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 .
Drawings
Figures 18 and 19 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the dense black lines of Reference numbers 3, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 7, 7’ and 13 of Figure 18 obscure the clarity of the drawing because the thick bold lines the drawing along with the arrows pointing to what the reference numeral represents, make it difficult to ascertain exactly what the detail of the drawing is trying to represent. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence of the abstract appears to be the title of the claimed invention, failing to talk about the technical disclosure of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment to the Specification filed 05/09/2024 is objected to under 35
U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. An
incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective
because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C.
132(a)). An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and
national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. See MPEP 1893.03(b) and 35 U.S.C.
363. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“[1] This application is a U.S. National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT Application No. PCT/KR2022/015793, filed October 18, 2022, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application Nos. No. 10-2022-0002471 filed in Korea on January 7, 2022 and 10-2022-0055322 filed in Korea on May 4, 2022, whose entire disclosures are hereby incorporated by reference.”
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application
PCT/KR2022/015793 and of the Korean patent applications No. 10-2022-0002471 and 10-2022-0055322 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 10/18/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 05/09/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: "latch(ing) mechanism" in Claims 1, 6, 18; “driving unit” in Claims 1, 2, and 18; and “door configuration key” in Claims 1, 6, 12, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27.
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.
“Lathch(ing) Mechanism”
Prong (A) is invoked by the claims reciting the generic placeholder of a latch(ing) mechanism.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “to maintain the door in a closed position”.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure of “a latch configured to move vertically when the latch is inserted or withdrawn from the opening” as found in Claim 18 provides sufficient additional structure such that 112(f) is no longer invoked.
“Driving Unit”
Prong (A) is invoked by the claims reciting the generic placeholder “unit”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because the “unit” is modified by the functional language “configured to move the lever”.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structures of “a motor having a driving shaft extending downward. The driving shaft may be disposed to the center in the direction of the planar surface of the driving unit” in Para [0234] provides sufficient additional structure such that 112(f) is no longer invoked.
“Door Configuration Key”
Prong (A) is invoked by the claims reciting the generic placeholder “key”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because the “key” is modified by the functional language “configured to generate a signal for operating the driving unit”.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure of “the door configuration key (80) may be provided as a switch” that “is pressed to transmit a signal to the controller” as provided in Para [0272], provides sufficient additional structure such that 112(f) is no longer invoked.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 27 is indefinite because no controller has been claimed. As a result, it is unclear how the device can comprise “a time of operation” since the door configuration key is not disclosed in the specification as capable by itself of completing this function on its own.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR-100412105-B1).
With regards to Claim 1, Kim teaches (Figs 1-7) a cooking apparatus (microwave oven, [0017]) with a main body (main body (101)) with a cooking compartment (cooking chamber (103)) and a door (door (130)) ([0018]). Kim further teaches that the door includes a latching mechanism (latch member (40), pair of hook portions (43), [0039]) and a locking mechanism (door lock device (50), driving rocker (53), door locker (51), and driving selection unit (55), [0044], Fig 3-4) to secure the door to the body of the microwave oven and preventing the opening of the door ([0043]). The locking mechanism further includes a lever configured to be movable to a restricted position where the lever restricts movement of the latching mechanism and movable to allowed position where the level allows the movement of the latching mechanism ([0045], Figs 3-4). Kim also teaches that a driving unit (door locker (51), coupled to the locker driving unit (53), locker driving selection unit (55), [0044]) is provided to move the locking mechanism, as well as a door configuration key configured to generate a signal for operating the driving unit ([0044]-[0046]). Kim also teaches that when a switch is pressed the locker drive selection part (55) of the door locking device (50) applies power to the locker drive part (53) to operate a solenoid which moves down contact the upper part of the hook portion (43), suppressing the motion of the latch member and preventing the door from opening, even when the door button is pressed ([0045]).
With regards to Claim 6, Kim again teaches (Figs 1-7) a cooking apparatus (microwave oven, [0017]) with a main body (main body (101)) with a cooking compartment (cooking chamber (103)) and a door (door (130)) ([0018]). Kim also teaches that the door includes a latching mechanism (latch member (40), pair of hook portions (43), [0039]) and a locking mechanism (door lock device (50), driving rocker (53), door locker (51), and driving selection unit (55), [0044], Fig 3-4) to secure the door to the body of the microwave oven and preventing the opening of the door ([0043]). The locking mechanism further includes a lever configured to be movable to a restricted position where the lever restricts movement of the latching mechanism and movable to allowed position where the level allows the movement of the latching mechanism ([0045], Figs 3-4). Kim also teaches that a driving unit (door locker (51), coupled to the locker driving unit (53), locker driving selection unit (55), [0044]) is provided to move the locking mechanism, as well as a door configuration key configured to generate a signal for operating the driving unit ([0044]-[0046]). Kim also teaches that when a switch is pressed the locker drive selection part (55) of the door locking device (50) applies power to the locker drive part (53) to operate a solenoid which moves down contact the upper part of the hook portion (43), suppressing the motion of the latch member and preventing the door from opening, even when the door button is pressed ([0045]).
With regards to Claim 18, Kim again teaches (Figs 1-7) a cooking apparatus (microwave oven, [0017]) with a main body (main body (101)) with a cooking compartment (cooking chamber (103)) and a door (door (130)) ([0018]). Kim also teaches that the door includes a latching mechanism (latch member (40), pair of hook portions (43), [0039]) where the latches are configured to move vertically when the latch is inserted into or withdrawn from the opening and a locking mechanism (door lock device (50), driving rocker (53), door locker (51), and driving selection unit (55), [0044], Fig 3-4) to secure the door to the body of the microwave oven and preventing the opening of the door ([0043]). The locking mechanism further includes a lever configured to be movable to a restricted position where the lever restricts movement of the latching mechanism and movable to allowed position where the level allows the movement of the latching mechanism ([0045], Figs 3-4). Kim also teaches that a driving unit (door locker (51), coupled to the locker driving unit (53), locker driving selection unit (55), [0044]) is provided to move the locking mechanism, as well as a door configuration key configured to generate a signal for operating the driving unit ([0044]-[0046]). Kim also teaches that when a switch is pressed the locker drive selection part (55) of the door locking device (50) applies power to the locker drive part (53) to operate a solenoid which moves down contact the upper part of the hook portion (43), suppressing the motion of the latch member and preventing the door from opening, even when the door button is pressed ([0045]).
With regards to Claim 24, Kim teaches the inclusion of a first and second latch (Fig 3-4), where hook passage holes (9) are formed on the front of the main body, which allows the latch members to pass through ([0037]). Kim again teaches the use of the locking device (50) which moves the locker to suppress sliding of the latch member (40) ([0044]).
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, 3, 4, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim iv view of Diego (EP-3604932-A1).
With regards to Claim 2, Kim teaches all of the elements of the microwave oven cooking apparatus as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the locker includes a rotation shaft rotated by a driving unit, and that the lever moves in connection with the rotation of the shaft.
Diego teaches (Figs 1-10) a door lock system for an appliance such as a cooking oven ([0001]). Diego teaches that the door lock system comprises a motor (36) and a cam (38), where the cam is a single piece part with two eccentric disks (40) and (42) arranged on a common axis ([0029]). Diego also teaches that the first eccentric disk (40) acts on the sliding member (18), where the rotation of the motor and cam results in a movement of the sliding member (18), and the second disc acts on the second sliding member (20) ([0029]). Diego also teaches a first spring element (24), a second spring element (26), a third spring element (28), and a fourth spring element (46); where the first spring element acts between the first sliding member and the base part (12), the second spring element acts between the second sliding member and the base part, the third spring element acts between the second and third sliding member, and the fourth spring element acts been the detecting element (44) and the base part ([0028], [0030]). Additionally, Diego teaches a fifth spring element (50), push element (48), fixation element (52), and sixth spring element (54); where the fifth spring elements acts between the push element and the base part, the push element pushes the hook element (14) into an unlocked position, and the sixth spring element acts between the fixation element and the base part ([0031]). Diego further teaches that the door lock system can be in an unlocked released state, locked released state, or a locked pulled state; each relating to whether the hook element (14) is engaged with the counterpart and pulled towards the door lock system ([0033]). Furthermore, Diego teaches the door lock system includes tolerance compensation along the main axis because the third spring element between the second and third sliding members allows relative movements; where the third spring element maintains the intended distance between the second sliding member, the third sliding member, and the intended positions to the hook element, the third spring being able to compensate for deviations in intended positions by use of a compression spring ([0061]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven apparatus where a locking device applies pressure to the latches to prevent movement of the latches during operations and Diego teaches a door lock system that includes sliding members actuated by rotating cams, that act as levers, where the cams are rotated by a motor and connected to the base via springs, where the sliding members move in connection with the rotation of the cam and the springs to lock the door of the door lock system closed, where the inclusion of spring and sliding base members allow for compensation by the springs to correctly align the door and sliding members into their intended positions, as well as providing multiple operating states for the locking mechanism when operating the device. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that combining the compensation springs and sliding members to the latching members of Kim’s microwave device would have yielded predictable results and doesn’t change the function of the elements because the latch mechanism of Diego provides multiple operating states and the ability to adjust for deviations from the intended position when securing the door of an oven to the base. Diego and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention because each invention speaks to a way of locking a door to the oven assembly during operation using a latch system.
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 microwave oven of Kim with the appliance door locking system taught by Diego because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 3, Kim and Diego both teach that the latching mechanism moves upward from a fixed position to an unfixed position (Kim Figs 3-4, Diego Figs 5-7). Kim and Diego also both teach that in the restricted position, the locking mechanism prevents upward movement of the latching mechanism (Kim Fig 3-4, Diego Figs 5-7).
With regards to Claim 4, Diego further teaches a first (30), second (32), and third (34) switch element; where the first switch element responds to the presence or proximity of the door (60) by having detecting element (44) move against the first switch element (30) by the door (60) ([0032]). The second switch element responds to a locked position of the hook element and the third switch element responds to a pulled position of the hook element ([0032]). The first switch is able to send a signal to the control device to activate the motor which turns and drives the cam ([0042]).
With regards to Claim 5, Diego further teaches that the hook element is pivotable between the unlocked released, locked released, and moveable between the locked released and locked pulled state ([0007]-[0008]). Diego also states that during the unlocked released state, when the system is not interacting with the door, the system functions as a normal oven ([0008]). Diego also teaches that in the unlocked pulled state, the system can be opened albeit with greater force required ([0008]). The motor controls the pulling and locking function automatically or at the request of the user via the control device ([0048]-[0049]).
With regards to Claim 16, Diego teaches that the rotating part of the device is arranged vertically (Fig 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yeong (KR-100427784-B1).
With regards to Claim 10, Kim teaches all of the claimed elements for the microwave oven as previously mentioned and further teaches the door lock (50) moves between the unlocking and locking position ([0044]). However, Kim fails to specifically disclose a sensor to detect when the door is closed.
Yeong teaches (Figs 1-3) a method for sterilizing a microwave oven. Yeong teaches a door sensor (103) that detects the opening and closing of the door of the microwave, where a control unit (105) controls the cooking operation according to the received signal ([0027]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, and Yeong teaches the door opening and closing sensor to detect if the door is closed before beginning operation of the microwave. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because determining if a microwave door is open or closed with a sensor is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements of detecting a door and locking the door. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of a door sensor to begin the microwave operating would have yielded predictable results of determining if the door is open or closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microwave oven taught by Kim with the door sensor taught by Yeong because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zimmer (US-20130069512-A1).
With regards to Claim 12, Kim teaches all of the elements of the microwave oven as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the heating unit is shut off when the door is opened.
Zimmer teaches (Figs 1-3) an actuated door opening mechanism for a microwave. Zimmer also teaches that it is known in cooking devices to include an interlock switch that sends a signal indicating when the door is opened to simultaneously shut off power supplied to the cooking chamber ([0004]). This safety feature is generally known and prevents unwanted leakage of microwave energy ([0004]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, and Zimmer teaches the door opening interlock feature that shuts off power to the cooking chamber, preventing microwave energy from being leaked. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because shutting off power to a microwave when the door is opened is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements of shutting off power to the microwave. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of a door interlock to begin the microwave operating would have yielded predictable results of shutting off power when the door is opened.
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 microwave oven taught by Kim with the door interlock feature taught by Zimmer because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ichihara (CN-101421476-A).
With regards to Claims 14 and 19, Kim teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the door control operation of unlocking and locking the door is performed automatically after a set period after unlocking.
Ichihara teaches (Figs 1 & 2) a vehicle door lock controller. Ichihara teaches that the vehicle door lock control device locks or unlocks a door according to the user operation ([0021]). Ichihara also teaches that the lock control device includes an automatic door locking unit that locks the door if no door opening action is detected within a predetermined time after the door is unlocked, where a length of a timeout period is varied based on the safety level of the vehicle’s location ([0021]-[0022]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, and Ichihara teaches the door unlocking and then locking after a period of time if the door doesn’t open. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because locking a door after a period of time is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function when the locking device is actuated. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of locking a door after a preset period of time would have yielded predictable results of shutting off power when the door is opened. Kim and Ichihara are analogous to the claimed invention because all of the inventions teach devices that lock doors and prevent entry.
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 microwave oven taught by Kim with the door unlocking and locking after a set time by Ichihara because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Diego in view of Zimmer.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim and Diego teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically teach that the cooking apparatus has manipulation switches that are different from a door configuration key that also generates a signal.
Zimmer further teaches the inclusion of a touch sensor or tactile switch (250) that allows a user to open the door by bringing a finger of dielectric object into contact with or proximity of the touch sensor ([0022]). Zimmer also teaches that the device includes a control panel (240) for controlling the microwave, where several types of sensor technologies are known to exist, including touch sensors and tactile switches ([0022]). Zimmer also teaches that the user can carry out a sequence of instructions on the control panel to operate the appropriate function, including operating the actuator to disengage the latch holding the door ([0011]-[0013]).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven apparatus where a locking device applies pressure to the latches to prevent movement of the latches during operations; Diego teaches a door lock system that includes sliding members actuated by rotating cams, that act as levers, where the cams are rotated by a motor and connected to the base via springs, where the sliding members move in connection with the rotation of the cam and the springs to lock the door of the door lock system closed, where the inclusion of spring and sliding base members allow for compensation by the springs to correctly align the door and sliding members into their intended positions, as well as providing multiple operating states for the locking mechanism when operating the device; and Zimmer teaches a control panel that receives different user inputs to control operations of the microwave. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that combining the control panel with the compensation springs and sliding members to the latching members of Kim’s microwave device would have yielded predictable results and doesn’t change the function of the elements because the latch mechanism of Diego provides multiple operating states and the ability to adjust for deviations from the intended position when securing the door of an oven to the base. Diego, Kim, and Zimmer are analogous to the claimed invention because each invention speaks to a way of locking a door to the oven assembly during operation using a latch system.
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 microwave oven of Kim, with the appliance door locking system taught by Diego, and the control panel to operate different functions of the microwave taught Zimmer, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Ichihara in view of Zimmer.
Kim and Ichihara teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the heating unit is turned off when the door is manipulated.
Zimmer again teaches (Figs 1-3) an actuated door opening mechanism for a microwave. Zimmer also teaches that it is known in cooking devices to include an interlock switch that sends a signal indicating when the door is opened to simultaneously shut off power supplied to the cooking chamber ([0004]). This safety feature is generally known and prevents unwanted leakage of microwave energy ([0004]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, Ichihara teaches the door unlocking and then locking after a period of time if the door doesn’t open, and Zimmer teaches an interlock that shuts off the heating unit when the door is manipulated. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because locking a door after a period of time and shutting the heating unit off when the door is opened is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function of the microwave device when the door is actuated or opened. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of locking a door after a preset period of time and shutting off the device when the door is opened would have yielded predictable results of shutting off power when the door is opened.
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 microwave oven taught by Kim, with the door unlocking and locking after a set time by Ichihara, and the shutoff of the heating device taught by Zimmer because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang (CN-212927415-U).
With regards to Claims 21, Kim teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically teach that the locker rotates over the latch to impede the vertical movement of the latch.
Wang teaches (Figs 1-11) a door lock, door assembly and cooking utensil. Wang teaches that the door lock (1) has door hook assembly (10), which includes first (100) and second door hooks (102); as well as drive assembly (16) that includes drive lever (160), drive element (162), rod (163), lever cover (166) ([0015], [0048]). Wang also teaches that the drive lever (160) rotates over the latch to impede movement in the vertical direction (Fig 7).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, and Wang teaches a drive lever that rotates from a first to second position, where the second position is over the latch to impede a vertical movement of the latch. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because locking a door with a rotatable lever to prevent opening is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function of the microwave device. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of rotating a locking device over a latch when the door is closed would have yielded predictable results of preventing the door from opening.
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 microwave oven taught by Kim with the rotating door locking device taught by Wang because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 22, Wang further teaches that the drive lever is rotatably mounted on the bracket (12) (Fig 7, [0068]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Ichihara in view of Dirk (ES-2240295-T3).
Kim and Ichihara teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically teach that the control panel and other keys disable a locking mechanism regardless of door positions status until reenabled.
Dirk teaches (Figs 1 & 2) a childproof cooking apparatus. Drik teaches that cooking appliances protect children by having a child lock, and that the control unit can deactivate the child lock by activating a special key or combinations of special keys.
In this case, In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven as previously mentioned and also teaches the door locking mechanism between an allowed and locked position, Ichihara teaches the door unlocking and then locking after a period of time if the door doesn’t open, and Dirk teaches the ability to deactivate certain locking and safety devices by way of a special key or combination of keys. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods because locking a door after a period of time and activating and disabling child safety locks is well known in the art, and the combination doesn’t change the function of the microwave device when the door is actuated or opened. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of locking a door after a preset period of time and activating or deactivating a child safety lock to allow or prevent operation or opening would have yielded predictable results of shutting off power when the door is opened.
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 microwave oven taught by Kim with the door unlocking and locking after a set time by Ichihara, and the child safety activation and deactivation taught by Dirk because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han (KR-20030005948-A).
With regards to Claim 25, Kim teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically teach that there is a door sensor that detects when the door is closed by the latches being inserted into the openings.
Han teaches (Figs 1-5) a microwave oven and method. Han teaches that the microwave oven has latches (3a) that are inserted into locking grooves (3b) when the door (3) is closed and is released from the groove when the door is opened ([0018]). When shutting the door and thus operating the latch, a microswitch outputs a detection signal to the controller that recognizes the open or closed state of the door and controls the microwave accordingly ([0018]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven apparatus where a locking device applies pressure to the latches to prevent movement of the latches during operations and Han teaches a sensor that detects when the latches are inserted into the locking grooves to determine if the microwave door is open or closed. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that combining the latch detection sensor of Han with microwave oven device of Kim would have yielded predictable results and doesn’t change the function of the elements because the latch sensor mechanism of Han provides detection of the door being open or closed to control the rest of the microwave. Han and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention because each invention speaks to a way of controlling a microwave based on locking and detecting the door being closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microwave oven of Kim with the latch detection sensor of Han because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Han in view of Diego.
With regards to Claim 26, Kim and Han teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that additional sensors detect when the shaft is in a first or second position.
Diego again teaches a first switch element (30), a second switch element (32), and a third switch element (34) ([0032]). Diego also teaches that the sliding members push the hook elements (14) into a locked position, where the movement of the sliding member is stopped by deactivating the motor (36) when the second switch detects the locked position of the hook and sends a corresponding signal to the control device ([0044]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven apparatus where a locking device applies pressure to the latches to prevent movement of the latches during operations, Han teaches a sensor that detects when the latches are inserted into the locking grooves to determine if the microwave door is open or closed, and Diego teaches the use of additional switches to sense when parts of the locking mechanism have been moved to different positions. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that combining the latch detection sensor of Han, as well as the switch detecting elements of Diego, with the microwave oven device of Kim would have yielded predictable results and doesn’t change the function of the elements because the latch sensor mechanism of Han and Diego provides detection of the door being open or closed to control the rest of the microwave. Han, Diego, and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention because each invention speaks to a way of controlling a microwave based on locking and detecting the door being closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microwave oven of Kim with the latch detection sensor of Han and Diego because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Han in view of DeYoung (US-11,236,911-B2).
With regards to Claim 27, Kim teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that during the operation of the heating unit, the door configuration key is unable to open the door when manipulated.
DeYoung teaches (Figs 1-38) a push-to-open/signal-to-open appliance door latching system with an integrated locking device. DeYoung teaches that a sliding lock feature keeps door oven locked during the self-clean function ([0026]) DeYoung also teaches that the safety feature prevents a user from opening the door during the operation of the self-clean cycle and for a period of time after completion to allow the oven to cool ([0058]). DeYoung also teaches that the system can incorporate a signal-to-open system that uses a solenoid (50) to lock the door shut, and then after completion of a self-clean function, the controller activate the solenoid to disengage and release the lock to resume normal cooking operations and door opening and closing ([0065], [0069]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Kim teaches the microwave oven apparatus where a locking device applies pressure to the latches to prevent movement of the latches during operations and DeYoung teaches a door latching system that locks an over door shut and prevents opening when using extreme heat such as during a self-clean cycle. An ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that combining the latch lock that prevents opening during use taught by DeYoung with the microwave oven device of Kim would have yielded predictable results and doesn’t change the function of the elements because the latch lock of DeYoung provides selectively locks the device during some operations of the oven. DeYoung and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention because each invention speaks to a way of controlling a microwave oven based on locking the door closed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microwave oven of Kim with the latch lock of DeYoung because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights