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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 5/11/26 response to the Office Action dated 2/9/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1 and 6-9 are amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome the previously set forth drawing objections and 112b rejections so those objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks on Pgs. 8-9 of the Remarks regarding the specification objection are persuasive, so this objection has been withdrawn accordingly.
Applicant's remarks on Pgs. 14-15 of the Remarks regarding the rejection of claim 1 with Ham in view of Lewis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant states that modifying Ham in view of Lewis would 1) change the principle of operation of Ham, and 2) cause the first lever of Ham to be entirely stuck in place because the spring force provided by the mechanism of Lewis only provides a downward – and not a rotational – force. In regards to the first statement, the spring of Ham still has the same function after the modification with Lewis – applying an elastic force to the first lever – but with the added benefit of increasing the bias of the door towards the closed direction. As noted on Pg. 13 of the previous Office Action, this increases safety by reducing the risk that a child will open the door while the microwave door is operating. Therefore, this modification doesn’t break the principle of operation of Ham; instead, it augments it. In regards to the second statement, although Lewis discloses the spring force is directed downward, this is because the spring force acts on a component that moves linearly – locking bar 40. In modified Ham, the spring force acts on a component that rotates – first lever 41. Therefore, the rotation of the first lever of modified Ham would not be impeded by an exclusively downward force from Lewis.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “when the door is being opened, the first end of the spring moves linearly from the second position to the first position within the spring holding portion”. Based on the as-filed specification, it appears the linear movement is relative to the length of the spring holding portion. For the purpose of substantiative examination, the linear movement of the first end of the spring is interpreted to be relative to the length of the spring holding portion.
Claim 3 recites “the second end of the spring is held to the body so as to prevent movement of the second end of the spring“. Based on the as-filed specification, it appears the second end of the spring is prevented from moving horizontally, but is able to turn (i.e., move radially). For the purpose of substantiative examination, preventing movement of the second end of the spring is interpreted to exclude turning (i.e., movement radially).
Claims 6 and 7 recite “allow the first end of the spring to be at a maximum angle relative to the second end of the spring“. Based on the as-filed specification, the ‘first end’ and ‘second end’ are understood to be the end points of the spring, but it is not possible to measure an angle between two points. For the purpose of substantiative examination, the maximum angle is interpreted to be measured between the first arm (i.e., portion connecting the first end to the coil) to the second arm (i.e., portion connecting the second end to the coil).
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 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:
Claim 1, line 10: key member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “cause the second lever to rotate in a first direction”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a bar with a hole at one end, as specified in Figure 3, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, line 16: spring holding portion. The nonce term “portion” is modified by functional language “holding” and “be at a first position in the spring holding portion when the door is open and at a second position in the spring holding portion when the door is closed”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a slot, as specified in Par. 00065, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 12, line 2: first elastic member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “elastic” and “exerts an elastic force that causes the second lever to rotate in the second direction relative to the first lever”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a spring, as shown in Figure 3, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 13, line 2: pressing member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “pressing” and “rotated to press a switch provided in the sensor when pressed by the first lever”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a bar, as shown in Figures 3 and 7-10, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 14, line 2: elastic member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “elastic” and “exerts an elastic force to the spring in a direction in which the key member is inserted into the latch device”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a spring, as shown in Figures 3 and 7-10, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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.
Claims 1-5, 6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al. (KR20180087943A, hereafter Ham) in view of Lewis (US 3257755 A).
Reference is made to the attached Korean to English machine translation of Ham ‘943.
Unless indicated otherwise, citations are from Ham.
Regarding claim 1, Ham discloses a cooking appliance, comprising:
a door (Fig. 3, door 100);
a key member on the door (Figs. 3-6, keying member 110, which is a bar with a hole at one end and therefore meets the interpretation of ‘a bar with a hole at one end’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above);
a main body (Fig. 3, main body 10); and
a latch device (Fig. 3, latch assembly 40) on the main body and which becomes locked with the key member when the door is being closed (Fig. 6), the latch device including:
a body (Figs. 4-6, body 41),
a first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) rotatably coupled to the body (Figs. 5-6. Note that first lever 42 appears to be mislabeled as ‘41’),
a second lever (Figs. 5-6, second lever 43) that, when the door is being closed, is pressed by the key member to thereby cause the second lever to rotate in a first direction (Fig. 6, first direction A) so as to press the first lever and thereby cause the first lever to rotate in the first direction (Figs. 5-6),
a spring holding portion (annotated Fig. A, spring holding portion. Examiner notes the structure identified as a ‘spring holding portion’ is equivalent to the “slot” and its equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above because the function of both structures is to hold an end of a spring) on the first lever (Figs. 5-6), and
a spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a spring) having
a first end (annotated Fig. A, first end) attached to the first lever (Figs. 5-6), and
a second end (annotated Fig. A, second end) attached to the body (Figs. 5-6),
wherein when the door is being opened, the spring provides an elastic force (Pg. 7, Par. 8, elastic force, “The second elastic member (47) can provide the elastic force so that the first lever (42) rotates at the second direction”) to cause the first lever to rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Fig. 6, arrow B, which is opposite to the direction of first direction A) and the first end of the spring moves rotationally with the first lever in the second direction (Figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Spring holding portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 6 from Ham showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Ham does not disclose a spring having a first end attached to the first lever and slidably held by the spring holding portion so as to be at a first position in the spring holding portion when the door is open and at a second position in the spring holding portion when the door is closed, wherein, when the door is being opened, the first end of the spring moves linearly from the second position to the first position within the spring holdinq portion such that the spring provides an elastic force to cause the first lever to rotate in a second direction opposite to the first direction and the first end of the spring moves rotationally with the first lever in the second direction.
Lewis discloses a spring (Figs. 1-3, torsion spring 43) having a first end (Figs. 1-3, end attached to pivot means 41) slidably held by a spring holding portion (Figs. 1-3, aperture 42, which is a narrow opening or slot and therefore meets the interpretation of ‘slot’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above) so as to be at a first position (Fig. 3, the first end of torsion spring 43 is furthest from the other end of the torsion spring 43) in the spring holding portion when a window is open (Fig. 3, sash element 21 is open) and at a second position (Fig. 2, the first end of torsion spring 43 is closest to the other end of the torsion spring 43) in the spring holding portion when the window is closed (Fig. 2, sash element 21 is closed), and
wherein, when the door is being opened, the first end of the spring moves linearly from the second position to the first position within the spring holdinq portion (Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring holding portion of Ham with the same and pivot means 41 of Lewis in order to have a spring slidably held by the spring holding portion so as to be at a first position in the spring holding portion when the door is open and at a second position in the spring holding portion when the door is closed and thereby allow actuation of the door while biasing the door towards the closed direction (As suggested by Col. 2, lines 46-51 of Lewis: “The vertically slotted apertures 42 in the locking bars 40 permit them to move vertically in respect to the pivot means 41 provided on the hinge arms 23, and the torsion springs 43 urge the said locking bars 40 downwardly at all times.”). Examiner notes this increases safety by reducing the risk of a child opening the door while the microwave door is operating.
Regarding claim 2, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the spring holding portion is a slot (Lewis: Figs. 1-3, aperture 42, which is a narrow opening or slot; therefore, aperture 42 a ‘slot’).
Regarding claim 3, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein the spring is a torsion spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a torsion spring. Reference Lewis: Figs. 1-3, torsion spring 43), and the second end (annotated Fig. A, second end) of the spring is held to the body (Figs. 4-6, body 41) so as to prevent movement of the second end of the spring (Figs. 5-6, the second end of second elastic member 47 is prevented from moving vertically or horizontally).
Regarding claim 4, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the first end (annotated Fig. A, first end) of the spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47) is provided with a bush (Lewis: Figs. 1-3, pivot means 41, which is a bushing or cylindrical part that serves as a guide; therefore, pivot means 41 is a ‘bush’) slidably inserted into the slot (Lewis: Figs. 1-3, aperture 42, as explained in claim 2) to allow the first end of the spring to slide along the slot (Lewis: Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 4, wherein the spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47) provides an elastic force to cause the first lever to rotate in the first direction (Pg. 7, 3rd Par. from the bottom, “Then" as the first lever (42) rotates the case " and the second elastic member (47) where the position of one end (471) of the second elastic member (47) is changed add the elastic force through one end (471) and the direction in which the other end (472) becomes distant. Therefore the elastic force can be given so that the first lever (42) rotates at the first direction”) in response to the second lever being pressed by the key member (Pg. 7, Par. 4, “The second lever (43) can be pressurized in the direction (in other words" the second direction) faced to the direction of the elastic force of the first elastic member (46) with the keying member (110). If one side of the second lever (43) and one side of the first lever (42) are contacted and the second lever (43) is pressurized in the and then with the keying member (110)" the first lever (42) and the second lever (43) together can rotate at the first direction.”) when the door is being closed (Pg. 7, 4th Par. from the bottom, “If the door (100) is closed" the first lever (42) is pressurized with the second lever (43) and it rotates at the first direction”).
Regarding claim 6, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 5, wherein the first position (Lewis: Fig. 3, the first end of torsion spring 43 is furthest from the other end of the torsion spring 43) corresponds to a first end of the slot (Lewis: Figs. 1-3, top end of aperture 42) such that when the first end of the spring is positioned at the first end of the slot the first end of the spring (annotated Fig. A, first end, which is the end attached to pivot means 41 of modified Ham) is at a maximum angle (Lewis: Fig. 3, the angle between the two arms of torsion spring 43 is in its maximum position) relative to the second end of the spring (annotated Fig. A, second end) when the door (Fig. 3, door 100) is open (Lewis: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47) is positioned at the first position (Lewis: Fig. 3, the first end of torsion spring 43 is furthest from the other end of the torsion spring 43) to allow an elastic force (Pg. 7, 3rd Par. from the bottom, “the second elastic member (47) can add the elastic force so that the first lever (42) rotates at the second direction”) for rotating the first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) in the second direction (Fig. 6, arrow B) when the door (Fig. 3, door 100) is being opened to be lessened (The elastic force is less than the elastic force that would be required if the first end of the spring was closest to the other end of the spring when the door is open), so that the door may be closed with a reduced force (Pg. 7, 3rd Par. from the bottom, “Accordingly" the user can finish the door (100) femtometer closing action to the relatively low power” The elastic force is less than the elastic force that would be required if the spring did not help close the door).
Regarding claim 9, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47) is positioned at the second position (Lewis: Fig. 2, the first end of torsion spring 43 is closest to the other end of the torsion spring 43) to allow an elastic force for rotating the first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) in the first direction (Fig. 6, first direction A) when the door is being closed to be lessened (Pg. 7, 3rd Par. from the bottom, “the second elastic member (47) is changed add the elastic force through one end (471) and the direction in which the other end (472) becomes distant. Therefore the elastic force can be given so that the first lever (42) rotates at the first direction. Accordingly" the user can finish the door (100) femtometer closing action to the relatively low power” The elastic force is less than the elastic force that would be required if the spring did not help close the door), so that a force for locking the door may increase (The elastic force is increased from the elastic force that would be present if the first end of the spring was furthest from the other end of the spring when the door is locked).
Regarding claim 10, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the latch device further includes a stopper (Figs. 4 and 7-8, stopper 44) connected to the second lever (Figs. 4 and 7, second lever 43) and restricting rotation of the first lever (Fig. 4, first lever 42 and Pg. 2, 2nd Par. from the bottom, “the stopper which restricts the rotation of the first lever the stopper are connected to the second lever”), and a sensor (Figs. 5-6, sensor 62) selectively pressed by the first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) for detecting whether the door (Fig. 3, door 100) is open or closed (Pg. 2, 2nd Par. from the bottom, “sensor which is pressurized with the first lever and senses opening and closing of the door”).
Regarding claim 11, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the body (Figs. 4-6, body 41) includes an interference hole (Fig. 4, interference hole 415) into which the stopper (Figs. 4 and 7-8, stopper 44) is inserted to restrict the rotation of the first lever (Pg. 6, Par. 1, “interference hole (415) in which the stopper (44) can be inserted. If the stopper (44) is inserted into the interference hole (415) " the rotation of the first lever (42) can be controlled.”), and the stopper is separated from the interference hole in response to the second lever (Figs. 5-6, second lever 43) rotating in the first direction, so that the first lever rotates in the first direction (Figs. 5-6) together with the second lever (Pg. 8, Par. 6, “if it is inserted into the interference hole (415) in which the stopper (44) is equipped in the body (41)" the first lever (42) is locked and the rotation to the first direction can be controlled. If the second lever (43) is pressurized " the stopper (44) moves to the right side and it can free from from the interference hole (415). If the stopper (44) frees from from the interference hole (415)" the locking state of the first lever (42) is cancelled and the first lever (42) can rotate at the first direction with the second lever (43).”).
Regarding claim 12, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the latch device further includes a first elastic member (Figs. 4-7, first elastic member 46, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a spring and therefore meets the interpretation of a ‘spring’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above) having a first end connected to the first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) and a second end connected to the second lever (Pg. 7, Par. 4, “the first elastic member (46) comprises one end one end is connected to the first lever (42) and the first elastic member 46) in which the opposed other end is connected to the second lever (43)”), and the first elastic member exerts an elastic force that causes the second lever to rotate in the second direction relative to the first lever (Pg. 7, Par. 4, “The first elastic member (46) can add the elastic force so that the second lever (43) rotates at the second direction opposite to the first direction about the first lever (42)”).
Regarding claim 13, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the latch device further includes a pressing member (Figs. 4-7, pressurization member 45, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a bar and therefore meets the interpretation of a ‘bar and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above) rotatably provided on the body (Figs. 6-7) to be pressed by the first lever (Figs. 4-6, first lever 42) in response to the first lever rotating in the first direction (Figs. 6-7 and Pg. 6, 4th Par. from the bottom, “in the pressurization member (45)" the protruded pressure projection (452) can be equipped. The first lever (42) rotates at the first direction and the pressure projection (452) can be pressurized”), and the pressing member is rotated to press a switch (Fig. 5-6, sensor 61) provided in the sensor when pressed by the first lever (Figs. 6-7 and Pg. 6, 4th Par. from the bottom, “If the pressure projection (452) is pressurized…the pressurization member (45) can pressurize the first switch (610)” Examiner notes first switch 610 is part of sensor 61).
Regarding claim 14, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the latch device further includes an elastic member (Figs. 4-7, third elastic member 48, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is a spring and therefore meets the interpretation of a ‘spring’ and its equivalents, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above) having a first end connected to the spring (Pg. 7, 2nd Par. from the bottom, “The other side of the third elastic member (48) can be connected to the second elastic member (47)”) and a second end attached to the body (Pg. 7, 2nd Par. from the bottom, “In the body (41)" the second mounting part (413) in which one side of the third elastic member (48) is mounted can be equipped”), and the elastic member exerts an elastic force to the spring (Figs. 5-6, second elastic member 47) in a direction in which the key member (Figs. 3-6, keying member 110) is inserted into the latch device (Pg. 7, last Par., “The third elastic member (48) can have the elastic force to the direction in which the keying member (110) is inserted to the latch assembly (40). The third elastic member (48) provides the elastic force to the second elastic member (47)”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al. (KR20180087943A, hereafter Ham) in view of Lewis (US 3257755 A) and further in view of Yang (CN 203285209 U).
Regarding claim 7, Ham, as modified above, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 5, wherein the second position (Lewis: Fig. 2, the first end of torsion spring 43 is closest to the other end of the torsion spring 43) corresponds to a second end of the slot (Lewis: Figs. 1-3, bottom end of aperture 42) such that, when the first end of the spring is positioned at the second end of the slot, the first end of the spring (annotated Fig. A, first end, which is the end attached to pivot means 41 of modified Ham) is at an angle relative to the second end of the spring (annotated Fig. A, second end) when the door (Fig. 3, door 100) is closed (Lewis: Fig. 2).
However, Ham, as modified above, does not disclose the second position corresponds to a second end of the slot such that, when the first end of the spring is positioned at the second end of the slot, the first end of the spring is at a maximum angle relative to the second end of the spring when the door is closed.
Yang discloses a second position corresponds to a second end of a slot (Fig. 2, bottom end of second sliding groove 10) such that, when a first end of a spring (Fig. 2, end of torsion spring 14 that mates with internal sliding pin 11) is positioned at the second end of the slot the first end of a spring is at a maximum angle (Fig. 2, the angle between the two arms of torsion spring 14 is in its maximum position) relative to a second end of the spring (Fig. 2, end of torsion spring 14 that mates with pin 6) when a door (Par. 0004, door) is closed (Fig. 2 and Par. 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch device of Ham with the spring and slot as disclosed by Yang in order to have the second position corresponds to a second end of the slot such that, when the first end of the spring is positioned at the second end of the slot, the first end of the spring is at a maximum angle relative to the second end of the spring when the door is closed and thereby increase the pressure exerted by the spring (As suggested by Par. 0023 of Yang: “By eccentrically fixing the torsion spring 14 to the second fixing pin 13, the resulting torsional force presses against the inner sliding pin 11, thereby causing the pulley 12 fixed on the inner sliding pin 11 to always exert downward pressure”) to increase the seal and service life of the door (As suggested by Par. 0006 of Yang: “The purpose of this invention is to…provide an oven hinge that…can seal the oven door well, has a long service life”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights