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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 1, 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are 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 8 recites the limitation "incoming air" in line 2. The antecedent basis for this limitation is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether it’s related to the previously-recited “airflow”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitations ‘first and second shell portions’. The antecedent basis for these limitations is confusing, since it’s unclear how/whether they’re related to the previously-recited “walls”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7, 8, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, CN 213755025 (hereinafter Chen – attached with IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses (note figs. 1, 2, 6, and 7) an apparatus for generating a microwave signal comprising: a housing (i.e., outer enclosure necessarily containing microwave cooking device depicted in fig. 7) comprising a plurality of walls defining an interior volume, an inlet opening and an outlet opening (corresponding to openings in ‘14’); a power supply (12) positioned in the interior volume; a first microwave generator and a second microwave generator (see 11’s in fig. 6) each operably coupled to the power supply and each positioned in the interior volume spaced apart from the power supply; and a heat sink (113/114) positioned in the interior volume and contacting the power supply, the first microwave generator and the second microwave generator (e.g., “two or more microwave sources 11 can be integrated on a circuit board and share a heat sink” and “the microwave source 11 and the DC power supply share a heat sink”); and a fan (14) positioned in the interior volume at a first end of the heat sink, the fan necessarily configured to draw an airflow into the interior volume from the inlet opening and move the airflow through the heat sink.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the fan is necessarily ‘offset’ from an inlet duct (101) that is ‘coupled’ to the inlet opening.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the first generator and the second generator are positioned on opposite sides of the heat sink (note figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of walls necessarily defining a ‘chamber’ and a plurality of fins are positioned in the chamber (note fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus further comprising an outlet duct (103) coupled to a second end of the heat sink opposite to the first end, wherein heated airflow from the heat sink is necessarily moved out the outlet opening through the outlet duct.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein at least a portion of the airflow that enters the interior volume through the inlet opening necessarily contacts ‘internal components’ in the interior volume before entering the heat sink.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus further comprising an inlet duct (101) necessarily ‘coupled’ to the inlet opening, the inlet duct necessarily ‘guiding incoming air upwards into’ the interior volume (note figs. 1, 2, and 7).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the first microwave generator and the second microwave generator are both powered by the power supply (i.e., DC power supply – note figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the first microwave generator and the second microwave generator are independently operable to deliver (i.e., capable of delivering) a first microwave signal and a second microwave signal, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the first microwave signal and the second microwave signal are capable of being different.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus wherein the power supply comprises a single power input (e.g., DC power supply).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Condie, U.S. 2021/0212763 (hereinafter Condie).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus comprising a heat sink and fan, but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of coolant pumps positioned in the interior volume spaced apart from the heat sink. Condie teaches (note fig. 1B) a similar microwave apparatus comprising a plurality of coolant pumps (148a-c) positioned in an interior volume (102) necessarily ‘spaced apart from’ the other components. It is well known in the art that this enhanced cooling configuration would result in increased safety and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the apparatus of Chen to further comprise a plurality of coolant pumps positioned in the interior volume spaced apart from the heat sink (and remaining components), in order to enhance cooling and increase safety and efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of DuBois, U.S. 2021/0379276 (hereinafter DuBois).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus necessarily comprising a housing. However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose a housing comprising a first shell portion and a second shell portion, the first shell portion having a lip positioned around an outer circumference that is configured to overlap an outer circumference of the second shell portion. DuBois teaches (note figs. 1-2) a similar apparatus having a housing comprising a first shell portion (1) and a second shell portion (10), the first shell portion having a ‘lip’ positioned around an outer circumference (see outer-most edge of ‘1’) that is configured to overlap an outer circumference of the second shell portion (note fig. 2). It is well known in the art that these different housing configurations (i.e., shapes) are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the housing of Chen to comprise a first shell portion and a second shell portion, the first shell portion having a lip positioned around an outer circumference that is configured to overlap an outer circumference of the second shell portion (as taught by DuBois). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable housing configurations in order to produce a similar result (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Dornbush, U.S. 5,466,912 (hereinafter Dornbush).
Regarding claims 10-12, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus necessarily comprising a housing. However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose a housing comprising: a first handle that projects inward from an outer surface of the housing, the inlet opening positioned in the first handle; a second handle that projects inward from the outer surface of the housing, the outlet opening positioned in the second handle; wherein the first handle and the second handle are positioned on opposite sides of the housing. Dornbush teaches (note figs. 1-4) a similar apparatus having a housing comprising: a first handle (see underside of ‘48’) that projects inward from an outer surface of the housing (see outer surface of ‘48’), the inlet opening (80) capable of being positioned in the first handle; a second handle (see underside of other ‘48’) that projects inward from the outer surface of the housing (see outer surface of ‘48’), the outlet opening (80) capable of being positioned in the second handle; wherein the first handle and the second handle are positioned on opposite sides of the housing (note fig. 2). It is well known in the art that these different housing configurations (i.e., shapes) are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the housing of Chen to comprise a first handle that projects inward from an outer surface of the housing, the inlet opening positioned in the first handle; a second handle that projects inward from the outer surface of the housing, the outlet opening positioned in the second handle; wherein the first handle and the second handle are positioned on opposite sides of the housing (as taught by Dornbush). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable housing configurations in order to produce a predictable result (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kim, U.S. 2016/0157934 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claims 13-14, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus necessarily comprising a housing. However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose a housing comprising a hinge configured to support and allow angular movement of a display relative to the housing, wherein the housing comprises a rotatable base configured to allow rotational movement of the display relative to the housing. Kim teaches (note fig. 1) a similar apparatus having a housing (12) comprising a hinge configured to support and allow angular movement of a display relative to the housing, wherein the housing comprises a rotatable base configured to allow rotational movement of the display relative to the housing. It is well known in the art that this movable display configuration would result in increased versatility and efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the housing/display of Chen to comprise a hinge configured to support and allow angular movement of a display relative to the housing, wherein the housing comprises a rotatable base configured to allow rotational movement of the display relative to the housing, in order to increase versatility and efficiency.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cosman, U.S. 2015/0320481 (hereinafter Cosman).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses (see above) an apparatus necessarily comprising a housing. However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose an apparatus further comprising a stand connected to the housing, the stand configured to support a coolant receptacle in a predetermined position relative to the housing. Cosman teaches (note fig. 1A) a similar apparatus comprising a ‘stand’ (130) connected to a housing (via ‘134’), the stand configured to support a ‘coolant receptacle’ in a predetermined position relative to the housing. It is well known in the art that these different housing configurations (having internal or external cooling systems) are widely considered to be interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the apparatus of Chen to comprise a stand connected to the housing, the stand configured to support a coolant receptacle in a predetermined position relative to the housing (as taught by Cosman). This is because this modification would have merely comprised a simple substitution of interchangeable housing configurations in order to produce a predictable result (see MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. 2011/0125148 (Turner).
U.S. 8,795,267 (Hancock).
U.S. 6,175,104 (Greene).
U.S. 2010/0087808 (Paulus).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS ANTHONY GIULIANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 303-297-4276. 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.
/THOMAS A GIULIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights