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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 7, “the upper side and the lower side” should be corrected to –an upper side and a lower side--.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/525369. (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Instant 18/525448
Reference 18/525369
1. A control box for a cooking appliance, comprising a housing, in which at least one steam inlet and at least one steam outlet are present,
wherein at least one grid structure for shielding high-frequency radiation is present in the housing, wherein the grid structure is arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam, and wherein
the grid structure has a plurality of flow channels which form in sections a flow path to the steam outlet for the steam entering through the steam inlet.
1. (currently amended) A control box for a cooking appliance, comprising a housing in which at least one steam inlet, at least one water nozzle, a steam outlet, and at least one cleaning agent inlet are present, the cleaning agent inlet being arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam,
wherein a grid structure which is configured to shield high-frequency radiation is present in the control box, wherein the grid structure is formed by a cast part in which a plurality of cleaning channels connected to a cleaning agent connection and opening at different points within the grid structure is formed, or wherein the grid structure is formed by a pipe packet.
11. The control box according to claim [[10]]1, wherein the grid structure has main channels which form in sections a flow path to the water outlet for the steam entering through to the steam inlet
8. The control box according to claim 1, wherein the at least one grid structure is formed by a pipe packet.
1. … formed by a pipe packet.
10. The control box according to claim 1, wherein the at least one grid structure is formed by a cast part.
1. … formed by a cast part
Because the cleaning agent inlet is in the grid structure, the grid structure is also between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam. The plurality of flow channels which form in sections a flow path to the steam outlet for the steam entering through the steam inlet is implied by the grid structure formed as a “pipe packet” or “cast part” with “a plurality of cleaning channels,” as well as the inlet, which is in the grid, “between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam.” Thus, claim 1 is rejected over claim 1 of the reference application. Reference claim 11 even further clarifies the limitation, but is not considered necessary for the rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "the at least" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether one grid structure or at multiple grid structures are referenced as it is defined as “the grid structure” in claim 1 line 3, rendering this claim indefinite. Define the grid structure as “the at least one grid structure” or as “the grid structure” throughout.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu ( CN 106686794 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a control box for a cooking appliance, comprising a housing, in which at least one steam inlet (see annotated Figure 1)(¶ 22: “Exhaust hole 2”) and at least one steam outlet (see annotated Figure 1) are present (¶ 22), wherein at least one grid structure (¶ 22: ”a honeycomb plate 6”) for shielding high-frequency radiation is present in the housing (Abstract: “The invention claims a microwave shielding structure of exhaust pipeline”), wherein the grid structure is arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam, and wherein the grid structure has a plurality of flow channels which form in sections a flow path to the steam outlet for the steam entering through the steam inlet (¶ 8: “a honeycomb plate with honeycomb holes provided in the inner diameter of the flared body”).
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses:
the length of the flow channels in relation to a flow cross-section of an individual flow channel is selected (¶26) such that a power level of an electromagnetic wave impinging on the at least one grid structure and having a frequency of 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz (standard wavelength used for food due to its interaction with water) is attenuated by the grid structure by at least 20 dB (¶28 “the microwave power in the microwave resonant cavity is 1 kW” ¶29 “The microwave leakage was measured at a distance of 20cm from the right end of the lock sleeve 7 and was less than 0.05 mW/cm².” Although this is not limited to just the grid, is a much greater decrease than the required 20 dB, or a decrease by a factor of 100. Also, ¶28 discloses an embodiment with grid passages having a diameter of 9 mm and a length of 25 mm, which is more restrictive than the Applicant’s embodiments disclosed on p.11, and is thus understood to be at least as effective at attenuating microwaves of the specified wavelength.).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses that the length of the flow channels is larger than the material thickness of the grid structure. (Clear in figure that the grid structure thickness is much smaller than the length of the honeycomb grid) (see annotated Figure 1: 6) (¶ 26, ¶ 28)
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses the at least one grid structure extends over the entire height and/or the entre width of the control box. (see annotated Figure 1, grid 6 spans flare body 4)
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses the at least one grid structure surrounds the steam inlet in a circumferential manner. (Annular honeycomb grid structure fully encapsulates steam inlet pipe) (see annotated Figure 1: 6) (grid 6 has a circumference greater than circumference of pipe 3, and is at the end of pipe 3)
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses the at least one grid structure comprises a plurality of partition walls which define the flow channels (interior walls of honeycomb grid), the partition walls extending from a housing bottom (of flared body 4, see annotated Fig 1) to a housing top (of flared body 4, see annotated Figure 1) of the housing.
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses the control box is configured to discharge a cooking chamber atmosphere obtained via the steam inlet and containing a steam component and greasy vapors to the surroundings via the at least one steam outlet. (¶ 12)
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses:
A cooking appliance for cooking a cooking product (¶4 “food drying”), comprising a cooking chamber (¶8, ¶22 “microwave resonant cavity wall 1”), a microwave source (implicitly disclosed by presence of microwaves for treating food) configured to feed high-frequency radiation into the cooking chamber, an appliance outlet (¶8 “exhaust pipe”) to the surroundings of the cooking appliance, and a control box (flared body 4), wherein the control box has a housing in which at least one steam inlet and at least one steam outlet (see annotated Fig 1) are present, wherein at least one grid structure (6) for shielding high-frequency radiation is present in the housing,
wherein the grid structure (6) is arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet (see annotated FIG 1) with respect to a flow path of the steam, wherein the steam inlet is in flow communication with the cooking chamber (to the left of wall 1 in Fig 1), and wherein the steam outlet is in flow communication with the appliance outlet (implied by “exhaust”).
Regarding claim 14, Yu discloses:
A flow communication is formed between the cooking chamber )left side of wall 1 in Fig 1) and the surroundings of the cooking appliance ( 208 “exhaust pipe”) via the control box.
Regarding claim 15, Yu discloses:
the steam outlet (see annotated Fig 1) is in flow communication with the appliance outlet via a vent pipe (¶8 “exhaust pipe”).
Claims 1, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higashimo (US 20190264705).
PNG
media_image2.png
731
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Higashimo discloses:
A control box for a cooking appliance (This is an intended use. Higashimo has the claimed structures and considered able to perform this function.), comprising a housing (24, 28), in which at least one steam inlet (see arrow indicating flow into left side of 34 and through 49 in Fig 1) and at least one steam outlet (at or beyond the radially outer edge of 31) are present, wherein at least one grid structure (16, 22, ¶77) for shielding high-frequency radiation is present in the housing (the grid 16, 22 is made by casting, ¶108, and is thus understood to be made of metal. The casing and grid provide a tortuous passage and are thus understood to be capable of deflecting microwaves), wherein the grid structure (16, 22) is arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam, and wherein the grid structure has a plurality of flow channels (20, 18) which form in sections a flow path (¶77) to the steam outlet for the steam entering through the steam inlet.
Regarding claim 5, Higashimo discloses:
the at least one grid structure (16, 22) surrounds the steam inlet (inlet from 49) in a circumferential manner.
Regarding claim 6, Higashimo discloses:
the at least one grid structure comprises a plurality of partition walls (16, 22, ¶77) which define the flow channels (18, 20), the partition walls (16) extending from a housing bottom (28) to a housing top (24) of the housing.
Regarding claim 7, Higashimo discloses:
the at least one grid structure comprises an annular base (“flow passage dividing annulus 22,” ¶88), and in that the partition walls (16) extend from the upper side and the lower side of the base.
Regarding claim 10, Higashimo discloses:
the at least one grid structure is formed by a cast part (¶108 “casting”).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guggenberger (DE 102020207375).
[AltContent: textbox (outlet)][AltContent: textbox (inlet)]
PNG
media_image3.png
531
749
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1¸Guggenberger discloses:
A control box for a cooking appliance, comprising a housing (11, ¶ 22 “a space bounded by the shielding structure 4, the evaporator 9 and the bypass blockers 11”), in which at least one steam inlet and at least one steam outlet (see annotated Fig 1 showing an inlet and an outlet. Steam is interpreted as an intended use not required for the claims, but steam would be present when food is heated, see ¶22) are present, wherein at least one grid structure (shielding structure 4) for shielding high-frequency radiation (microwave, ¶7) is present in the housing, wherein the grid structure is arranged between the steam inlet and the steam outlet with respect to a flow path of the steam, and wherein the grid structure has a plurality of flow channels (20, see Figs 2 and 3) which form in sections a flow path (¶28, ¶29) to the steam outlet for the steam entering through the steam inlet.
Regarding claim 3, Guggenberger discloses:
the length of the flow channels is larger than the material thickness of the grid structure (¶26 “a wall thickness of 1 mm. The length of the pipe sections can be 6 mm.”).
Regarding claim 4, Guggenberger discloses:
the at least one grid structure (4) extends over the entire height and/or the entre width of the control box (to and beyond 11 in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Guggenberger discloses:
the at least one grid structure is formed by a pipe packet (¶26 “touching pipe sections 19 are also electrically connected, e.g. For example, by spot welding”).
PNG
media_image4.png
612
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Guggenberger discloses:
the at least one grid structure is formed by a plurality of folded sheet panels (¶32 “forming strips 25 of metal into a wave profile, stacking them offset from each other by half a wavelength and then welding them together at their contact surfaces”).
PNG
media_image5.png
413
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guggenberger (DE 102020207375).
Regarding claim 9, Guggenberger does not explicitly disclose:
the flow channels have a height and/or width or a diameter of at least 20 mm.
Guggenberger teaches that the flow channels have a diameter of 6 mm, and the waves to be blocked have a wavelength of about 10 cm, and that the diameter should be less than the wavelength (¶26). Guggenberger further teaches that the lateral portion of the shielding structure can have larger diameter pipe sections to improve airflow and decrease the effect of potential blockage with ice (¶35). “The lower damping of these additional pipe sections can be compensated for by an increased length, which in turn is advantageous for free air circulation.” Thus, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to increase the diameter to increase airflow. Diameter is a result effective variable for airflow. The reduced shielding can be compensated by increasing the length.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increase the diameter of the lateral pipes to at least 20 mm but less than 10 cm to obtain he benefit of increased airflow, while at the same time increasing the length of the passages to maintain effective shielding because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art/Further Analysis
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knox (US 20170240427) [0025] The chute 13 and the exhaust 17 of the microwave cavity 2 have a grid like structure as seen in FIGS. 2, and 4, This structure is built to prevent microwave radiation. Essentially, the grid can be seen as a group of small waveguides of which their dimensions are small enough that their cutoff frequency is much higher than the operating frequency. Thus, the microwave is attenuated through these waveguides or grids.
PNG
media_image6.png
748
613
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lambert (US 20170074766) [0059] As a concurrent function, however, the collimator must preclude microwave energy having frequencies produced by the source 33 from leaving the cavity 25. Therefore, the size and material of the cells 67 must meet that function as well. The function is referred to as attenuation, and an item with such a function is informally referred to as a choke. In order to serve as a choke, the length (longer dimension) of the opening structure must exceed the diameter (or open area) of the structure by a defined proportional amount. The use and sizing of such attenuators is well understood in the art and need not be discussed herein in detail other than to note that an attenuator in the form of a cylinder should have a diameter smaller than the propagated wavelength (λ) and a length that is at least one-fourth of the propagated wavelength.
PNG
media_image7.png
668
659
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yu does not disclose the flow channels have a height and/or width or a diameter of at least 20 mm. (¶ 26). Yu discloses that the cross-sectional diameter of the channels depends on the frequency of radiation, and gives an example of 9 mm. Yu also gives the formula for diameter, w = 15 * 109 / f (see ¶ 15 in the original Chinese document), where f is 5 to 10 times the frequency. For a frequency of 2.45 GHz, this gives a range of 1.22 cm to 0.61 cm, which is outside the claimed range of at least 2 centimeters.
PNG
media_image8.png
64
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
65
428
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights