DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. KR-10-2021-0087603, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. However, Application No. KR-10-2021-0132451 does provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the claims of this application. Therefore, the effective filing date for the claims under review is 6 October 2021, based on the benefit provided by Application No. KR-10-2021-0132451.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: number 311 (fig. 8).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “external structure” of claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claims to recite: “…and configured to guide moisture…” 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 the following:
“moisture inflow prevention member” in claims 1, 16, and 19
The generic placeholder is “member” and the functional limitations are “moisture inflow prevention” and “to prevent moisture introduced from the inlet panel from entering the electronic chamber through the plate hole.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “tray.” Claims 2 and 17 have sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for these claims.
“guide member” in claims 10 and 18
The generic placeholder is “member” and the functional limitation is “guide moisture.”
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 18 recite “a guide member” that is configured to “guide moisture,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a guide member” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claims 11-13 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 10.
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 limitation “guide member” in claims 10 and 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-2, 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Imai et al. (JP-2016118337-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘374 teaches a cooking apparatus (fig. 1; “microwave oven,” para 0009), comprising:
a main body (main body 10, fig. 1) including:
an electronic chamber (electronic compartment 13, fig. 1); and
a front plate (annotated in fig. 1 below) disposed on a front side (annotated in fig. 1 below) of the electronic chamber;
a control box (control panel 100, fig. 1) detachably mounted on a front side of the front plate (coupling member S mount the panel 100 to the hole 15, which is on the construed front plate, fig. 1), the control box including:
a case (control casing 110, fig. 2); and
an inlet panel (top panel for vent holes 116, fig. 2) disposed on an upper portion of the case (top of casing 110, fig. 2) to be in communication with outside of the main body (para 0028);
a plate hole (annotated in figs. 1 and 3 below) formed in the front plate to communicate with the control box and the electronic chamber (para 0028); and
a moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3; ribs 117 and 119 are construed as being a tray, fig. 3) disposed on an upper side of the electronic chamber (ribs 117 and 119 are disposed above the compartment 13, figs. 1 and 3) to prevent moisture (“foreign substance,” para 0051; figs. 7-8; “moisture” is not explicitly disclosed) introduced from the inlet panel (panel with holes 116, fig. 7) from entering the electronic chamber through the plate hole (hole above rib 119, fig. 8).
Lee ‘374, figs. 1 and 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
1061
1101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
864
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘374 does not explicitly disclose moisture.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing moisture from damaging electronic components, Imai teaches moisture (“liquid foreign matter,” para 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Imai, where the “foreign substance,” as taught by Lee ‘374 , was a “liquid,” as taught by Chou, because a foreign substance is any substance that is foreign and that is introduced through the vent holes of the microwave, such as a spilled liquid or cleaning solution, which might flow into the electronic devices of the microwave, possibly causing corrosion of the wiring and potentially leading to a malfunction (Lee ‘374 , para 0061; Imai, para 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3) further comprises: a coupling portion (extension rib 127, fig. 3) to be coupled to the main body (through hole 15, fig. 1; para 0040); and a tray (ribs 117 and 119, fig. 3) disposed adjacent to a lower end of the plate hole (annotated in fig. 3 above) and to collect moisture introduced through the plate hole (foreign substance is collected, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the front plate further comprises: a front opening (annotated in fig. 1 below) communicating with the electronic chamber (electric compartment 13, fig. 1) and formed on a lower side of the plate hole (annotated in fig. 1 above).
Lee ‘374 does not explicitly disclose a rear flange extending rearward from an edge forming the front opening, and the tray further comprises a fitting portion formed on a lower surface of the tray to allow a portion of the rear flange to be inserted.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing moisture from damaging electronic components, Imai teaches a rear flange (sheet metal support member 30m, fig. 7; annotated in fig. 7 below; the construed rear flange is part of the front panel 7) extending rearward from an edge forming the front opening (annotated in fig. 7 below; lever opening 17, fig. 2), and the tray (surface 27 and vertical wall 28b, fig. 5) further comprises a fitting portion (tapered pin 32, fig. 4) formed on a lower surface of the tray (bottom of surface 27, fig. 4) to allow a portion of the rear flange to be inserted (as shown in fig. 7).
Imai, fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
566
893
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Imai, by using a internal metal support member 30, as taught by Imai, to attach the control panel 100 to the main body 10, as taught by Lee ‘374 , where the rib 119, as taught by Lee ‘374 , included pins 32, as taught by Imai, in order to use a sheet metal support member that provides additional support for the advantage of stabilizing the position of the control panel (Imai, para 0047).
Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the inlet panel (top panel for vent holes 116, fig. 2) further comprises an inlet hole (vent holes 116, fig. 2) formed therein and through which air flows in from outside of the main body (fig. 7), and the plate hole (annotated in fig. 1 above) is configured to guide the air has flown in from the inlet hole of the inlet panel to the electronic chamber (compartment 13, fig. 1) so as to cool the electronic chamber (paras 0028-0029).
Regarding claim 14, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the coupling portion (extension rib 127, fig. 3) has a shape extending in a front-rear direction (rib 127 extends in the claimed “front-rear direction” is annotated in fig. 3 below), and the tray (ribs 117 and 119, fig. 3) has a shape extending in a left-right direction (rib 117 extends in the claimed “left-right direction” is annotated in fig. 3 below).
Lee ‘374, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
888
945
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Imai et al. (JP-2016118337-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Kim (KR-100415997-B1, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description; hereinafter Kim ‘997).
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘374 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the main body further comprises: a top plate disposed on the upper side of the electronic chamber; and a top opening formed in the top plate to communicate with the electronic chamber, and the coupling portion of the moisture inflow prevention member is configured to be coupled to the top plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microwaves, Kim ‘997 teaches wherein the main body further comprises: a top plate (annotated in fig. 4 below; also shown in fig. 2) disposed on the upper side of the electronic chamber (upper side of parts chamber 14, fig. 2); and a top opening (annotated in fig. 4 below) formed in the top plate (the “top opening” is above the “top pate,” annotated in fig. 4 below) to communicate with the electronic chamber (space from the construed “top opening” extends to the parts chamber 14, fig. 2), and the coupling portion (hole in the coupling part 55, fig. 3) of the moisture inflow prevention member (coupling part 53, fig. 4; first coupling part 55 is construed as being a tray, fig. 4) is configured to be coupled to the top plate (part 55 couples to the construed top plate, annotated in fig. 4 below).
Kim ‘997, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
863
894
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Kim ‘997, by using a suspension device 50, as taught by Kim ‘997, to connect the control panel 100 at the ribs 117/119 to the top of the main body 10, as taught by Lee ‘374 , such that the suspension device was part of a unit that included the ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, as taught by Lee ‘374 , in order to use an internal suspension system in the microwave that improves the stability and installation of a microwave that can be mounted on a wall (Kim ‘997, para 12).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Chou and Kim ‘997 as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Kim ‘997 teaches wherein the top plate (annotated in fig. 4 above) further comprises an upper flange extending upward from an edge forming the top opening (annotated in fig. 4 below), and the coupling portion (hole in the coupling part 55, fig. 3) further comprises a flange groove (annotated in fig. 3 below) seated on the upper flange (part 55 sits on the construed upper flange, annotated in fig. 4 below).
Kim ‘997, figs. 3-4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
288
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
782
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Chou and Kim ‘997 as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Kim ‘997 teaches wherein the top plate further comprises: a coupling bracket including a bracket body (annotated in fig. 4 below) extending toward the moisture inflow prevention member (coupling part 53, fig. 4); and a bracket hole (annotated in fig. 4 below) penetrating the bracket body (a screw penetrates into the construed “bracket hole, annotated in fig. 4 below), and the coupling portion further comprises a coupling hole (hole in the coupling part 55, fig. 3) corresponding to the bracket hole (the two holes are connected by a screw, annotated in fig. 4).
Kim ‘997, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
799
1204
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Chou and Kim ‘997 as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Kim ‘997 teaches wherein the bracket body (annotated in fig. 4 above) further comprises: a first extension extending in a first direction (annotated in fig. 4 below; vertical direction); and a second extension extending in a second direction (annotated in fig. 4 below; horizontal direction) intersecting the first direction, and the bracket hole is formed in the second extension (the construed “bracket hole” in annotated fig. 4 above is in the construed “second extension” in annotated fig. 4 below).
Kim ‘997, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image9.png
782
1089
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Imai et al. (JP-2016118337-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Oh et al. (KR-100560206-B1, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Lee ‘374 teaches further comprising: a cooking chamber (cooking compartment 11, fig. 1) partitioned from the electronic chamber (electric compartment 13, fig. 1) within the main body; a door (door 18, fig. 1) configured to open or close the cooking chamber (para 0022), wherein a portion of the tray (ribs 117 and 119, fig. 4) of the moisture inflow prevention member is to be accommodated in the latch body (annotated in fig. 1 below; the ribs 117 and 119 insert into the electric compartment 13 past the construed “latch body”).
Lee ‘374 , fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image10.png
852
1028
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘374 does not explicitly disclose a latch protrusion; and a latch body disposed within the electronic chamber and configured to lock the latch protrusion.
However, in the same field of endeavor microwaves, Oh teaches a latch protrusion (“latch,” page 17); and a latch body (annotated in fig. 2 below) disposed within the electronic chamber and configured to lock the latch protrusion (“a latch (not shown) is formed that engages with a latch hole (210a) formed in the front plate (210),” page 17).
Oh, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image11.png
730
694
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Oh, by using a latch, as taught by Oh, on the door 18, as taught by Lee ‘374 , in order to use a latch that permits the door to be pressed against the front plate of the main body 10, so that the cooking compartment 11 can be secured during cooking (Oh, page 17).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Imai et al. (JP-2016118337-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chou et al. (US-20140043778-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee ‘374 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a guide member disposed on a lower side of the inlet panel in the case, the guide member spaced apart from a rear surface of the case and to guide moisture flowing in from the inlet panel forward.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing moisture from damaging electronic components, Chou teaches further comprising a guide member (shield part 24, fig. 1A) disposed on a lower side of the inlet panel in the case (the part 24, as taught by Chou, is construed as being attached to the rib 119, which is below the vent holes 116, as taught by Lee ‘374 in fig. 7), the guide member spaced apart from a rear surface of the case (right surface of wall 12, fig. 1B; construed as being the right surface of casing 110, fig. 7 of Lee ‘374 ) and to guide moisture flowing in from the inlet panel forward (the inclined surface 26 guides splashes or liquids towards the wall part 12, fig. 1B, which is construed as being “forward” in Lee ‘374 ; para 0023 of Chou).
Chou, Fig. 1A
PNG
media_image12.png
444
348
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Chou, by using the shield part 24, as taught by Chou, on the rib 119, as taught by Lee ‘374 , in order to use a shield part that has an inclined surface, which guides liquid away from an electronic component so that the electronic component can be protected (Chou, para 0009)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Kim ‘997 and Chou as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Chou teaches wherein the guide member (shield part 24, fig. 1B) has a shape inclined downwardly forward (downwardly inclined surface 26 towards the wall part 12, which is construed as being forward).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Kim ‘997 and Chou as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the plate hole (annotated in fig. 3 above) is located above the guide member (the shield part 24, as taught by Chou, is construed as being on the rib 119, as taught by Lee ‘374, which is below the construed plate hole, annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee ‘374 in view of Kim ‘997 and Chou as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the control box further comprises a bracket panel (board holders 121, fig. 3) to accommodate a circuit board (board 167, fig. 3; connecting a “wire” to the board 167 is construed such that board 167 is a circuit board, para 0048), the bracket panel being coupled to a lower portion (holder 125, fig. 3; para 0048) of the guide member (the shield part 24 is construed as being on the rib 119; the rib 119 includes the holder 125, fig. 3) to be spaced apart from the rear surface of the case (left surface of casing 110, fig. 2 or back side of the casing in fig. 3). Additionally, Chou teaches the moisture guided by the guide member flows downwardly between the case and the bracket panel (downward between the wall 12 and the board 14, figs. 1A and 1B, para 0023).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Imai et al. (JP-2016118337-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7 above and further in view of Kim (US-20050184063-A1; hereinafter Kim ‘063).
Lee ‘374 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fitting portion includes an elastic material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microwaves, Kim ‘063 teaches wherein the fitting portion (locking hook 28, fig. 2) includes an elastic material (“locking hook 28 has a certain elasticity,” para 0031).
Kim ‘063, fig. 2
PNG
media_image13.png
1066
761
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 /Imai, in view of the teachings of Kim ‘063, by using a locking hook 28, as taught by Kim ‘063, instead of the tapered pins 23 that connect to the support member 30, as taught by Imai, in order to use hooks that lock in after being elastically deformed, for the advantage using a locking hook system that restricts movement of the case that holds the circuit board (Kim ‘063, para 0031).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Lee et al. (KR-19990055029-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description; hereinafter Lee ‘029).
Regarding claim 16, Lee ‘374 teaches a cooking apparatus (fig. 1; “microwave oven,” para 0009) including:
a cooking chamber (cooking compartment 11, fig. 1);
an electronic chamber (electric compartment 13, fig. 1) partitioned from the cooking chamber (compartments 11 and 13 are partitioned from each other, fig. 1);
a door (door 18, fig. 1) to open or close the cooking chamber (para 0022);
a control box (control panel 100, fig. 1) detachably mounted on a front side of the electronic chamber (coupling member S mounts the panel 100 to the hole 15, which is on the construed front side of the compartment 11, fig. 1), the control box including:
a case (control casing 110, fig. 2); and
an inlet panel (top panel for vent holes 116, fig. 2) to cover an upper portion of the case (top of casing 110, fig. 2) and to allow air to flow in from outside (para 0028; fig. 7);
a guide hole (annotated in figs. 1 and 3 above as the “plate hole”) to guide air introduced from the inlet panel to the electronic chamber (fig. 7); and
a moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3; ribs 117 and 119 are construed as being a tray, fig. 3) disposed on a lower side of the guide hole (ribs 117 and 119 are disposed below the annotated “plate hole,” annotated figs. 1 and 3 above) and configured to prevent moisture (“foreign substance,” para 0051; figs. 7-8; “moisture” is not explicitly disclosed) from entering the electronic chamber through the guide hole (hole above rib 119, fig. 8).
Lee ‘374 does not explicitly disclose a control box covered by the door; moisture.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microwaves, Lee ‘029 teaches a control box (control panel 26) covered by the door (door 24); moisture (“moisture permeation prevention,” page 4).
Lee ‘029
PNG
media_image14.png
600
376
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374, in view of the teachings of Lee ‘029, by positioning the door above the control panel, as taught by Lee ‘029, instead of positioning the door to the side of the control panel, as taught by Lee ‘374, and where the “foreign substance,” as taught by Lee ‘374, was “moisture,” as taught by Lee ‘029, in order to place the control panel below the control panel below the microwave oven that is wall-mounted so that the display showing the cooking time can be more accessible, and because water vapor generated during cooking can become moisture that condenses as a result of the cold air on the control panel, which can cause damage to the circuit board (Lee ‘029, pages 4-5) .
Regarding claim 17, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3) further includes a tray (ribs 117 and 119 are construed as being a tray, fig. 3) to collect moisture introduced through the guide hole (figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 19, Lee ‘374 teaches a cooking apparatus (fig. 1; “microwave oven,” para 0009) including:
a main body (main body 10, fig. 1);
an electronic chamber (electronic compartment 13, fig. 1) formed in the main body to receive electrical components (touch board 161, encoder board 163, and display board 167, fig. 2;
a control box (control panel 100, fig. 1) configured to receive a circuit board (board 167, fig. 3; connecting a “wire” to the board 167 is construed such that board 167 is a circuit board, para 0048) electrically connectable to the electrical components (para 0048), the control box including:
a case (control casing 110, fig. 2); and
an inlet panel (top panel for vent holes 116, fig. 2) disposed on an upper portion of the case (top of casing 110, fig. 2) and configured to communicate with outside (para 0028; fig. 7); and
a moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3; ribs 117 and 119 are construed as being a tray, fig. 3) provided in the electronic chamber (the panel 100 fits into the compartment 13, fig. 1) to prevent moisture (“foreign substance,” para 0051; figs. 7-8; “moisture” is not explicitly disclosed) from entering the electronic chamber from the inlet panel of the control box (fig. 8).
Lee ’374 does not explicitly disclose a main body attached to an external structure; moisture.
However, in the same field of endeavor of microwaves, Lee ‘029 teaches a main body (main body 12) attached to an external structure (annotated below); moisture (“moisture permeation prevention,” page 4).
Lee ‘029
PNG
media_image15.png
610
618
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374, in view of the teachings of Lee ‘029, by mounting the main body 10, as taught by Lee ‘374, onto a plate on a wall, as taught by Lee ‘029, and where the “foreign substance,” as taught by Lee ‘374, was “moisture,” as taught by Lee ‘029, for the advantage of conveniently mounting the microwave to the wall so that the microwave does not take up any counter space and because water vapor generated during cooking can become moisture that condenses as a result of the cold air on the control panel, which can cause damage to the circuit board (Lee ‘029, pages 4-5) .
Regarding claim 20, Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the main body (main body 10, fig. 1) includes a front plate (annotated in fig. 1 above) arranged between the electronic chamber and the control box (the construed “front plate” is located between compartment 13 and the outer surface of the panel 100, fig. 1), the front plate forming a plate hole (annotated in figs. 1 and 3 above) communicating with the inlet panel (fig. 7), and the moisture inflow prevention member (ribs 117, 119, 147, and 127, fig. 3) is adjacent to a lower end of the plate hole (below the construed “plate hole” annotated in fig. 3 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20120281374-A1; hereinafter Lee ‘374) in view of Lee et al. (KR-19990055029-A, referencing foreign patent for drawings and provided English translation for written description; hereinafter Lee ‘029) as applied to claims 16-17 above and further in view of Chou et al. (US-20140043778-A1).
Lee ‘374 teaches wherein the control box (control panel 100, fig. 1) further includes: a bracket panel (board holders 121, fig. 3) disposed within the case to accommodate a circuit board (board 167, fig. 3; connecting a “wire” to the board 167 is construed such that board 167 is a circuit board, para 0048).
Lee ‘374 does not explicitly disclose a guide member coupled to an upper portion of the bracket panel, and to guide moisture introduced through the inlet panel between the case and the bracket panel.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing moisture from damaging electronic components, Chou teaches a guide member (shield part 24, fig. 1A) coupled to an upper portion of the bracket panel (the part 24, as taught by Chou, is construed as being attached to the rib 119, which is above the holders 121, as taught by Lee ‘374 in fig. 3), and to guide moisture introduced through the inlet panel between the case and the bracket panel (the inclined surface 26 guides splashes or liquids towards the wall part 12, fig. 1B; para 0023 of Chou).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Lee ‘374 , in view of the teachings of Chou, by using the shield part 24, as taught by Chou, on the rib 119, as taught by Lee ‘374 , in order to use a shield part that has an inclined surface, which guides liquid away from an electronic component so that the electronic component can be protected (Chou, para 0009).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US-20240260146-A1) teach mounting a microwave on a wall.
Lee et al. (US-12432825-B2) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Lee et al. (US-12540733-B2) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Lee et al. (US-12339010-B2) teach an invention similar to the Instant Application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights