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.
“Shielding means” in claim 1 is interpreted to mean an insulating member based on the specification par. 256.
“Original position detection means” in claims 14-15 is interpreted to mean at least one a position switch or lever based the specification par. 225.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-10 and 14 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 9 recites “an edge of the upper hole” which lacks antecedent basis. It will be interpreted as –an edge of an upper hole--.
Claim 10 recites “the plurality of choke pieces” which lacks antecedent basis and it unclear if it referring to the “a choke piece” recited in claim 9. It will be interpreted as --the choke piece comprises a plurality of choke pieces--.
Claim 14 recites “wherein a control of contact or proximity of the insulating member and the upper plate is performed by an original position detection means.” It is unclear how a position lever/switch can control contact of the insulating member and upper plate, additionally structure is needed to take the signal produced by the switch/lever for “control of contact.”
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Tateda (US 4137442 A).
Claim 1. Tateda discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 1) comprising:
a casing (oven with an outer casing, Fig. 1) in which a cooking chamber (oven cavity 1, Fig. 1) is provided;
a door configured to open and close the cooking chamber (door 10, Fig. 1);
a moving assembly (browning unit 3, Fig. 2) configured to be movable vertically inside the cooking chamber (lever 9 can shift the browning unit up and down, col 5, lines 50-60) and provided with a heater (browning unit 3 with a heat generating means 14, col 3 lines 35-50), and
a shielding means configured to prevent leakage of electromagnetic waves through a gap between the casing and the moving assembly (choke mechanism 17 to prevent the supporting pipe 15 which holds up the browning unit, col 3, lines 50-60, Fig. 3, and has an insulating bearing 28).
Claim 2. Tateda discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the shielding means is provided at a lower end of the moving assembly (choke mechanism 17 is near the lower end of the browning unit 3, Fig. 3) and includes an insulating member (insulating bearing 28), an outer edge thereof protrudes outward further than the moving assembly (outer edge of 17 is protrudes outward from the browning unit, Fig. 3).
Claim 3. Tateda discloses the cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein the shielding means further includes a protection cover (reflector plate 13) provided in the casing to laterally surround the moving assembly (reflector plate 13 surrounds the browning unit, Fig. 2).
Claim 4. Tateda discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the shielding means is provided with a resonance chamber that traps or offsets electromagnetic waves (clearance 31, Fig. 3, col 4 lines 40-47).
Claim 5. Tateda discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the insulating member or the protection cover is provided with a resonance chamber that traps or offsets electromagnetic waves (insulated bearing 28 is part of the clearance 31, Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20070008043 A) in view of Kwon (US 2018/0092486 A1).
Claim 1. Park discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 1) comprising:
a casing (cavity assembly 20, Fig. 1) in which a cooking chamber (oven cavity, Fig. 1) is provided;
a door configured to open and close the cooking chamber (door not shown, page 16);
a
a shielding means configured to prevent leakage of electromagnetic waves through a gap between the casing and the moving assembly (choke member 42, Fig. 1, abstract).
Park does not disclose a moving assembly configured to be movable vertically inside the cooking chamber.
Kwon discloses a moving heater module (110, 163 and all associated actuation structure) in an accommodation space (interior of 10) of a microwave (Fig. 13) the heater module configured to move into the cooking space (Fig. 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 Park to incorporate the teachings of Kwon and have Park’s heater move vertically down into the chamber. Doing so would have the benefit of providing a mixed heating regime for the microwave oven that can provide the benefits of mixed cooking (par. 4, Kwon).
Claim 2. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the shielding means is provided at a lower end of the moving assembly (42 is at the bottom of the heater 38, Fig. 2) and includes an insulating member (insulating member between heater and choke, page 14), an outer edge thereof protrudes outward further than the moving assembly (42 protrudes out from the heater, Fig. 1).
Claim 3. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein the shielding means further includes a protection cover (42) provided in the casing to laterally surround the moving assembly (42 surrounds the heater, Fig. 1, which is mounted on Kwon’s actuator).
Claim 7. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the protection cover is provided at one portion of an upper plate forming an upper surface of the cooking chamber (42 is at one portion of the upper plate 30, Fig. 2).
Claim 8. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 7, wherein an upper hole (heater opening 34, Fig. 2) is formed in the upper plate to penetrate vertically, which serves as a path for the moving assembly to move vertically (combined prior art has the heater move up and down vertically from the opening).
Claim 9. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein a choke piece (choke structure 42c) is provided at an edge of the upper hole (heater opening 34, Fig. 2) to shield electromagnetic wave leakage in the cooking chamber.
Claim 10. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the plurality of choke pieces are formed at equal intervals from each other (plurality of choke pieces separated by intervals, Fig. 3).
Claim 11. Park in view of Kwon discloses the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the choke piece is vertically bent from an edge of the upper hole to extend upward (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwon as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim ‘751 (2014/0079751 A1).
Claim 5. Park in view of Kwon does not disclose the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the insulating member or the protection cover is provided with a resonance chamber that traps or offsets electromagnetic waves.
Kim ‘751 discloses a microwave wherein the choke cover has a chamber (Fig. 7) for chocking electromagnetic waves (par. 41).
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 Park in view of Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘751 and have a choke chamber disclosed in Kim ‘751. Doing so would have the benefit of eliminating microwaves (par. 41, Kim ‘751).
Claim 6. Park in view of Kwon and Kim ‘751 discloses the cooking appliance of claim 5, wherein the insulating member and the protection cover have a structure in which a predetermined portion thereof vertically overlaps (insulating member is between the heater and choke, page 14, and with a raised portion of the choke with the chamber structure, a portion of the choke or protection cover will vertically overlap with the insulating member).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim ‘680 (US 2017/0245680 A1).
Claim 12. Park in view of Kwon does not disclose the cooking appliance of claim 11, wherein a choke groove recessed on one side is formed in the choke piece.
Kim ‘680 discloses a microwave oven wherein the chock 43 includes a plurality of incised grooves 45 (fig. 3) in directions of long and short sides to offset and eliminate microwaves (par. 67).
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 Park in view of Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘680 and have grooves on the choke pieces. Doing so would have the benefit of eliminating microwaves (par. 67, Kim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 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:
The prior art of record does not disclose that the insulating member and the upper plate overlap each other or come into contact with each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights