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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2023, 10/25/2024, 02/12/2025, and 06/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner note: IDS submitted on 09/10/2023 listed the third foreign document number as “8166133”, however it should read “08166133.” The foreign patent document has been correctly listed on the “PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.”
Inventorship
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“FIGS. 12A and 112B” (Pg. 2, paragraph 0006, line 1). Should read “FIGS. 12A and 12B.”
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:
“Transmission body” in claim 1 (line 7). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “body” (Prong A); the term “body” is modified by functional language “transmission” (Prong B); and the term “body” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “transmission body” will be interpreted as periodically arranged plate-like stabs and a joint, or a flat sheet structure, and equivalents, as indicated by: “transmission body 10 includes periodic structure 12 in which the plurality of plate-like stabs 12a is periodically arranged and joint 13 to which one end of each of the plurality of stabs 12a is electrically and mechanically connected. However, transmission body 10 may have a different form. For example, the surface wave line may have a flat sheet structure with periodic structure. Periodic structure 12 may be a ladder, meander, or inter-digital type. The use of the flat sheet structure can downsize the high-frequency heating apparatus” (Pg. 14, paragraphs 0076-0077, lines 4-10).
“Radiation part” in claim 1 (line 9). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “part” (Prong A); the term “part” is modified by functional language “radiation” (Prong B); and the term “part” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “radiation part” will be interpreted as “a monopole antenna” and equivalents, as indicated by: “Radiation part 11 is a monopole antenna” (Pg. 7, paragraph 0030, line 6).
“Elevating drive mechanism” in claim 2 (line 13). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “elevating drive” (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “elevating drive mechanism” will be interpreted as “a motor” and equivalents, as indicated by: “the high- frequency heating apparatus according to the third exemplary embodiment is equipped with elevating drive mechanism 15 including a motor” (Pg. 9, paragraph 0047, lines 23-25).
“Setting unit” in claim 4 (line 27). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “setting” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “setting unit” will be interpreted as any device that has the capability of setting and equivalents.
“Rotary drive mechanism” in claim 9 (line 22). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “rotary drive” (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “rotary drive mechanism” will be interpreted as “a motor” and equivalents, as indicated by: “the high-frequency heating apparatus according to the second exemplary embodiment is equipped with rotary drive mechanism 14 including a motor” (Pg. 8, paragraph 0040, lines 22-24).
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “setting unit” in line 27. There is insufficient description for the “setting unit” and what it encompasses. The “setting unit” is being interpreted as any device that has the capability of setting, and equivalents.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9, and 11 are 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 “a distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body” in lines 15-16. The “heating target” of claim 2 is not a positively-recited structure of the system of claim 1. Although applicant may claim a structure functionally, any reference points being used to define a specific distance must be positively recited in the claims. Otherwise, the metes and bounds of the distance lacks clarity and definiteness. MPEP 2115 states, "[a] claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, '[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.' In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)." Thus, the claim limitation of a distance between the heating target and transmission body is unclear and indefinite. Examiner note: the distance will be interpreted as, between the transmission body and a top surface of the table.
Claim 3 recites “a distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body” in lines 21-22. The “heating target” of claim 3 is not a positively-recited structure of the system of claim 1. Although applicant may claim a structure functionally, any reference points being used to define a specific distance must be positively recited in the claims. Otherwise, the metes and bounds of the distance lacks clarity and definiteness. MPEP 2115 states, "[a] claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, '[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.' In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)." Thus, the claim limitation of a distance between the heating target and transmission body is unclear and indefinite. Examiner note: the distance will be interpreted as, between the transmission body and a top surface of the table.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a distance between the top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body” in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends upon claim 2, and the limitation “a distance between the top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body” is introduced in claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “a distance between the transmission body and the heating target” in lines 21-22. The “heating target” of claim 4 is not a positively-recited structure of the system of claim 1. Although applicant may claim a structure functionally, any reference points being used to define a specific distance must be positively recited in the claims. Otherwise, the metes and bounds of the distance lacks clarity and definiteness. MPEP 2115 states, "[a] claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, '[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.' In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)." Thus, the claim limitation of a distance between the transmission body and the heating target is unclear and indefinite. Examiner note: the distance will be interpreted as, between the transmission body and a top surface of the table.
Claim 4 recites “setting unit” in line 27. There is insufficient description for the “setting unit” and what it encompasses. Due to the lack of description for the “setting unit” and what it encompasses, the structure is unclear. Examiner note: the “setting unit” is being interpreted as any device that has the capability of setting, and equivalents.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a distance between the transmission body and the heating target” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends upon claims 2 and 3, and the limitation “a distance between the transmission body and the heating target” is introduced in claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirobe et al. (W.O. Patent Document No. 2019194098), hereinafter Hirobe.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Hirobe)
PNG
media_image2.png
264
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Hirobe)
PNG
media_image3.png
253
375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Hirobe)
Regarding claim 1, Hirobe discloses a high-frequency heating apparatus comprising:
a table (Fig. 1, “mounting base 6” [0023]) on which a heating target (Fig. 1, “object to be heated 5” [0023]) is to be placed;
a high-frequency power generator (Fig. 1, “high-frequency power generation unit 1” [0022]) configured to generate high-frequency power;
a transmission body (Figs. 1, 2, 3, “surface wave line 9(4)” [0028]) configured to propagate the high-frequency power as a surface wave; and
a radiation part (Figs. 1, 2, “loop antenna 3” [0022]) disposed on the transmission body and configured to radiate the surface wave as high-frequency power.
Examiner note: A monopole antenna and a loop antenna are seen as functionally equivalent in regards to claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application recites that the radiation part is “configured to radiate the surface wave as high-frequency power,” and Hirobe teaches “The loop antenna 3 radiates high-frequency power toward the surface wave transmission line 4” [0022]. Both the radiation part/monopole antenna and Hirobe’s loop antenna are capable of radiating the surface wave as high-frequency power, thus, for claim 1, Hirobe’s loop antenna and the instant application’s radiation part/monopole antenna are functionally equivalent.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe in view of Hosoda (W.O. Patent Document No. 2018168194).
Regarding claim 2, Hirobe does not expressly disclose an elevating drive mechanism configured to move the table up and down, and a controller configured control the elevating drive mechanism to a set distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body to not less than a predetermined distance.
PNG
media_image4.png
699
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Hosoda)
PNG
media_image5.png
482
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2a (Hosoda)
Hosoda is directed to a high-frequency heating apparatus further comprising:
an elevating drive mechanism (Fig. 1, “drive mechanism 171” [0016]) configured to move the table (Fig. 1, “mounting platform 130” [0016]) up and down “The stay 131 is held by the drive mechanism 171, and the drive mechanism 171 moves the stay 131 in the vertical direction, thereby moving the mounting base 130 in the vertical direction” [0016]; and a controller (Fig. 1, “control unit 190” [0030]) configured to control the elevating drive mechanism (“The control unit 190 performs drive control (movement control) of the drive mechanisms 171, 172, 173,and 174, and drive control of the high-frequency generator 180” [0030]), wherein the controller causes the elevating drive mechanism to set a distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1” [0034]) between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body (Fig. 1, “antenna 150” [0034]) to not less than a predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) so as to perform entire heating on the heating target by the high- frequency power, the entire heating entirely heating the heating target (“Figure 2(A) shows the simulation results of the frequency characteristics of the S11 parameter when the distance d1 between the antenna 150 and the mounting base 130 is changed, with the object to be heated 10 placed on the mounting base 130 and the positions of the mounting base 130, plate 140, and reflector 160 fixed. As shown in Figure 2(A), when the distance d1 was varied from 3.0 mm to 10 mm in 1.4 mm increments” [0034-0035]). Examiner note: In addition to structural limitations, claim 2 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “So as to perform entire heating on the heating target by the high- frequency power, the entire heating entirely heating the heating target.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Hosoda to have an elevating drive mechanism configured to move the table up and down, and a controller configured control the elevating drive mechanism to a set distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body to not less than a predetermined distance. Doing so allows for a user to control and match the impedance from the antenna, and reduce the microwave reflection, thus allowing for an improved energy supply efficiency, as recognized by Hosoda (“By changing the position of the mounting base 130, plate 140, antenna 150, or reflector 160, the impedance seen from the antenna 150 becomes more matched, and the intensity of the microwave reflection can be reduced. Therefore, it is possible to provide a microwave heating device 100 with improved energy supply efficiency to the object to be heated 10, and a control method for the microwave heating device 100” [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Hirobe does not expressly disclose the controller causing the elevating drive mechanism to a set distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body to not greater than the predetermined distance.
Hosoda is directed to a high-frequency heating apparatus wherein the controller causes the elevating drive mechanism to set a distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1” [0034]) between the top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body (Fig. 1, “antenna 150” [0034]) to not greater than the predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) so as to perform partial baking on the heating target by the surface wave, the partial baking browning a portion of the heating target (“Figure 2(A) shows the simulation results of the frequency characteristics of the S11 parameter when the distance d1 between the antenna 150 and the mounting base 130 is changed, with the object to be heated 10 placed on the mounting base 130 and the positions of the mounting base 130, plate 140, and reflector 160 fixed. As shown in Figure 2(A), when the distance d1 was varied from 3.0 mm to 10 mm in 1.4 mm increments” [0034-0035]). Examiner note: In addition to structural limitations, claim 3 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “So as to perform partial baking on the heating target by the surface wave, the partial baking browning a portion of the heating target.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Hosoda to have the elevating drive mechanism to a set distance between a top surface of the table or the heating target and the transmission body to not greater than the predetermined distance. Doing so allows for the frequency at which the intensity of the reflected wave to be decreased, thus resulting in an improved efficiency of energy supplied to the object to be heated, as recognized by Hosoda (“When the distance d1 was varied from 3.0 mm to 10 mm in 1.4 mm increments, the frequency at which the intensity of the reflected wave decreased tended to decrease around the 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz band (ISM band) as the distance d1 decreased… From this, it was confirmed that when the antenna 150 is moved closer to the mounting base 130 (moved upwards), the frequency band with low reflected wave intensity decreases” [0035]; “These results suggest that the frequency band with low reflected wave intensity also changes when the positions of the mounting base 130, plate 140, and reflector 160 are moved. Therefore, the microwave heating device 100 improves the efficiency of energy supply to the object to be heated 10 by controlling the positions of the mounting base 130, plate 140, antenna 150, and reflector 160” [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Hirobe does not expressly disclose a setting unit configured to enable a user to set a heating condition.
Hosoda is directed to a high-frequency heating apparatus further comprising a setting unit (“Switch to start heating process” [0040-0048]) configured to enable a user to set a heating condition (“predetermined control cycle” [0040-0048]), wherein the controller (Fig. 1, “control unit 190” [0040-0048]) causes the elevating drive mechanism to set, according to the heating condition, a distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1” [0034]) between the transmission body and the heating target to not greater than the predetermined distance so as to perform the partial baking, and the distance between the transmission body and the heating target to not less than the predetermined distance so as to perform the entire heating (“When the switch to start the heating process of the microwave heating device 100 is operated, the control unit 190 repeatedly executes the process shown in Figure 3 at a predetermined control cycle“ [0040]; “If the control unit 190 determines that the intensity of the reflected wave is 10% or more (S6: YES), it proceeds to step S5. As a result, in step S5, the control unit 190 controls the drive mechanisms 171, 172, 173, or 174 (movement control) while microwaves are being output from the antenna 150 at a predetermined low power, thereby changing the positions of the mounting base 130, plate 140, antenna 150, or reflector 160” [0048]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Hosoda to have a setting unit configured to enable a user to set a heating condition. Doing so allows for the user to start the heating process and control the microwave heating device. This is advantageous to the user because it allows them to control when to efficiently supply energy to a variety of foods or objects to be heated, as recognized by Hosoda (“By changing the position of the mounting base 130, plate 140, antenna 150, or reflector 160, the impedance seen from the antenna 150 becomes more matched, and the intensity of the microwave reflection can be reduced. Therefore, it is possible to provide a microwave heating device 100 with improved energy supply efficiency to the object to be heated 10, and a control method for the microwave heating device 100” [0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Hirobe does not expressly disclose the predetermined distance ranges from 5 mm to 15 mm inclusive.
Hosoda is directed to wherein the predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) ranges from 5 mm to 15 mm inclusive (“As shown in Figure 2(A), when the distance d1 was varied from 3.0 mm to 10 mm in 1.4 mm increments” [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Hosoda shows the overlap with the claimed predetermined distance (5 mm to 15 mm inclusive). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) of the prior art is (3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm) which overlaps with the claimed predetermined distance (5 mm to 15 mm inclusive) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Hirobe does not expressly disclose the predetermined distance ranges from 1/24 to 1/8 inclusive of a wavelength of the high-frequency power.
Hosoda is directed to wherein the predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) ranges from 1/24 to 1/8 inclusive of a wavelength of the high-frequency power (“As shown in Figure 2(A), when the distance d1 was varied from 3.0 mm to 10 mm in 1.4 mm increments” [0035]). Examiner note: In the instant application it is disclosed, “As an example, distance M1 is 5 mm. This value is equivalent to about 1/24 of wavelength 2. of 2.45-GHz high-frequency power” [0058], and “As an example, distance M2 is 15 mm. This value is equivalent to about 1/8 of wavelength X of 2.45-GHz high-frequency” [0063]. Thus, the predetermined distance of 1/24 to 1/8 inclusive of a wavelength of the high-frequency power is equivalent to 5mm-15mm inclusive.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Hosoda shows the overlap with the claimed predetermined distance (5 mm to 15 mm inclusive). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the predetermined distance (Fig. 2A, “distance d1 = 3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm” [0035]) of the prior art is (3.00mm, 4.4mm, 5.8mm, 7.2mm, 8.6mm, or 10.0mm) which overlaps with the claimed predetermined distance (5 mm to 15 mm inclusive) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe in view of Austin et al. (U.S. Patent Document No 4028521), hereinafter Austin.
Regarding claim 7, Hirobe does not expressly disclose wherein the radiation part includes a sloped portion tilted with respect to the transmission body, the sloped portion being provided at a tip of the radiation part.
PNG
media_image6.png
721
578
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Austin)
PNG
media_image7.png
210
587
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7a (Austin)
Austin is directed to wherein the radiation part (Fig. 7a, “antenna 130” [Col. 10, lines 22-37]) includes a sloped portion (Fig. 7a, “transitional portion 132” [Col. 10, lines 22-37]) tilted with respect to the transmission body (Fig. 3, “waveguide 52” [Col. 6, lines 36-49]), the sloped portion being provided at a tip (Fig. 7a, “first and second abrupt bends 134, 135” [Col. 10, lines 63-68]) of the radiation part.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Austin to have a sloped portion tilted with respect to the transmission body. Doing so allows for a direct guided wave component and minimized obstruction of the direct radiated wave, resulting in food that is more efficiently heated, as recognized by Austin (“In the simplified antenna configuration, it is found that the transitional portion, regardless of whether it is straight or curved, provides a direct guided wave component which controls the patterns of radiation within the cavity while minimizing obstruction of the directly radiated inertial wave” [Col. 2, lines 48-54]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirobe does not expressly disclose wherein the sloped portion is tilted toward the table.
Austin is directed to wherein the sloped portion (Fig. 7a, “transitional portion 132” [Col. 10, lines 22-37]) is tilted toward the table (Fig. 3, “grid-type shelf 36” [Col. 5, lines 37-41]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Austin to have the sloped portion is tilted toward the table. Doing so allows for the food or object to be heated to be in the path of the direct radiation from the antenna, thus allowing the food to be acted upon and more efficiently heated by the direct radiation, as recognized by Austin (“Our studies have shown that there is a still further factor which affects cooking efficiency and that is the extent to which the foodstuff is acted upon by direct radiation, that is, energy proceeding directly from the waveguide or antenna, as compared to the indirect radiation resulting from reflections within the cavity or reflections caused when blocking or altering the inertial wave. Increasing the amount of direct radiation reaching the foodstuff with controlled energy distribution not only improves the quality of cooking but also increases cooking efficiency. Analysis again shows that rotating antennas of sharply bent "L" or "T" configuration, being low in guided energy, are also low in the proportion of the energy reaching the foodstuff via a direct path, except when the foodstuffs are located centrally and in close proximity to the inertial wave” [Col. 2, lines 14-29]).
Regarding claim 10, Hirobe does not expressly disclose wherein length L of the radiation part satisfies a formula below:
L =
λ
/4+
λ
/2 x n
±
λ
/12,
whereas
λ
is a wavelength of the high-frequency power and n is an integer of 0 or more.
Austin is directed to wherein length L (Fig. 7a, “radial length” [Col. 10, lines 65-68]) of the radiation part (Fig. 7a, “antenna 130” [Col. 10, lines 22-37]) satisfies a formula below:
L =
λ
/4+
λ
/2 x n
±
λ
/12,
whereas
λ
is a wavelength of the high-frequency power and n is an integer of 0 or more (“The radial arm portion 133 has a length which is preferably greater than the transitional portion to improve radiation patterns and/or facilitate impedance matching while maintaining a low profile. In practical cases the total radial length of the antenna may be on the order of 2.0 to 5.0 inches. Preferably the total radial extent of the antenna should be 2 to 10 times the radius r of the hollow conductor” [Col. 10, lines 65-68; Col. 11, lines 1-4]). Examiner note: Austin teaches an antenna length on the order of 2.0 to 5.0 inches. If the antenna length is equal to 3.54 inches (90mm), and the frequency is equal to 2.45Ghz (
λ
= 120mm), n would be equivalent to 1. Thus, the equation is satisfied by Austin because 1 is an integer greater than 0.
90mm = 120mm/4 + 120mm/2 x n
±
120mm/12
90mm = 30mm + 60mm x n
±
10mm
60mm = 60mm x n
±
10mm
1 = n
±
10mm
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe to incorporate the teachings of Austin to have a length of the radiation part satisfy the formula. Doing so allows for the antenna to facilitate impedance matching and improve radiation patterns, as recognized by Austin (“The radial arm portion 133 has a length which is preferably greater than the transitional portion to improve radiation patterns and/or facilitate impedance matching while maintaining a low profile. In practical cases the total radial length of the antenna may be on the order of 2.0 to 5.0 inches. Preferably the total radial extent of the antenna should be 2 to 10 times the radius r of the hollow conductor” [Col. 10, lines 65-68; Col. 11, lines 1-4]).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe in view of Hosoda, further in view of Kashimoto et al. (J.P. Patent Document No. H07161471), hereinafter Kashimoto.
Regarding claim 9, Hirobe in view of Hosoda does not expressly disclose the high-frequency apparatus further comprising, a rotary drive mechanism configured to rotate the transmission body, wherein the controller causes the rotary drive mechanism to change a direction of the radiation part according to a placement position of the heating target.
PNG
media_image8.png
397
334
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 (Kashimoto)
Kashimoto is directed to the high-frequency apparatus further comprising, a rotary drive mechanism (Fig. 6 “motor 6” [0025]; “variable drive mechanism 13” [0025]) configured to rotate the transmission body (Fig. 6 “conductor line 5” [0025]), wherein the controller (Fig. 6 “control means 14” [0025]) causes the rotary drive mechanism to change a direction of the radiation part according to a placement position of the heating target “a variable mechanism that changes the rotation speed of the conductor line depending on the type of food, and control means that controls the output of the variable mechanism and the oscillation source” [0008]. Examiner note: In Hirobe, the radiation part is taught being positioned on an end of the transmission body, thus Kashimoto’s rotary drive mechanism (Fig. 6 “motor 6” [0025]; “variable drive mechanism 13” [0025]), that causes the rotation of the transmission body, would change the direction of the radiation part according to a placement position of the heating target.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe in view of Hosoda to incorporate the teachings of Kashimoto to have a rotary drive mechanism configured to rotate the transmission body, wherein the controller causes the rotary drive mechanism to change a direction of the radiation part according to a placement position of the heating target. Doing so allows for food that can be uniformly heated, as recognized by Kashimoto (“A high-frequency heating device can be provided that can heat food more uniformly and with finer texture than conventional devices by using a motor that rotates at high speed the high frequency concentrated on the conductor line by the surface waves generated on the conductor line with a simple shape” [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Hirobe in view of Hosoda does not expressly disclose the controller causes the high-frequency power generator to adjust a frequency of the high-frequency power.
Kashimoto is directed to wherein the controller (Fig. 6, “control means 14” [0025]) causes the high-frequency power generator (Fig. 6, “magnetron 2” [0025]) to adjust a frequency of the high-frequency power (“The present invention provides a configuration that includes an oscillation source that oscillates high frequency… and control means that controls the output of the variable mechanism and the oscillation source” [0008]; “By adjusting the amount of high-frequency power using a variable mechanism that changes the rotation speed of the motor according to the type of food, the appropriate high-frequency power is supplied for heating solids and frozen foods, providing a high-frequency heating device that enables uniform and efficient heating” [0030]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirobe in view of Hosoda to incorporate the teachings of Kashimoto to have the controller cause the high-frequency power generator to adjust a frequency of the high-frequency power. Doing so allows for a wide variety of foods to be heated efficiently and, as recognized by Kashimoto (“By adjusting the amount of high-frequency power using a variable mechanism that changes the rotation speed of the motor according to the type of food, the appropriate high-frequency power is supplied for heating solids and frozen foods, providing a high-frequency heating device that enables uniform and efficient heating” [0030]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image9.png
174
526
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 1a (Jangal)
Jangal et al. (E.S. Patent Document No. 2588927), hereinafter Jangal, discloses a radiation part (Fig. 1a, “monopole antenna 3” [0180]), a transmission body (Fig. 1a, “inductive surface element 2” [0138]), and a high frequency generator (Fig. 1a, “source 4” [0024]). Jangal does not teach a table for placing a heating target, an elevating drive mechanism, or a rotary drive mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 05/28/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights