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 .
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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoh (US 6,897,420) in view of Clement at al (US 2023/0098771).
Regarding claim 1, Hoh discloses, A microwave oven appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, (Fig 1 shows a microwave oven having a vertical, lateral and transverse direction) the microwave oven appliance comprising:
a cabinet, the cabinet forming a cooking cavity (Fig 1 shows a cabinet 10 having a cooking cavity 11);
a door rotatably coupled to the cabinet to provide selective access to the cooking cavity (Door 13 is rotatably coupled to the cabinet and provides selective access);
a ventilation system provided within the cabinet and configured to circulate air, the ventilation system comprising an exhaust vent (ventilation system 20 comprises a cover 30, blower fan 70 and various inlets, outlets and an exhaust at 41, See Column 3, Line 55 – Column 4, Line 40); and
a freshener assembly attached to the microwave oven appliance at the exhaust vent, the freshener assembly being configured to receive a replaceable scent cartridge (an air freshener or deodorizer assembly 60 is placed near the exhaust 41 and has a replaceable filter. See Column 4, Lines 49-56), Figs 2 and 7 shows a casing bottom, the casing bottom comprising a plurality of bottom apertures; a casing top, the casing top comprising a plurality of top apertures, wherein the casing top is selectively connected to the casing bottom. The element 60 is a casing having a grid construction with the media inside.
Fig 7 of Hoh shows a hook 32a on the cover, rather than the freshener assembly. This arrangement still locks the freshener assembly to the exhaust. Hoh doesn’t disclose a connector hook configured to selectively connect the freshener assembly to the exhaust vent.
Clement discloses a freshener assembly 12 having a filter media 30 inside the assembly with a hook 22 for securing the assembly. (See Fig 1-3 and [0019], [0021]) It would have been obvious to adapt Hoh in view of Clement to provide the connector hook configured to selectively connect the freshener assembly to the exhaust vent as an integration of parts, separation of parts, or relocation of parts involves only routine skill in the art considered to be within the skill of an ordinary person in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 are allowed.
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights