unlock a door is known in the art. Therefore, because the indications were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the first and second indications of Dang to be the number 1 and number 2, respectively, as taught by Untranslated. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely specifying the sequence buttons need to be pressed in order to unlock a door, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 11, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang et al. (CN 203757794 U, hereafter Dang) in view of Dimitrov et al. (US 20140160028 A1, hereafter Dimitrov) and in further view of Kolendowicz (US 4088354 A).
Regarding claim 8, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 6, wherein pressing the first button (Fig. 2, second button 50) moves the blocking slider Fig. 4, locking device 70, as explained in claim 5) from the first, locked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5) to the second, unlocked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5), and releasing the first button moves the blocking slider from the second, unlocked position back to the first, locked position (Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, as quoted in claim 5 and Pg. 18, Par. 1, as quoted in claim 6).
However, Dang, as modified above, does not disclose pressing the first button actuates a solenoid to move the blocking slider from the first, locked position to the second, unlocked position, and releasing the first button releases the solenoid to move the blocking slider from the second, unlocked position back to the first, locked position.
Kolendowicz discloses a door locking arrangement for a cooking range (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Kolendowicz further discloses it is known for pressing a button (Col. 3, lines 21-37, push button switch) to actuate a solenoid (Col. 3, lines 21-37, solenoid) in order to unlock a door (Col. 3, lines 21-37, “In order to unlock the oven door a push button switch located on the control panel 12 of the range is operated closing a circuit which provides power to the solenoid 26. Upon energization of the solenoid 26 the solenoid operating shaft and arm 28 and locking bar 29 are pulled rearwardly toward the solenoid coil. As the locking bar 29 passes out of the detent portion 38 the cam assembly 20 is free to rotate in a clockwise direction as viewed in the drawings under the force of the return spring 24 which had been loaded during the locking operation as previously described. The rotation of the cam assembly 20 in such direction rotates the cam follower 21 upwardly out of the latch aperture 19 of door latch 16”) and for releasing the button to release the solenoid to lock the door (Col. 3, lines 37-44, “The operating switch for solenoid 26 is preferably of the momentary type so that when it is released power to solenoid 26 is terminated allowing the solenoid operating arm 28 and locking bar 29 to again move forwardly under the force of the solenoid spring 27 whereby the locking bar 29 once again comes to rest against the rear cam surface 39 of cam assembly 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two-step door opening mechanism of Dang, as modified above, to include a solenoid as disclosed by Kolendowicz in order to automate operation of the two-step door opening mechanism and thereby make the two-step door opening mechanism easier to use for adults with a wider range of abilities and/or make operation of the two-step door opening mechanism more efficient. Furthermore, providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 8 above.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang et al. (CN 203757794 U, hereafter Dang) in view of Dimitrov et al. (US 20140160028 A1, hereafter Dimitrov) and further view of Atkinson (US 6730882 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Dang discloses the two-step door opening mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a door-opening mechanism (Fig. 5, flap 60 and Pg. 17 ,Par. 6, “the first button 40 rotates the flap 60 to open the door body 20”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘door opening mechanism’ is an elongated shaft and equivalents thereof. Given flap 60 has the same or substantially the function as the disclosed elongated shaft, flap 60 is an equivalent thereof) to open the oven door (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, door body) responsive to a user pressing the first button (Fig. 2, second button 50) and then pressing the second button (Fig. 2, first button 40) while the first button remains pressed (Pg. 14, “Utility model content”, Par. 4, “when the second button is pressed first, and then the first button is pressed, since one end of the locking device and the second button are rotatably connected, the second button moves to drive the locking device to rotate…The other end of the device is disengaged from the flap, that is, the frictional force between the flap and the locking device is eliminated. At this time, the first button is pressed, the first The key rotates the flap to open the door body”).
However, Dang, as modified above, does not disclose a processor programmed actuate a door-opening mechanism to open the oven door responsive to a user pressing the first button and then pressing the second button while the first button remains pressed.
Atkinson discloses a latching mechanism for a range (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Atkinson further discloses it is known for a processor (Col. 4, lines 26-50, CPU 85) to be programmed to actuate a door-opening mechanism (Col. 4, lines 26-50, “CPU 85 is linked to the overall control panel 16 for programming and regulating the functions of cooking appliance 2. In accordance with this embodiment, select ones of the plurality of control elements are designated such that, in addition to their primary function, i.e., establishing cooking modes, times and/or temperatures associated with the cooking appliance, the control elements have a secondary function of activating latching mechanism 72. That is, the secondary function serves to enable a user to engage a series of buttons, the operation of which activates latching mechanism 72. In other words, two or more dual function control buttons can be operated simultaneously or in a preprogrammed sequence, to lock/unlock the oven door. This control feature is preferably preprogrammed into cooking appliance 2, but provisions could be made for reprogramming by the consumer.” Examiner notes latching mechanism 72 reads on ‘door-opening mechanism’. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘door opening mechanism’ is an elongated shaft and equivalents thereof. Given latching mechanism 72 has the same or substantially the function as the disclosed elongated shaft, latching mechanism 72 is an equivalent thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two-step door opening mechanism of Dang, as modified above, to include a processor as disclosed by Atkinson in order to automate operation of the two-step door opening mechanism and thereby make the two-step door opening mechanism easier to use for adults with a wider range of abilities and/or make operation of the two-step door opening mechanism more efficient. Furthermore, providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hubert (EA 038497 B1) discloses it is known for a first button to be marked with a first indication that is the number 1 and the second button is marked with a second indication that is the number 2.
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 Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762