Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 7/27/26 response to the Office Action dated 4/27/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 5 and 14 are amended.
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth claim objections so those objections are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's remark on pgs. 7 and 8 that the present application addresses a fundamentally different technical problem than Wu or Yamashita, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 II, “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”.
On pg. 7, Applicant states Wu does not teach or suggest (1) a clamping portion including a first clamping end and a second clamping end defining a clamping port there between; (2) a stop structure protruding from the first clamping end; (3) the stop structure extending the dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port; or (4) the use of such structure to enhance retention of a rotary shaft within the clamping port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejection to claims 1 and 14 below.
On pg. 8, Applicant states Yamashita does not disclose the stop structure extends the dimension of the first clamping end. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejection to claims 1 and 14 below.
In response to Applicant's remarks on pg. 9 that when the door body is in the closed state, a first angle formed between the first assembly surface and a vertical plane is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10°; the distance H be greater than or equal to one-half of the diameter D of the rotary shaft; and Yamashita neither recognizes the disengagement problem addressed by Applicant nor teaches the claimed ranges as a solution thereto, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 II.
On pgs. 9-10, Applicant states Examiner has not established a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select these claimed values with a reasonable expectation of achieving Applicant's disclosed retention benefits, so a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. Examiner respectfully disagrees. On pgs. 12-15 of the previous Office Action, Examiner explained the figures of Yamashita teach values close to the claimed ranges, but that per MPEP 2144.05 (i), “It has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. Additionally, Examiner noted 1) making the first angle greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10° would provide the predicable benefit of making it easier to assemble door pin 20 and door arm 7 and 2) making the distance H greater than or equal to D/2 would provide the predicable benefit of mitigating the effect thermal expansion has on the ability of the pull rod structure to rotate about the rotary shaft.
On pg. 10, Applicant states Iwasaki does not disclose limitation in claim 9 of the folded-edge geometry that enlarges the contact area between the abutting structure and damping structure while maintaining integral formation with the pull rod structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per the Claim Interpretation section, an ‘abutting structure’ is a folded edge structure and equivalents thereof and equivalents thereof. Given the pressing plate 24 has the same or substantially the same function as the disclosed abutting structure, pressing plate 24 is an equivalent thereof. See MPEP 2183 (A). 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 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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 9, lines 3-4: abutting structure. The nonce term “structure” is modified by functional language “abutting” and “for detachably abutting the damping structure”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a folded edge structure, as specified in Claim 10 and Par. 0032, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claim 12.
Claim 13, lines 2-3: elastic member. The nonce term “member” is modified by functional language “elastic” and “for resetting the pull rod structure”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a spring, as specified in Par. 0113, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN211115445U, hereafter Wu, as cited in the Applicant’s 1/14/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a door assembly (Fig. 6, at least door 2 and pull rod 7), comprising:
a pull rod structure (Fig. 2, pull rod 7) with a head portion (Fig. 3, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5) having a clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in left end of pull rod 7);
a stop structure, provided at the clamping port (annotated Fig. A, stop structure), protruding from the pull rod structure in an opening direction of the clamping port (Fig. 2, upwards direction);
a door body (Figs. 2-3, door body 2), comprising a rotary shaft, the rotary shaft being clamped into the clamping port (Fig. 3, second connecting shaft 5.5); wherein
the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5) is provided with a clamping portion (annotated Fig. A, clamping portion), and the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in left end of pull rod 7) is provided on the clamping portion (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. A);
the clamping portion comprises:
a first clamping end, the stop structure protruding from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. B); and
a second clamping end spaced apart from the first clamping end, with the clamping port located between the first clamping end and the second clamping end (annotated Fig. B);
the first clamping end is disposed closer to a tail portion of the pull rod structure than the second clamping end (Fig. 4 and annotated Fig. B); and
the stop structure extends a dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (annotated Fig. B) to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port (Examiner notes “to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stop structure extends the dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (See annotated Fig. B) which further restricts the rotary shaft to the first clamping end and increases the distance the rotary shaft would need to be displaced to become disengaged from the clamping port; therefore, the stop structure must necessarily be capable of enhancing a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reducing a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
167
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Stop structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Clamping
portion)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Wu showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image3.png
412
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second clamping end)][AltContent: textbox (Stop structure)][AltContent: textbox (Clamping port)][AltContent: textbox (First clamping end)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Wu showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 1, wherein, a dimension of the stop structure protruding from the pull rod structure (annotated Fig. A, height of stop structure) gradually increases from a tail portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 2, right end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with tension spring 8) to the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 1, wherein, the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5) is provided with a clamping portion (annotated Fig. A, clamping portion), the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in pull rod 7) is provided on the clamping portion (Fig. 2), and the stop structure protrudes from said the clamping portion (annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 3, wherein the clamping portion comprises:
a first clamping end, the stop structure protruding from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. A, section of clamping portion to the right of the notch (i.e., clamping port));
a second clamping end, spaced apart from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. A, section of clamping portion to the left of the notch (i.e., clamping port)), with the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in pull rod 7) located between the first clamping end and the second clamping end (annotated Fig. A).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 1, wherein, the stop structure (annotated Fig. A, stop structure) and the pull rod structure (Fig. 2, pull rod 7) are of one-piece structures (Fig. 2 identifies the two structures as pull rod 7, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the stop structure and pull rod 7 comprise a one-piece structure).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 2 further comprising: a mounting structure (Fig. 4, hinge support 6), the pull rod structure (Fig. 2, pull rod 7) being rotationally connected to the mounting structure (Par. 0028, which discloses pulley 3 is fixedly connected to hinge support 6 and Par. 0029, which discloses pull rod 7 can swing on pulley 3. Therefore, pull rod 7 is rotationally connected to the mounting structure. Reference Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses a cooking appliance, comprising:
an appliance body (Fig. 5, housing 1);
a door assembly (Fig. 6, at least door 2 and pull rod 7), comprising:
a pull rod structure (Fig. 2, pull rod 7) with a head portion (Fig. 2, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5) having a clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in pull rod 7);
a stop structure, provided at the clamping port (annotated Fig. A, stop structure), protruding from the pull rod structure in an opening direction of the clamping port (Fig. 2, upwards direction);
a door body (Figs. 2-3, door body 2), comprising a rotary shaft, the rotary shaft being clamped into the clamping port (Fig. 3, second connecting shaft 5.5), a door body of the door assembly being open-closely connected to the appliance body (Figs. 5-6), and a mounting structure of the door assembly (Fig. 4, hinge support 6) being provided on the appliance body (Fig. 5 and Par. 0028, which discloses the hinge support 6 is fixed to the housing 1); wherein
the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with second connecting shaft 5.5) is provided with a clamping portion (annotated Fig. A, clamping portion), and the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in left end of pull rod 7) is provided on the clamping portion (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. A);
the clamping portion comprises:
a first clamping end, the stop structure protruding from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. B); and
a second clamping end spaced apart from the first clamping end, with the clamping port located between the first clamping end and the second clamping end (annotated Fig. B);
the first clamping end is disposed closer to a tail portion of the pull rod structure than the second clamping end (Fig. 4 and annotated Fig. B); and
the stop structure extends a dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (annotated Fig. B) to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port (Examiner notes “to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stop structure extends the dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (See annotated Fig. B) which further restricts the rotary shaft to the first clamping end and increases the distance the rotary shaft would need to be displaced to become disengaged from the clamping port; therefore, the stop structure must necessarily be capable of enhancing a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reducing a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port as claimed).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 4 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 4 above.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (JP2007218544A, hereafter Yamashita, as cited in the Applicant’s 1/14/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a door assembly (Fig. 6, at least door 6, door arm 7, door pin 20), comprising:
a pull rod structure (Fig. 6, door arm 7) with a head portion (Fig. 6, left end of door arm 7. Note this end mates with door pin 20) having a clamping port (Fig. 6, there must necessarily be a notch / clamping port on the right end of door arm 7 in order for the door arm 7 to be rotatably supported by door pin 20 as disclosed. See Par. 0015);
a stop structure, provided at the clamping port (annotated Fig. C, stop structure), protruding from the pull rod structure in an opening direction of the clamping port (Fig. 6, upwards direction);
a door body (Figs. 6, door 6), comprising a rotary shaft, the rotary shaft being clamped into the clamping port (Fig. 6, door pin 20); wherein
the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of door arm 7. Note this end mates with door pin 20) is provided with a clamping portion (annotated Fig. A, clamping portion), and the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in left end of pull rod 7) is provided on the clamping portion (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. A);
the clamping portion comprises:
a first clamping end, the stop structure protruding from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. C); and
a second clamping end spaced apart from the first clamping end, with the clamping port located between the first clamping end and the second clamping end (annotated Fig. C);
the first clamping end is disposed closer to a tail portion of the pull rod structure than the second clamping end (Fig. 7 and annotated Fig. C); and
the stop structure extends a dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (annotated Fig. C) to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port (Examiner notes “to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stop structure extends the dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (See annotated Fig. C) which further restricts the rotary shaft to the first clamping end and increases the distance the rotary shaft would need to be displaced to become disengaged from the clamping port; therefore, the stop structure must necessarily be capable of enhancing a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reducing a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port as claimed).
PNG
media_image5.png
450
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stop structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Clamping port)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second clamping end)][AltContent: textbox (First clamping end)]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 6 from Yamashita showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita discloses a cooking appliance (Par. 0010, “main body 1 of the high-frequency heating apparatus…cooking of the food”), comprising:
an appliance body (Fig. 6, main body 1);
a door assembly (Fig. 6, at least door 6, door arm 7, door pin 20), comprising:
a pull rod structure (Fig. 6, door arm 7) with a head portion (Fig. 6, left end of door arm 7. Note this end mates with door pin 20) having a clamping port (Fig. 6, there must necessarily be a notch / clamping port on the right end of door arm 7 in order for the door arm 7 to be rotatably supported by door pin 20 as disclosed. See Par. 0015);
a stop structure, provided at the clamping port (annotated Fig. C, stop structure), protruding from the pull rod structure in an opening direction of the clamping port (Fig. 6, upwards direction);
a door body (Figs. 6, door 6), comprising a rotary shaft, the rotary shaft being clamped into the clamping port (Fig. 6, door pin 20), a door body of the door assembly being open-closely connected to the appliance body (Figs. 6-7), and a mounting structure of the door assembly (Fig. 6, portion of main body 1 underneath cabinet 8) being provided on the appliance body (Fig. 6); wherein
the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 3, left end of door arm 7. Note this end mates with door pin 20) is provided with a clamping portion (annotated Fig. A, clamping portion), and the clamping port (Fig. 2, notch in left end of pull rod 7) is provided on the clamping portion (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. A);
the clamping portion comprises:
a first clamping end, the stop structure protruding from the first clamping end (annotated Fig. C); and
a second clamping end spaced apart from the first clamping end, with the clamping port located between the first clamping end and the second clamping end (annotated Fig. C);
the first clamping end is disposed closer to a tail portion of the pull rod structure than the second clamping end (Fig. 7 and annotated Fig. C); and
the stop structure extends a dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (annotated Fig. C) to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port (Examiner notes “to enhance a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reduce a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port” is a recitation of functional language so the prior art must only be capable of performing the recited function. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stop structure extends the dimension of the first clamping end in the opening direction of the clamping port (See annotated Fig. C) which further restricts the rotary shaft to the first clamping end and increases the distance the rotary shaft would need to be displaced to become disengaged from the clamping port; therefore, the stop structure must necessarily be capable of enhancing a restricting effect of the first clamping end on the rotary shaft and reducing a possibility of the rotary shaft disengaging from the clamping port as claimed).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita discloses the cooking appliance according to claim 14, wherein, the cooking appliance comprises one or more of: a microwave oven or an oven (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand Fig. 5 shows at least a microwave oven or an oven. Reference Pars. 0005 and 0010).
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 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (CN211115445U, hereafter Yamashita, as cited in the Applicant’s 1/14/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita discloses the door assembly according claim 1, wherein, the clamping port (Fig. 6, notch / clamping port on the right end of door arm 7, as explained in claim 1) comprises a first assembly surface (Fig. 2, surface of door arm 7 that forms the right side of the notch / clamping port. See annotated Fig. D) and a second assembly surface which are set opposite each other (Fig. 2, surface of door arm 7 that forms the left side of the notch / clamping port), the second assembly surface being proximate to the head portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 6, left end of door arm 7. Note this end mates with door pin 20) compared the first assembly surface (Fig. 6);
with the door body in a closed state (Fig. 6), a first angle is formed between the first assembly surface and a vertical plane, the first angle being greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10° (annotated, Fig. D).
PNG
media_image7.png
471
638
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First assembly surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First angle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 6 from Yamashita showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Yamashita is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Figure C does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that the first angle is close to the claimed range.
It would have been an obvious matter to make the first angle being greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10° since it has been held that when claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I), stating “It has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists…In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped)”. In this case, making the first angle greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10° would provide the predicable benefit of making it easier to assemble door pin 20 and door arm 7.
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita discloses the door assembly according to claim 1, wherein, with the door body in a closed state (Fig. 6), a first horizontal line (annotated Fig. E, first horizontal line) is tangent to a bottom wall of the clamping port (Fig. 6, bottom wall of notch / clamping port, as explained in claim 1), a second horizontal line (annotated Fig. E, second horizontal line) is tangent to a top of the stop structure (annotated Fig. C, stop structure), and a distance H between the first horizontal line and the second horizontal line (annotated Fig. E, distance between first and second horizontal lines) is greater than or equal to D/2, wherein D is the diameter of the rotary shaft (Fig. 6, diameter of door pin 20. Note distance H is greater than or equal to half the diameter of door pin 20).
PNG
media_image5.png
450
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First assembly surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second horizontal line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First horizontal line)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. E: Annotated copy of Fig. 6 from Yamashita showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, per MPEP 2125 II, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Yamashita is silent regarding the scale of the drawings, therefore annotated Figure D does not in itself read on the claims. Instead, it suggests that distance H is close to greater than or equal to D/2, as claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter to make the distance H greater than or equal to D/2 since it has been held that when claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I), stating “It has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists…In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped)”. In this case, making the distance H greater than or equal to D/2 would provide the predicable benefit of mitigating the effect thermal expansion has on the ability of the pull rod structure to rotate about the rotary shaft.
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 5 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 6 above.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN211115445U, hereafter Wu, as cited in the Applicant’s 1/14/2024 IDS) in view of Iwasaki (JP2009139020A).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 8.
However, Wu does not disclose a damping structure, provided on the mounting structure;
an abutting structure, disposed at the tail portion of the pull rod structure and for detachably abutting the damping structure.
Iwasaki discloses a door assembly (Fig. 1, at least door 13, door arm 21) similar to the present invention and Iwasaki further discloses it is known for a door (Fig. 1, door 13) to have a damping structure (Fig. 1, dampers 31A, 31B and attachment tool 32), provided on a mounting structure (Fig. 1, housing 11);
an abutting structure (Fig. 1, pressing plate 24. Examiner notes these structures are equivalent to the ‘folded edge structure’ and its equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above), disposed at a tail portion of a pull rod structure (Fig. 1, left end of door arm 21. Note this end mates with spring 12) and for detachably abutting the damping structure (Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door assembly of Wu to have the damping structure and abutting structure as taught by Iwasaki in order to have a damping structure, provided on the mounting structure and an abutting structure, disposed at the tail portion of the pull rod structure and for detachably abutting the damping structure and thereby smoothly close the door (Pg. 3, ‘Solution’, “In closing the door 13 fitted to an opening face of a heating chamber 12, a plurality of dampers 31 are operated in order, so that a turning speed of the door does not drop suddenly, and smooth closing operation is achieved”) for increased user convenience.
Regarding claim 10, Wu, as modified above, discloses the door assembly according to claim 9, wherein, a folded edge structure (Iwasaki: Fig. 4, perimeter of pressing plate 24) provided at the tail portion of the pull rod structure (Iwasaki: Fig. 1, left end of door arm 21. Note this end mates with spring 12), and the folded edge structure forming the abutting structure (Iwasaki: Figs. 1 and 4, pressing plate 24).
Regarding claim 11, Wu, as modified above, discloses the door assembly according to claim 10, wherein the folded edge structure (Iwasaki: Fig. 4, perimeter of pressing plate 24) comprises:
a first folded edge (annotated Fig. F, first folded edge), connected to the tail portion of the pull rod structure (Iwasaki: Fig. 1, right end of door arm 21. Note this end mates with spring 12);
a second folded edge (annotated Fig. F, second folded edge), connected to the first folded edge and for detachably abutting the damping structure (Iwasaki: Figs. 1-3, dampers 31A, 31B and attachment tool 32), the second folded edge being bent in a different direction than the first folded edge with respect to the pull rod structure (Iwasaki: Fig. 1, door arm 21).
PNG
media_image9.png
255
389
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First folded edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second folded edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
Fig. F: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Iwasaki showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 12, Wu, as modified above, discloses the door assembly according to claim 9, wherein, the damping structure comprises a damper (Iwasaki: Figs. 1-3, dampers 31A, 31B).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses the door assembly according to claim 9, wherein further comprising: an elastic member (Fig. 4, tension spring 8. Examiner notes these structures are equivalent to the ‘spring’ and its equivalents described in the Claim Interpretation section above) removably connected (Par. 0036, which discloses tension spring 8 is hooked at either end, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand necessarily means the tension spring 8 is removably connected) to the tail portion of the pull rod structure (Fig. 2, right end of pull rod 7. Note this end mates with tension spring 8) and the mounting structure (Fig. 4, hinge support 6. Reference Par. 0017), the elastic member for resetting the pull rod structure (Reference Figs. 5, 2 and 3. As the door body 2 opens, the tension spring 8 expands. Therefore, tension spring 8 must necessarily reset the pull rod 7 to the position shown in Fig. 5, wherein the tension spring 8 is compressed).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights