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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recited “the controller being configured to direct a door-monitoring operation comprising“ it should recite “the controller being configured to direct a door-monitoring operation comprising:”. Claim 6 has a similar issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190178001 A1 – Weaver in view of US 20220369653 A1 – Cordoba, US 20160061457 A1 – Armstrong, and US 20220010964 A1 – Malcolm.
Regarding claim 1, Weaver is directed towards an microwave oven. Weaver does teach a cabinet defining a cooking chamber ([0018] a cooking chamber 104), a magnetron mounted within the cabinet in communication with the cooking chamber to direct a microwave thereto ([0021] For example, microwave appliance 100 may include a magnetron (such as, for example, a cavity magnetron); a control panel mounted to the cabinet ([0023] Referring again to FIG. 1, a user interface panel 130 and a user input device 132 may be positioned on an exterior of the cabinet 102.); a chamber door movably mounted to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the cooking chamber in a closed position ([0020] Microwave oven 100 includes a door 120 that is rotatably attached to cabinet 102 in order to permit selective access to cooking chamber 104.); a primary door input attached to the cabinet in operable communication with the chamber door to release the chamber door from the closed position ([0020] Alternatively, microwave oven 100 may include a door release button 122 that disengages or otherwise pushes open door 120 when depressed.); and a controller in operable communication with the control panel, the controller being configured to direct a door-monitoring operation ([0042] Switch element 290 may be coupled to a controller, such as appliance controller 140, and may be used to prevent operation of microwave oven 100 when door 120 is open.).
Weaver does not expressly teach a secondary unlock input attached to the cabinet to selectively direct the chamber door to an unlocked state, initiating a lock condition in which the chamber door is directed to a locked state according to a predetermined time period for which the chamber door is to require multi-step opening procedures, determining, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period, a cleared-chamber state, determining the cleared-chamber state comprising receiving a cleared-chamber signal and initiating, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period and in response to determining the cleared-chamber state, and an unlock condition in which the lock condition is halted and the chamber door is held in an unlocked state permitting single-step opening procedures at the primary door input
Cordoba is directed towards an automatic apparatus for baking. Cordoba does teach a secondary unlock input attached to the cabinet to selectively direct the chamber door to an unlocked state ([0034] The open door sensor 21 sends a signal corresponding to a controller for the activation of a safety lock that will automatically lock/unlock door 19 to provide greater security to the baking process and avoid any type of damage or burns that the person may suffer from any carelessness or unforeseen event.).
The combination of Weaver and Cordoba provide an advantage of having a second way of locking and unlocking the cooking chamber. The controller of Cordoba allows for an automatic locking and unlocking process in focused on protecting the cooking apparatus as seen in at least ¶0034.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver to include a secondary unlock input attached to the cabinet to selectively direct the chamber door to an unlocked state because the controller of Cordoba with the microwave oven of Weaver add an input via the controller for the safety of the user.
Armstrong is directed towards a door log logic. Armstrong does teach initiating a lock condition in which the chamber door is directed to a locked state according to a predetermined time period for which the chamber door is to require multi-step opening procedures ([0006] The controller is configured for determining whether a cooking cycle of the oven appliance has been initiated and, if so, then activating the door lock to unlock the door; determining whether the cooking cycle has been terminated and, if so, then activating the door lock to lock the door at a predetermined time t.sub.1 after the cooking cycle has been terminated.), The original document shows “t1”the translation produced “t.sub.1”. an unlock condition in which the lock condition is halted and the chamber door is held in an unlocked state permitting single-step opening procedures at the primary door input ([0007] The controller is configured for determining whether the door unlocking element has been utilized and, if so, then activating the door lock to unlock the door; and activating the door lock to lock the door at a predetermined time t.sub.2 after the door has been unlocked.). The original document shows “t2”the translation produced “t.sub.2”.
The combination of Armstrong into the system of Weaver and Cordoba allows the microwave to further lock and unlock the microwave based on a time period. ¶0006 - ¶0007 explains that the controller allows for automatic locking and unlocking based on a “a predetermined time” which can be selected by the user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver and Cordoba to include initiating a lock condition in which the chamber door is directed to a locked state according to a predetermined time period for which the chamber door is to require multi-step opening procedures, and an unlock condition in which the lock condition is halted and the chamber door is held in an unlocked state permitting single-step opening procedures at the primary door input because the logic of Armstrong allows the microwave of Weaver and Cordoba to use the parameter of a predetermined time for the lock and unlock feature of the door.
Malcolm is directed towards a stove top. Malcolm does teach determining, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period, a cleared-chamber state, determining the cleared-chamber state comprising receiving a cleared-chamber signal and initiating, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period and in response to determining the cleared-chamber state (Figure 2, step 208 shows the sensors detecting the presence of the cooking object, and step 212 showing if the timer has been elapsed or not.).
The combination of Malcolm’s controller logic and proximity senor with Weaver, Cordoba, and Armstrong’s system allows the controller to determine if an item is in the cooking area within a “predetermine time”. See ¶0014-¶0021 in Malcolm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Cordoba, and Armstrong to include determining, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period, a cleared-chamber state, determining the cleared-chamber state comprising receiving a cleared-chamber signal and initiating, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period and in response to determining the cleared-chamber state because allowing the controller of Malcolm to determine if there is an item available to be cooked within a time frame, in the microwave system of Weaver, Cordoba, and Armstrong.
Regarding claim 2, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does not expressly teach wherein receiving the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving an input signal at the secondary unlock input.
Malcolm does teach receiving the cleared-chamber (Figure 2, step 208 shows the sensors detecting the presence of the cooking object).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Cordoba, and Armstrong to include receiving the cleared-chamber because the proximity sensors of Malcolm within the cooking system of Weaver, Cordoba, and Armstrong allows the system to determine if foodstuff is in place and ready to be heated.
Cordoba does teach a signal comprises receiving an input signal at the secondary unlock input ([0034] The open door sensor 21 sends a signal corresponding to a controller for the activation of a safety lock that will automatically lock/unlock door 19 to provide greater security to the baking process and avoid any type of damage or burns that the person may suffer from any carelessness or unforeseen event.).
The controller logic of Cordoba allowing a signal to automatically control the locking and unlocking of the door with the sensor signal if an object is on the cooking surface produced by Malcolm, allows the system to unlock when there is nothing on the cooking surface for the safety of the user and the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Malcolm, and Armstrong to include a signal comprises receiving an input signal at the secondary unlock input because the sensors of Malcolm and the controller logic of Cordoba allows the cooking system to protect itself and the user.
Regarding claim 3, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 2. Weaver does not expressly teach determining the cleared-chamber state further comprises detecting a door-closing event subsequent to initiating the lock condition.
Cordoba does teach determining the cleared-chamber state further comprises detecting a door-closing event subsequent to initiating the lock condition ([0034] The open door sensor 21 sends a signal corresponding to a controller for the activation of a safety lock that will automatically lock/unlock door 19 to provide greater security to the baking process and avoid any type of damage or burns that the person may suffer from any carelessness or unforeseen event.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Armstrong, and Malcolm to include determining the cleared-chamber state further comprises detecting a door-closing event subsequent to initiating the lock condition because the open door sensor of Cordoba allows the microwave to know if the door is lock or unlocked.
Regarding claim 5, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver teaches the door-monitoring operation further comprises directing, prior to the predetermined time period, a heating cycle in which a heating element is directed to an active state to heat one or more items within the cooking chamber ([0042] Switch element 290 may be coupled to a controller, such as appliance controller 140, and may be used to prevent operation of microwave oven 100 when door 120 is open.).
Regarding claim 6, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 5. Weaver does not expressly teach wherein the door-monitoring operation further comprises determining expiration of the heating cycle, wherein initiating the lock condition is based on the heating cycle and continues after determining expiration of the heating cycle.
Cordoba does teach the door-monitoring operation further comprises determining expiration of the heating cycle, wherein initiating the lock condition is based on the heating cycle and continues after determining expiration of the heating cycle. ([0034] The open door sensor 21 sends a signal corresponding to a controller for the activation of a safety lock that will automatically lock/unlock door 19 to provide greater security to the baking process and avoid any type of damage or burns that the person may suffer from any carelessness or unforeseen event...).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Armstrong, and Malcolm to include the door-monitoring operation further comprises determining expiration of the heating cycle, wherein initiating the lock condition is based on the heating cycle and continues after determining expiration of the heating cycle because the door sensor of Cordoba allows the door of Weaver to remain locked when the cooking/heating process is active.
Regarding claim 7, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does not expressly teach the predetermined time period is about 30 minutes.
Since a display component 134, such as a digital or analog display device designed to provide operational feedback to a user is a key factor in the success of the microwave. As discussed by Weaver, the display component 134 is understood in the art to display such parameters as time remaining, power level, etc. This practice is well known in the art and found of most microwave systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the predetermined time period is about 30 minutes and to incorporate it into the system of Weaver since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need (needing a time for operation of the microwave) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does teach the primary door input comprises a slidable button. ([0020] Alternatively, microwave oven 100 may include a door release button 122 that disengages or otherwise pushes open door 120 when depressed. )
Regarding claim 9, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does teach the primary door input comprises a pull handle. ([0020] A handle may be mounted to door 120 to assist a user with opening and closing door 120 in order to access cooking chamber 104. )
Regarding claim 10, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does teach a door lock in mechanical communication with the chamber door, the door lock being movable between the locked state restricting movement of the chamber door from the closed position and the unlocked state permitting movement of the chamber door from the closed position. ([0026] Referring now to FIGS. 2 through 6, microwave oven 100 further includes one or more door latches or strikers, such as strikers 150, which are defined by or mounted to door 120 for locking door 120 in a closed position prior to operating microwave oven 100. For simplicity, only one striker 150 will be described herein. However, it should be appreciated that any suitable number, style, configuration, and orientation of strikers may be used according to alternative embodiments. For example, microwave oven 100 may include two strikers 150 and two damped closure assemblies 200, but it should be appreciated that more or fewer may be used according to alternative embodiments. As illustrated, striker 150 protrudes from door 120 (e.g., along the transverse direction T when door 120 is in the closed position) toward cabinet 102 for engaging a damped closure assembly 200 (as will be described below according to an exemplary embodiment).).
Regarding claim 11, a cabinet, a control panel, and a chamber door, the method comprising:
initiating a lock condition in which the chamber door is directed to a locked state according to a predetermined time period for which the chamber door is to require multi-step opening procedures;
determining, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period, a cleared-chamber state, determining the cleared-chamber state comprising receiving a cleared-chamber signal; and
initiating, prior to expiration of the predetermined time period and in response to determining the cleared-chamber state, an unlock condition in which the lock condition is halted and the chamber door is held in an unlocked state permitting single-step opening procedures at a primary door input. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. wherein receiving the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving an input signal at a secondary unlock input. See rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 12. determining the cleared-chamber state further comprises detecting a door-closing event subsequent to initiating the lock condition. See rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. directing, prior to the predetermined time period, a heating cycle in which a heating element is directed to an active state to heat one or more items within a cooking chamber of the microwave oven appliance. See rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 15. further comprising: determining expiration of the heating cycle, wherein initiating the lock condition is based on the heating cycle and continues after determining expiration of the heating cycle. See rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. the predetermined time period is about 30 minutes. See rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. the primary door input comprises a slidable button. See rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. the primary door input comprises a pull handle. See rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. wherein the microwave oven appliance further comprises a door lock in mechanical communication with the chamber door, the door lock being movable between the locked state restricting movement of the chamber door from a closed position and the unlocked state permitting movement of the chamber door from the closed position. See rejection of claim 10 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190178001 A1 – Weaver, US 20220369653 A1 – Cordoba, US 20160061457 A1 – Armstrong, and US 20220010964 A1 – Malcolm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20010019054 A1 – Noda.
Regarding claim 4, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 1. Weaver does not expressly teach receiving the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving a detection signal from a presence sensor mounted within the cooking chamber, the detection signal corresponding to an empty state of the cooking chamber.
Noda is directed towards an microwave. Noda does teach receiving the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving a detection signal from a presence sensor mounted within the cooking chamber, the detection signal corresponding to an empty state of the cooking chamber (Figure 2 and [0024] Preferably, the microwave oven according to the present invention further includes a presence determination portion for determining whether or not the object is present within the field of view of the infrared sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm to include the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving a detection signal from a presence sensor mounted within the cooking chamber, the detection signal corresponding to an empty state of the cooking chamber because the sensor of Noda allows the cooking system of Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm to determine that there is an object inside to cook.
Regarding claim 14, Weaver, Cordoba, Armstrong, and Malcolm does teach the limitations of claim 11. wherein receiving the cleared-chamber signal comprises receiving a detection signal from a presence sensor mounted within a cooking chamber of the microwave oven appliance, the detection signal corresponding to an empty state of the cooking chamber, Please the rejection of claim 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250027655 A1 – Yeo does teach a cooking device with locking controlled by a controller.
US 20220070980 A1 – Hayashi does teach a sensor within the cooking device to detect an object within the cooking device.
US 20160076776 A1 – Gardner does teach a feedback loop to confirm the locked door is still locked.
US 20170215237 A1 – Hirano a sensor within the cooking device to detect an object within the cooking device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 W 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights