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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I comprising claims 1-12, and 14 in the reply filed on 6/15/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/26.
Drawing Objections
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 block lever guide must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claims 3 and 8. No new matter should be entered.
Claim 10 recites “the inner guide is configured to guide a movement of the block lever by moving in contact with one surface of the inner guide in response to the block lever being moved.” However, looking at Fig. 13 of the as-filed disclosure, it appears both the top and bottom surface of the inner guide 515 contact block lever 520. Therefore, the limitation “in contact with one surface of the inner guide” is interpreted as the outer surface of the inner guide 515. If Applicant intended a different interpretation and has support for a structural difference from this interpretation in the as-filed disclosure, Applicant is recommended to claim it.
Claim 14 recites “a lever guide having the shape of a groove in which the second lever body is accommodated and guided”. However, looking at the figures of the as-filed disclosure, it appears the lever guide 514 is more likely to be a protrusion, not a “groove” or ‘long narrow channel or depression’ as interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation (see attached Merriam Webster definition of ‘groove’). It is unclear which structure is being referred to as the ‘lever guide’ because the Figures are inconsistent - the entire inner circle is appears to be identified as the lever guide 514 in Fig. 6 while only the flat, bottom portion of the inner circle appears to be identified as the lever guide 514 in the rest of the figures. Given the majority of the figures appear to indicate the lever guide 514 is the flat, bottom portion of the inner circle, this appears to be the correct interpretation. This is supported by Par. 0130 of the PGPUBs which discloses “lever guide 514 that is seated in the guide recess 521e to guide a distance that the block lever 520 is movable and protrudes in the direction of the guide recess 521e” (emphasis added). In addition, Par. 0130 discloses “The lever guide 514 and the guide recess 52le may have a structure similar to that of a groove,” which indicates it is the lever guide 514 and guide recess 521e collectively, no the lever guide 514 individually, which has a structure similar to that of a groove. Appropriate correction is required. Amendments to the claims to match what is shown in the figures and described in the disclosure are kindly requested.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 15, “return to its an original position” should read “return to its .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Sawada (US 5518282 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sawada (US 5518282 A) in view of Esterle et al. (US 20190178001 A1, hereafter Esterle).
Regarding claim 1, Sawada discloses a cabinet (Fig. 3, cabinet 1), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3, walls forming cabinet 1);
a door (Fig. 3, door 2) rotatably coupled to the housing (Col. 4, lines 21-23, “The door 2 is attached to the cabinet 1 by means of a hinge (not illustrated) on one side and is rotatable around a vertical shaft center”), and including a key door protruding rearward (Fig. 3 and 7, fastening fixture 7); and
a latch provided in the housing (Fig. 3, lock unit 10) to lock the door (Col. 4, lines 23-31, “The other side of the door 2 is held in the closed position by means of locking device 6. The locking device 6 consists of a fastening fixture 7, which is attached to the inner face on the free end side of the door 2, with the upper edge of fixture 7 serving as an engaging edge, and a lock unit 10 attached to the inner face of the top plate 8 of the cabinet 1 at a position corresponding to the fastening fixture 7.”), and configured to detect opening or closing of the door (Fig. 4, lock unit 10 detects the door is open control lever 14 is at its maximum extension. Fig. 5, lock unit 10 detects the door is closed because control lever 14 is compressed. Further support for this detection is provided by the movement of rolling ball 16 from its front to its back position in response to the open or closed position of the door);
wherein the latch comprises:
a latch housing coupled to the housing (Figs. 1-4, base member 12);
a lever rotatably (Fig. 4, lock lever 9) coupled to the latch housing (Figs. 1-4, via shaft 11), and rotatable about a rotation axis (Figs. 4-6, lock lever 9 is rotatable around the rotation axis of shaft 11); and
a block lever slidably coupled to the lever (Figs. 4-6, which show the top surface of control lever 14 (i.e., block lever) is slidably coupled to lock lever 9 (i.e., lever)) to prevent or allow a rotation of the lever (Col. 5, lines 34-37, “the rolling body 16 rolls in between the dent 9c at the bottom face in the rear part of the lock lever 9 and the control lever 14. Rotation of the lock lever 9 is prevented”. Note this corresponds to Fig. 5, which shows control lever 14 is in an unbent position. Col. 5, lines 45-51, “the control lever 14 having the hinge 17 bends in a conical shape with the hinge 17 at the peak. With this bending, the rear part of the control lever 14 inclines in a way to be lower at the rear end and the rolling body 16 rolls out in the backward direction to return to its initial position. As a result, the lock lever 9 is free to turn, enabling opening of the door 2” Note this corresponds to Fig. 6, which shows control lever 14 is in a bent position.);
wherein the block lever is configured to be pressed by the key door to slide to allow the rotation of the lever in response to the door being closed (Figs. 4-5), and is configured to return to its an original position by an elastic force of the lever in response to the door being opened (Fig. 4 and Col. 5, lines 6-9, “As shown in FIG. 4, when the door 2 is opened, the control lever 14 is pushed by the second spring 15 and protrudes forward from the base member 12 at the maximum length.”).
NOTE: When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “cooking apparatus” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees and finds that the claimed product and prior art product are different, then the following teaching reference is provided.
Esterle discloses a latch for a cooking appliance (Abstract, “damped closure assembly for a microwave oven includes a catch element mounted to a cabinet of the microwave oven. A striker defined on a door of the microwave oven engages the catch element which is rotatable between an open position and a closed position”)
wherein the latch is provided in a housing (Figs. 1-2, cabinet 102) to lock a door (Par. 0026, “microwave oven 100 further includes one or more door latches or strikers, such as strikers 150, which are defined by or mounted to door 120 for locking door 120 in a closed position”), and configured to detect opening or closing of the door (Par. 0042, “Damped closure assembly 200 may further include a switch element 290 for detecting when the catch element 202 is in the closed position. For example, switch element 290 may be mounted to base plate 204 (or directly to cabinet 102) and may be engaged by catch element 202 when door 120 is closed.”).
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 device of Sawada in view of the cooking appliance with a latch as taught by Esterle, i.e., utilizing the latch of Sawada in a known application of keeping a microwave oven door closed. Furthermore, modifying the device of Sawada in view of the controller and switch in the latch of Esterle would provide a redundant way for the latch to detect opening or closing of the door and thereby improve safety (As suggested by Par. 0042 of Esterle: “Switch element 290 may be coupled to a controller, such as appliance controller 140, and may be used to prevent operation of microwave oven 100 when door 120 is open.”) by making it less likely for children to be able to open the cabinet and access potentially dangers materials and/or objects inside.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art references Sawada (US 5518282 A), Lee (US4858969A), Kozlovic (GB2563672A), and Sasaki (US 4497513 A) represent the closest prior art of record to the Applicant’s claimed invention as recited in claims 2 and 14.
Regarding claim 2, Sawada, as modified above, discloses the block lever (Figs. 4-6, control lever 14) includes:
a first lever body extending in a first direction (Fig. 6, portion of control lever 14 to the left of hinge 17, which, from the reference point of the cutout in control lever 14, extends to the left);
a second lever body extending in a second direction forming an angle with respect to the first direction (Fig. 6, portion of control lever 14 to the right of hinge 17, which, from the reference point of the cutout in control lever 14, extends to the right); and
a third lever body (Fig. 6, hinge 17) having one end coupled to an other end of the first lever body and an other end coupled to an other end of the second lever body (Fig. 6), and
in response to the door being closed, the first lever body is configured to be pressed by the key door to be brought closer to the second lever body so that an elastic force is accumulated in the block lever (Figs. 4-6 and Col. 4, lines 50-55, “The control lever 14 is made of an elastic material such as polypropylene and the like and has a thin hinge 17 at the center in the longitudinal direction. This hinge 17 forms a projection which swells to function as a presser, and is in contact with the tapered face 9d of the lock lever 9”).
However, Sawada, as modified above, does not disclose a second lever body extending in a second direction forming an angle with respect to the first direction, and having one end in contact with the inside of the lever.
Lee discloses a microwave oven with a latch (Abstract) and Lee further discloses it is known for a block lever (Fig. 4, moveable lever 17) to have a first lever body extending in a first direction (Fig. 4, horizontal portion of moveable lever 17, which has slots and extends in a horizontal direction) and a second lever body extending in a second direction (Fig. 4, support pin 29, which extends in a vertical direction) forming an angle with respect to the first direction (Fig. 4, 90 degree angle). However, Lee does not disclose the second lever body has one end in contact with the inside of the lever.
Kozlovic discloses an oven (Fig. 1, oven 11) with a latch (Figs. 2a-c, tumbler 30) and Kozlovic further discloses it is known for a block lever (Figs. 2a-c, actuator 19) to have a first lever body extending in a first direction (Figs. 2a-c, hook 28, which extends in a horizontal direction) and a second lever body extending in a second direction (Figs. 2a-c, pin 20, which extends in a vertical direction) forming an angle with respect to the first direction (Figs. 2a-c, 90 degree angle). However, Lee does not disclose the second lever body has one end in contact with the inside of the lever.
Sasaki discloses a microwave oven (Fig. 2, microwave oven 2) with a latch (Figs. 3a-c, arm 7) and Kozlovic further discloses it is known for a block lever (Figs. 3a-c, cam 12) to have a first lever body extending in a first direction (Figs. 3a-c, circular structure with a right angle cutout, which extends in a horizontal direction) and a second lever body extending in a second direction (Figs. 3a-c, shaft 15, which extends in a vertical direction) forming an angle with respect to the first direction (Figs. 3a-c, 90 degree angle), and having one end in contact with the inside of the lever (Figs. 3a-c, top end of shaft 15). However, modifying Sawada in view of the lever and block lever of Sasaki would break Sawada because the block lever would not able to slide against the lever such that rolling ball 16 moves between its front and back positions. Even if the rolling ball was moved via a design choice rationale, such that it was positioned behind the lever in its modified position, it would not be possible to move the rolling ball between its front and back positions because compression of the block lever would not cause the rolling ball to move. To elaborate, the planes of the lever and block lever would be offset in their modified positions, so even though the rolling ball would be aligned with the lever, the block lever would not be able to interact with the rolling ball. Therefore, the limitation “a second lever body extending in a second direction forming an angle with respect to the first direction, and having one end in contact with the inside of the lever” (emphasis added), when combined with the other limitations of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claims 2-12 are objected to at least by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitation (“the second lever body includes an inclined surface protrusion…the inclined surface protrusion contacts the inside of the lever” (emphasis added)) and is therefore allowable by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm 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