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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Takeuji (US 4812617 A) is introduced as a secondary reference for claim 12 because of the claim limitation “wherein…the fan is operable to draw in air through the hood, and the air drawn in by the fan is introduced … to the inside of the control panel and is then discharged to outside of the cooking device through an upper portion of the control panel.
This limitation requires that the air flow track from the hood (i.e. structure at the bottom of the oven, which draws in smoke and fumes) to the control panel. This is a well-known problem within the art because heat and oil may accumulate and damage the electrical components within the control panel when air is drawn directly from the hood. Applicants are encouraged to review whether or not they intended to make this limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “to allow the air in the inside the door to be discharged” this should be -- to allow the air in the inside of the door to be discharged--.
Claim 12 recites “configured to that” it should be –configured so that--.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Air discharge device claim 3-4, 7, and 14. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 77 states “The air discharge device 200 may include a plurality of through holes.”
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20050030374 A) in view of Takeuji (US 4812617 A) and Lee (US 20080087657 A1).
Claim 1. Kim A cooking device (microwave oven, Fig. 2) comprising:
a main body forming a cooking chamber (oven with a cooking chamber 31, Fig. 2), the main body including a front plate having at least one first hole (oven has a front surface with vent holes 35a, Fig. 2);
a hood coupled to a lower portion of the main body (hood combined with microwave oven, 3a);
a fan (vent fan 39); and
a door to open and close the cooking chamber (door 33, Fig. 2), and including a rear panel having at least one second hole (33i holes, Fig. 2),
wherein the main body, the hood, the fan, and the door are configured so that, with the cooking chamber being closed by the door, the fan is operable to draw in air
Kim does not disclose that the same fan draws air from the hood into the control panel through the holes 31i and the door and does not disclose that the second holes are on the rear panel of the door.
Takeuji discloses a microwave oven wherein the fan draws air from the hood below the oven (Fig. 3) to cool the electrical components (col 2 lines 65-67).
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 Kim to incorporate the teachings of Takeuji and let the vent fan draw air from the hood to cool the electrical components. Doing so would have the benefit of further cooling the electrical components (col 2lines 65-67, Takeuji).
Kim in view of Takeuji does not disclose that the second holes are in the rear panel of the door.
Lee discloses an oven wherein the air can flow from holes (16A, Fig. 2) in the front panel of the oven into the holes (4A, Fig. 2) in the back panel of the oven door.
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 Kim in view of Takeuji to incorporate the teachings of Lee and place the second holes in the rear panel of the door. Lee demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to place the second holes into the rear panel based on design specifications.
Claim 2. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 1, wherein
the at least one first hole includes a plurality of first holes (35a are a plurality of holes, Fig. 2), and
the at least one second hole includes a plurality of second holes (33i are a plurality of holes, Fig. 2).
Claim 3. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 1, wherein the door further includes an upper panel provided with at least one air discharge device including a through hole to discharge the air in the inside of the door to an outside of the cooking device (plurality of holes 33e expel air from inside of the door to an outside, page 14).
Claim 7. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 3, wherein the at least one air discharge device includes a plurality of air discharge devices, and the plurality of air discharge devices is arranged along a front direction of the door (holes 33e are a plurality of holes and is arranged along a front direction of the door, Fig. 2).
Claim 8. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 3, wherein the main body is positionable in a storage space of a cabinet, and, when the main body is positioned in the storage space of the cabinet (microwave for a range hood, page 7, where it is understood by the examiner that the microwave oven is capable of being positioned in a space above a cooking range), the door protrudes forward from the cabinet (door protrudes forward, Fig. 1).
Claim 9. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 1, wherein the main body further includes:
an inner case (cavity assembly 30) accommodated in the outer case and forming the cooking chamber (cook chamber is within the cavity assembly, Fig. 2); and
the inner case includes the front plate (front side of the cavity assembly is part of the cavity assembly, Fig. 2).
Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee does not explicitly disclose an outer case.
Takeuji further discloses an outer housing (abstract).
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 Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Takeuji and provide an outer housing. Takeuji demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a microwave oven could have an outer housing.
Claim 10. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 9, wherein an opening is in the front plate to (inlet 37i, Fig. 3a-b), with the cooking chamber being closed by the door, allow air inside the main body to be discharged between the rear panel of the door and the front plate (air enters the inlet 37i then through the body of the microwave which is then discharged into the door, page. 13-14, Fig. 3b).
Claim 11. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 10, wherein the opening is provided on a side adjacent to the fan (37i is adjacent to the fan, Fig. 3a).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee ‘121 (KR 20000027121 A).
Claim 4. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee does not disclose the cooking device of claim 3, wherein the air discharge device further includes a cover portion covering a portion of the through hole, and the cover portion includes a gap between the cover portion and the upper panel to allow the air in the inside the door to be discharged to the outside of the cooking device through the through hole.
Lee ‘121 discloses an exhaust guide for a microwave oven wherein a cover portion covering a portion of the through hole (guide piece 90c, Fig. 3), and
the cover portion includes a gap between the cover portion and the upper panel to allow the air in the inside the door to be discharged to the outside of the cooking device through the through hole (gap between 90c and 90a which allows air to be discharged, Fig. 3).
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 Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lee ‘121 and provide a guide piece to guide the exhaust. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing the cost of the oven by reducing the number of parts for installing a separate guide pipe (page 2, Lee).
Claim 5. Kim in view of Takeuji, Lee, and Lee ‘121 discloses the cooking device of claim 4, wherein the cover portion is configured to extend from a first section around the through hole (90c extends from the top portion of 90a, Fig. 3-4, Lee), and to form the gap between the cover portion and a second section around the through hole (90c extends from 90a and then covers a section of the hole 90b, Fig. 3, Lee).
Claim 6. Kim in view of Takeuji, Lee, and Lee ‘121 discloses the cooking device of claim 5, wherein the second section is closer to the main body than the first section (the lower portion of 90c is closer to the main body, Fig. 5, Lee).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20050030374 A) in view of Takeuji (US 4812617 A).
Claim 12. Kim discloses a cooking device (microwave oven, Fig. 2) comprising:
a main body forming a cooking chamber (oven with a cooking chamber 31, Fig. 2);
a hood coupled to a lower portion of the main body (hood below the oven with the passage 49 extending from the hood, Fig. 3a, page 13);
a fan (vent fan 39);
a door configured to open and close the cooking chamber (door 33, Fig. 2); and
a control panel including a manipulation button (buttons on control panel, Fig. 2) and mounted on a front surface of the main body so that an inside of the control panel communicates with an inside of the main body (control panel 35 is part of the main body and on a front surface, Fig. 2),
wherein the main body, the hood, the fan, the door, and the control panel are configured to that, with the cooking chamber being closed by the door, the fan is operable to draw in air (cooling fan sucks air to cool the electrical components from the air inlet 31a, Fig. 3a)
Kim does not disclose that the same fan draws air from the hood into the control panel through the holes 31i and the door.
Takeuji discloses a microwave oven wherein the fan draws air from the hood below the oven (Fig. 3) to cool the electrical components (col 2 lines 65-67).
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 Kim to incorporate the teachings of Takeuji and let the vent fan draw air from the hood to cool the electrical components. Doing so would have the benefit of further cooling the electrical components (col 2lines 65-67, Takeuji).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Takeuji as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20080087657 A1).
Claim 13. Kim in view of Takeuji discloses the cooking device of claim 12, wherein
the main body further includes a front plate having a first hole (37i, Fig. 2), and
the control panel further includes a
wherein the first hole and the second hole are configured so that the air introduced into the inside of the main body passes through the first hole and then through the second hole to be introduced to the inside of the control panel (air passes through 37i into the main body and then passes through 33i, page 12-13, Fig. 3a).
Kim in view of Takeuji does not disclose that the second holes are in the rear panel of the door.
Lee discloses an oven wherein the air can flow from holes (16A, Fig. 2) in the front panel of the oven into the holes (4A, Fig. 2) in the back panel of the oven door.
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 Kim in view of Takeuji to incorporate the teachings of Lee and place the second holes in the rear panel of the door. Lee demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to place the second holes into the rear panel based on design specifications.
Claim 14. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 13, wherein the control panel further includes an upper surface panel having an air discharge device including a through hole to discharge the air introduced to the inside the control panel to the outside of the cooking device (plurality of holes 33i receives the air from the inside of the control panel, page 14, Fig. 3b).
Claim 15. Kim in view of Takeuji and Lee discloses the cooking device of claim 14, wherein an opening is provided in the front plate to, with the cooking chamber being closed by the door, allow the air inside the control panel to be discharged between the rear surface panel of the control panel and the front plate (plurality of holes 33e exhausts the air from the inside of the door to outside of the oven, page 14, Fig. 3b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights