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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the People’s Republic of China on 2/16/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202320288337 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “are connected said controller” is missing –to-- after controller. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 contains reference number “110”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is considered indefinite because of the limitation “a silk-screen surface, the said silk-screen surface…”. The specification describes in paragraph 0043 an operating surface 220 with interactive components of which can be a touch screen, or a display screen. Various other locations describe the screen as a screen-printed surface 260. There is no recitation of “silk-screen” in the applicant’s specification. It is believed one of ordinary skill would not understand how the screen is silk. The claim will be interpreted as a touch screen.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “said operating surface” is first described in claim 6, however claim 8 depends from claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The claim will be interpreted to have claim 8 depend from claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano et al [WO2010125786].
With respect to claim 1, Sano discloses: A door assembly for a cooking apparatus, the door assembly comprising: a door body (3), said door body movable relative to a housing (1) of said cooking apparatus with a cooking chamber (4) [see FIG 1, abstract]; a controller (14), said controller being fixed on a side of the door body away from said housing [see FIG 2, page 3, paragraph starting with “The cooking switch 1…” with reference to “The cooking switch 14 </ b> A is provided on the substrate 16 disposed inside the door outer wall 8. The cooking switch 14 </ b> A is operated by pressing from the outside of the door outer wall 8.”]; a handle (13), one end of said handle is fixed to said controller [see reproduced FIG 2 below], wherein said handle moves said door body [page 3, paragraph starting with “As shown in FIG. 2,…” with reference to “A handle 13 for a user to grip when opening and closing the door 3 is provided on the upper portion of the door outer wall 8].
Sano further shows:
{cl. 2} The door assembly according to Claim 1 further comprising: a handle base located on said door body; wherein one end of said handle is connected with said handle base [see reproduced figure below].
{cl. 3} The said door assembly according to Claim 2, wherein the ends of the said handle are connected said controller and said handle base [see reproduced figure below].
{cl. 6} The door assembly according to Claim 1, wherein said controller has an operating surface (14A) [see FIG 2, page 3, paragraph starting with “As shown in FIG. 2,…” with reference to “On the right side of the handle 13, an operation unit 14 including a plurality of cooking switches 14A for executing or stopping various cooking menus is provided.”].
{cl. 7} The door assembly according to Claim 1, wherein said controller is arranged on the outer top of the said door body [see FIG 2].
{cl. 13} The door assembly according to Claim 2, wherein the handle base is fixed to the top of the door body, and is in horizontal alignment with the controller [see FIG 2].
{cl. 19} The door assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the door assembly has an open position to provide access to said cooking chamber [see FIG 1, pages 2-3, paragraph starting with “Next, the structure of the door…”].
{cl. 20} The door assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the door assembly has a closed position to prevent access to said cooking chamber [see FIG 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
464
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al [WO2010125786], further in view of Carr et al [20140304944]
Sano discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of a round tube or protrusions.
Carr makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 4} The said door assembly according to Claim 3, wherein said handle (200) is a round tube [see FIG 5].
{cl. 5} he said door assembly according to Claim 3, wherein the ends of the said handle (200) are connected to a first retainer protrusion (300) on said controller and the said a second retainer protrusion on said handle base [see FIG 1, paragraph 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sano to include the teachings of Carr because Carr provides a known structure capable of safely attaching a handle to an oven door for comfortable use. The modification would involve substituting the connections as seen in figure 1 of Sano with a similar arrangement of Carr, in the locations claimed.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al [WO2010125786].
Sano provides a known arrangement as claimed, e.g.:
{cl. 8} The door assembly according to Claim 7, wherein said operating surface (105, 106) is arranged upward so it can be seen by the user [see FIG 5].
{cl. 9} The door assembly according to Claim 8, wherein the minimum angle between the plane of said operating surface and the plane of said door body is greater than 60° [see FIG 5].
{cl. 10} The said door assembly according to Claim 9, wherein said angle between the plane of said operating surface and the plane of said door body is less than 90° [see FIG 5, although not explicit, it is clear that the controller 105 less 90°, however one of ordinary skill would understand that change the angle +/- 1° would not provide any specific advantage over an arrangement as claimed, therein showing a matter of design choice].
{cl. 18} The door assembly according to Claim 2, wherein said controller (105) further comprises: a controller body, said controller body has openings; a fixing plate, said fixing plate arranged on the said controller body; a circuit board, said circuit board located on the said fixing board, said openings exposing said circuit board; a silk-screen surface, the said silk-screen surface affixed to the said controller body to cover the said circuit board [see reproduced figure below, page 6-7]
PNG
media_image2.png
483
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although seen in a different arrangement from originally applied, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Sano with the teachings of the arrangement shown in figures 4 and 5 of Sano because the arrangement for easy access when the user needs to make an operation change of the cooking procedure.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al [WO2010125786], further in view of Johnson [20180245797]
With respect to claims 11-12, Sano discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the heat dissipation holes as further claimed.
Johnson makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 11} The door assembly according to Claim 1, wherein said controller (58) is provided with at least several heat dissipation structures (74, 76) [see FIG 3].
{cl. 12} The door assembly according to Claim 11, wherein said at least several heat dissipation structures comprise of tunnels (78) between the interior to the exterior of the controller surface [paragraph 0044-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle of Sano with the teachings of Johnson because Johnson provides a known manner in which to cool electronic components.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al [WO2010125786], further in view of Bhogal [20210207812].
{cl. 14} The door assembly according to Claim 2, wherein the door body includes a bezel (160), the bezel is connected with the housing [see FIG 19, paragraph 0044].
{cl. 15} The door assembly according to Claim 14, wherein the bezel can be rectangular [see FIG 7, wherein when applied to the arrangement of Sano would show the remainder of the claim, e.g. including the bezel of Bhogal at the control location of Sano] and the upper portion of the bezel is the top of the door body.
{cl. 16} The door assembly according to Claim 15, wherein the controller is fixed on the upper bezel [see FIG 21 and 23].
{cl. 17} The door assembly according to Claim 15, wherein the handle base is fixed on the upper bezel [see FIG 24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sano with the to include the bezel as taught by Bhogal in the locations claimed because it was known to provide a compact configuration that is aesthetically pleasing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sachon [DE102008054593] is considered pertinent art for similar teachings of an oven door handle (11) having a controller (5) affixed thereto [see FIGs 1-5, abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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 at 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
12/16/2025