DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of [0135] and [0136], change “one ends” to -- one end --
In [0179], change “are bulge” to -- arc bulge --
It is recommended that Applicant review the specification in its entirety to ensure that no other issues are present
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 4, 6 and 9-10, change all recitations of “the other end” to -- another end -- (or equivalent)
In each of Claims 7-8 and 14, change all recitations of “an opposite side” to -- a side -- (or equivalent)
In each of Claims 9-10, change all recitations of “the other end” to -- another end -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 13, change “an adjacent side” to -- a side -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 13, change “to one end” to -- to the one end --
In each of Claims 13-14, change “the opening or closing component” to -- the opening or closing assembly --
In Claim 13, change “at one end” to -- at the one end --
In Claim 14, change “wherein one side” to -- wherein the one side --
In Claim 17, change “the hollow structure” to -- the hollow structure of the rear cover plate --
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:
“opening or closing assembly” (Claim 4)
“transmission assembly” (Claim 4)
“locking assemblies” (Claim 4)
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.
“opening or closing assembly” (from Claim 4) is being interpreted as an assembly comprising an arc bulge and a raised connecting rod, and equivalents thereof
“transmission assembly” (from Claim 4) is being interpreted as an assembly comprising a receiving component, a transmission rod, a first adapter component, a first reset spring element, a second adapter component, and a second reset spring element, and equivalents thereof
“locking assemblies” (from Claim 4) is being interpreted as a plurality of assemblies that each include a first locking element, a second locking element, a first covering element, and a second covering element, 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 § 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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 establishes both “a door movably arranged in the opening structure” and “one end of the door is capable of moving radially along the oven body, making the door keep away from the opening structure” (bolding added for emphasis) which is considered indefinite because these recitations contradict one another. It is unclear how the door can simultaneously be “in” the opening structure and made to “keep away from the opening structure”. Furthermore, Claim 1 establishes that “the door comprises at least a first door and a second door” and that “one end of the first door and one end of the second door are capable of moving radially along the door, making the first door and the second door keep away from the door” (bolding added for emphasis) which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second doors, which are a part of/collectively form “the door”, can be made to “keep away from the door” since they are a part of the door itself. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear.
Claims 2-18 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 establishes both “making the first door keep away from the door” and “making the second door keep away from the door” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the first and second doors, which are a part of/collectively form “the door”, can be made to “keep away from the door” since they are a part of the door itself. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of Claim 2 are consequently unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (US 2023/0314005 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lai teaches of a dual-chamber oven (10) (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an oven body (12) set to be provided with an opening structure at a front end (the front opening structure formed in oven body (12) that is covered by the door comprising elements (16) and (18) as shown in Figs. 1-2), where the oven body is formed into a hollow structure (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least [0046] and Figs. 1-2); and
a door (door comprising elements (16) and (18)) movably arranged in the opening structure of the oven body and configured to cover the opening structure of the oven body (see at least [0046] and Figs. 1-2), wherein
one end of the door is capable of moving radially along the oven body, making the door keep away from the opening structure of the oven body (Note that the limitation “making the door keep away from the opening structure of the oven body” is being interpreted as the door being able to swing outwards relative to the opening structure - as is evident from at least [0046] and Figs. 1-2, the door comprising elements (16) and (18) does exactly that),
the door comprises at least a first door (16) and a second door (18) (see at least [0046], [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 3-6),
the first door and the second door are movably assembled on the door (see at least [0046], [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 3-6), and
one end of the first door and one end of the second door are capable of moving radially along the door, making the first door and the second door keep away from the door (as is shown in Figs. 4-6) (see at least [0046], [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 2, Lai also teaches that (at least) when a left side or a right side of the first door (16) is unlocked (via movement of element (94)) (see Figs. 19-20), one end of the first door is capable of moving radially along the door, making the first door keep away from the door (as is shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0057]-[0059] and Figs. 5, 18-20).
Regarding Claim 3, Lai also teaches that first openings and second openings are provided on the door (first opening covered by door (16) and second opening covered by door (18) respectively), wherein the first door is movably assembled in the first openings of the door (as is shown in Fig. 5), and the second door is movably assembled in the second openings of the door (as is shown in Fig. 6) (see at least [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 18, Lai also teaches that a limit component (“hinge”) is arranged at one end of the oven body and one end of the door (lower ends respectively as shown in Fig. 4), and that the limit component is configured to limit an opening or closing angle of the door when moving radially along the oven body (the “hinge” limits the opening angle to that shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0046] and Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Dependent Claims 4-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 4: To the extent that Claim 4 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, no known prior art (including the relied upon prior art of Lai) anticipates or renders obvious the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 4. Claim 4 established that “the first door is provided with an opening or closing assembly, a transmission assembly, and locking assemblies, the opening or closing assembly is arranged at a front end of the first door, one end of the transmission assembly abuts against one end of the opening or closing assembly, the other end of the transmission assembly abuts against one end of each of the locking assemblies, and the other end of each of the locking assemblies is embedded into the door”. In the prior art of Lai, each individual door portion (i.e., first door (16) and second door (18)) each has a single locking assembly (locking assembly comprising element (94) and locking assembly comprising element (116) respectively) such that each door portion can be opened separately from the other door portion as desired (see at least [0058]-[0061] and Figs. 16-20). Thus, Lai fails to teach that the first door is provided with a plurality of “locking assemblies” that cooperate with all of the other claimed components such that “the other end of the transmission assembly abuts against one end of each of the locking assemblies, and the other end of each of the locking assemblies is embedded into the door” as claimed and no motivation would have existed to have modified the functional arrangement taught by Lai such that only the first door would have a plurality of “locking assemblies” that cooperate with all of the other claim components as claimed since doing so would have inhibited the ability for each door portion to be opened separately from the other door portion as is desired by Lai. Thus, the prior art of Lai (in addition to all other known prior art) fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 4 and the subject matter of Claim 4 is consequently considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 4, in addition to Claims 5-17 which depend on Claim 4, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and are consequently not in condition for allowance at this time. Note that this indication of allowable subject matter is subject to change in accordance with any change in claim scope that may result from amendment (or otherwise).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Ham et al. (US 2019/0063123 A1)
Park et al. (US 2017/0108228 A1)
Scott (US 3,143,638)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/27/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762