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 .
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:
connecting member in claims 1, 4-5, 8, 14, and 16.
Supporting portion in claims 5-7 and 14-15
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0020308 by Cha et al (hereinafter “Cha”) in view of KR 20040045282 by Tani (hereinafter “Tani”) .
Regarding claim 1, Cha teaches a drawer apparatus (Fig 1 drawer unit 40) comprising:
a drawer casing (Fig 4 drawer casing 300);
a drawer configured to slide to be inserted into the drawer casing and slide to be withdrawn from the drawer casing (Fig 3 drawer 100, Fig 7 shows drawer 100 partially inserted into casing 300) , the drawer including a drawer body (Fig 3 drawer body 120) having an internal space to accommodate a cooking material (Fig 3 accommodation space S), and a front panel coupled to a front portion of the drawer body (Fig 3 front panel 110), and
a heater in the drawer casing to generate heat to heat the internal space to thereby heat the cooking material accommodated in the internal space (Fig 4 warming heater 200).
But Cha is silent as to the additional components which form the front panel and so does not explicitly teach that the front panel includes: a first panel forming a front surface of the front panel, a second panel behind the first panel, and a connecting member coupled to the first panel and to the second panel, wherein the connecting member contacts the first panel so that the first panel and the connecting member together form a double layer structure between the internal space and the front surface to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface.
However, Tani teaches a cooking apparatus door with a front panel wherein the front panel includes:
a first panel forming a front surface of the front panel (Fig 2 front panel 5 and including glass plate 7),
a second panel behind the first panel (Fig 2 door frame 4), and
a connecting member coupled to the first panel and to the second panel (Fig 2 heat blocking member 12), wherein the connecting member contacts the first panel so that the first panel and the connecting member together form a double layer structure between the internal space and the front surface to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface (Fig 2 connecting member 12 contacts first panel 5 at edge piece 15, first panel 5 and connecting member 12 form double-layered structure and perform the function of preventing conduction of heat to front surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drawer apparatus of Cha by using a front panel such as that taught by Tani such that the front panel includes a first panel forming a front surface of the front panel, a second panel behind the first panel, and a connecting member coupled to the first panel and to the second panel, wherein the connecting member contacts the first panel so that the first panel and the connecting member together form a double layer structure between the internal space and the front surface to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface. This front panel is already known in the art as an equivalent structure for use in closing the front opening of a cooking apparatus and has the particular advantage of a reduced transfer of heat to the front panel, and in particular, to the handle, so that the user can more comfortably grip the handle and the risk of injury is reduced.
Regarding claim 2, Cha modified with the front panel of Tani, teaches the drawer apparatus of claim 1. Tani further teaches that the second panel includes a first area separated from the first panel by a space to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface through the space (Fig 2 rear-most area of 4), and a second area along an edge of the first area having a portion in contact with the first panel (Fig 2 top edge of 4 which contact the first panel).
Regarding claim 3, Tani further teaches that the second area is inclined toward the first panel so that the portion in contact with the first panel is an edge portion of the second area (Fig 2 top edge of 4 is inclined toward glass panel 7 of first panel and an edge portion is in contact with first panel).
Regarding claim 4, Cha modified with the front panel of Tani, teaches the drawer apparatus of claim 1. Tani further teaches that the connecting member contacts the second panel so that the second panel and the connecting member together form a double layer structure between the internal space and the front surface to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface (Fig 2 connecting member 12 includes first heat insulation plate 13 with tongue-shaped pieces 18 which contact second panel 4 and result in a double layer of 12 and 4 that performs the claimed function).
Regarding claim 5, Tani further teaches that the connecting member includes a supporting portion supporting the first area (Fig 2 tongue-shaped pieces 18).
Regarding claim 6, Tani further teaches that at least a portion of the first area is in contact with the supporting portion (Fig 2 a portion of first area is in contact with supporting portion 18).
Regarding claim 8, Tani further teaches that the connecting member includes a first coupling portion coupled to the first panel (see Examiner Annotated Figure A below, first coupling portion is an upper portion of first heat insulation plate 13 and couples to first panel at least at edge piece 15), and a second coupling portion extending from the first coupling portion and coupled to the second panel (Examiner Annotated Figure A, second coupling portion couples to second panel through tongue-shaped pieces 18 and though holes 19 for connecting parts 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 4 of Tani, showing the first and second coupling portions
Regarding claim 9, Tani further teaches that the first panel and the first coupling portion together form the double layer structure (Fig 2 first panel 5/7 and first coupling portion form a double layer structure that prevents heat conduction to the front surface).
Regarding claim 11, Tani further teaches that the second coupling portion (see Examiner Annotated Figure A) includes a second coupling area (central portion of second coupling portion not including 18), and a second coupling hole formed in the second coupling area (Fig 4 and Examiner Annotated Figure A, center through hole 19) and the second panel includes a second fixing hole corresponding to the second coupling hole (Fig 2, second panel 4 screwed to connecting part 11 through hole in second panel corresponding to second coupling hole).
Regarding claim 12, Tani further teaches that the second fixing hole is formed in the first area (Fig 2; second fixing hole, through which screw is screwed into 11, is on first area of second panel).
Regarding claim 14, Tani further teaches that the supporting portion protrudes from the connecting member (Figs 3 and 4, supporting portion 18 protrudes from connecting member 12).
Regarding claim 15, Tani further teaches that the first area is spaced from the first panel to form a gap between the first area and the first panel (Fig 2), and the supporting portion protrudes towards the first area and closes the gap (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 16, Tani teaches that the connecting member contacts the second panel so that the second panel and the connecting member together form a double layer structure between the internal space and the front surface to prevent heat generated by the heater and heating the internal space from conducting to the front surface (Fig 2 connecting member 12 includes first heat insulation plate 13 with tongue-shaped pieces 18 which contact second panel 4 and result in a double layer of 12 and 4 that performs the claimed function).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha and Tani as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, but use a different interpretation than used above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Cha as modified by Tani teaches the drawer apparatus of claim 2 (see details in claim 2 rejection above). Tani further teaches that the connecting member includes a supporting portion supporting the first area (Fig 2 first heat-blocking plate 13 with tongue-shaped pieces 18).
Regarding claim 7, Tani teaches that the supporting portion and the first area together form the double layer structure (Fig 2 supporting portion 13 and first area of 4 form a double layer structure which performs the function of preventing heat conduction to front surface).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, none of the other prior art of record teaches or suggests a drawer apparatus with all of the limitations of claim 10, particularly the limitation that a the first panel includes a first fixing hole corresponding to the first coupling hole in the first coupling portion. Therefore, this limitation, along with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Cha modified with the front panel of Tani, teaches the drawer apparatus of claim 8. Tani further teaches that the first coupling portion includes a first coupling area contacting the first panel (Fig 2 and Examiner Annotated Figure A, edge piece 15), and a coupling hole formed in the first coupling area (Examiner Annotated Figure A, holes 16). But Cha/Tani does not teach that the first panel includes a first fixing hole corresponding to the first coupling hole, nor would it have been obvious to modify Cha/Tani with this limitation.
Claim 13 is allowable at least because it depends from claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB 803789 by Hicks teaches a drawer assembly for an oven with a front panel where the front panel includes a first panel, a second panel, and a fastener as a connecting member.
DE 102006042173 by Lappat et al teaches a drawer assembly for an oven with a front panel including a first panel, a second panel, and a cover as a connecting member.
US 2021/0108802 by Mills et al teaches a drawer assembly for an oven with a front panel including a first panel, a second panel, and hinges between the first and second panel.
US 2013/0319994 by Bringe et al teaches a warming drawer of an oven with a front panel having a first panel, a second panel, and a connecting member connecting the first and second panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights