Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/588,909

INDUCTION HEATING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 31, 2022
Examiner
OLIVA, STEPHANIE RENEE
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 5 resolved
-50.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -20% lift
Without
With
+-20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
47
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 5 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 4, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendment filed February 4, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, and 10 are amended. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action is provided Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments files February 4, 2026 have been fully considered, and they are mostly persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that: The amendments to Claim 3 overcome the previously set forth 112b rejection: The examiner agrees. The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments. The Amendments to the independent claims overcome the originally set forth rejection in view of Moon and Jo: The examiner agrees that the amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection. Therefore, a rejection of the independent claims (as amended) is provided in view of Nishikoori (US 2020/0196400 A1). See sections regarding Claim 1 and 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikoori (US 2020/0196400 A1): PNG media_image1.png 389 662 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 598 526 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1: Nishikoori teaches an induction heating apparatus (“induction heating apparatus” Abstract), comprising: a current conversion circuit (“inverter” [0055] Figure 1 Element 1) configured to convert current from an external power source (“an inverter configured to convert a direct current (DC) power received from a DC power source (5) into and alternating current (AC) power and configured to output the AC power” [0055]); a first working coil (“first working coil” [0058] Figure 1 Element 31) having a first end (See Figure 1 “First End…”) to connect to the current conversion circuit; a second working coil (“second working coil” [0058] Figure 1 Element 32); a resonance capacitor (“first capacitor” [0061] of resonance circuit Figure 1 Element C1) that connects to a second end (See figure 1 “Second End…”) of the second working coil; a first relay (Figure 1 as annotated “First relay” Element 13 “switching elements” [0055]) connected between a second end of the first working coil and the second end of the second working coil; a second relay (Figure 1 as annotated “Second relay” Element 13 “switching elements” [0055]) that selectively connects a first end of the second working coil to any one of the second end of the first working coil and the current conversion circuit; and a controller (“controller” [0055] Figure 1 Element 6) configured to control connections of the first relay and the second relay (“controller [is] provided with at least one processor controls a frequency F of a current flowing through the heating coil[s] …by controlling the switching operation of the switching element[s] 13” [0064]) wherein the controller is configured to control the second relay to connect the first end of the second working coil to the second end of the first working coil such that the first working coil and the second working coil are connected in series (the controller controls the switching elements [00064] such that the “first heating coil…and the second heating coil are connected in series [0061]”) and wherein the controller is configured to control the second relay to connect the first end of the second working coil to the current conversion circuit such that the first working coil and the second working coil are connected in parallel (the controller controls the switching elements [00064] such that “the first resonant circuit (“of the first heating coil” [0019]) is connected to the “second heating coil in parallel” [0028]) Regarding Claim 3: Nishikoori further teaches that the induction heating apparatus further comprises a working coil base (Figure 3 “Working Coil Base”) configured to accommodate the first working coil (“first working coil” [0058] Figure 3 Element 31) and the second working coil (“second working coil” [0058] Figure 1 Element 32) wherein the first working coil is accommodated on the working coil base such that the first working coil is disposed on the second working coil, or such that the second working coil is disposed on the first working coil (Shown in Figure 3). Regarding Claim 4: Nishikoori further teaches the induction heating apparatus, wherein the first working coil and the second working coil are accommodated in a same working coil base (Figure 3 “working Coil Base”). Regarding Claim 6: Nishikoori further teaches that the controller (“controller” [0055] Figure 1 Element 6) is configured to control connections of the first relay and the second relay (“controller [is] provided with at least one processor controls a frequency F of a current flowing through the heating coil[s] …by controlling the switching operation of the switching element[s] 13” [0064]) based on at least one of a type of an object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus(“the processor may identify the material of the object to be heated based on the current value and a predetermined threshold” [0027)] and a target output value (“current value at a resonance frequency” [0095]) Regarding Claim 7: Nishikoori further teaches that when the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is determined to be a ferromagnetic object (“magnetic” [0093] object such as a pot) to be heated and when the target output value (“current value at a resonance frequency” [0095]) is a predetermined reference output value (“predetermined threshold value” [0027]) or greater, the controller is configured to control the first relay such that the first relay connects between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor, and is configured to control the second relay such that the second relay connects between the first end of the second working coil and the current conversion circuit (controller measures the current flowing through the heating coils[s] by changing the frequency of the inverter and identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and “controls the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]. As such, the prior art has the capacity to control the connections of the relays by the claimed configuration and reads on the limitations of the claim.) Regarding Claim 8: Nishikoori further teaches that when the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is determined to be a ferromagnetic object (“magnetic” [0093] object) to be heated and when the target output value (“current value at a resonance frequency” [0095]) is less than (the prior art teaches that the controller “identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and thus must also have the capacity to identify when the target output value is less than the reference value) the predetermined reference output value (“predetermined threshold value” [0027]), the controller is configured to control the first relay such that the first relay does not connect between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor, and is configured to control the second relay such that the second relay connects between the first end of the second working coil and the second end of the first working coil (controller measures the current flowing through the heating coils[s] by changing the frequency of the inverter and identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and “controls the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]. As such, the prior art has the capacity to control the connections of the relays by the claimed configuration and reads on the limitations of the claim.) Regarding Claim 9: Nishikoori further teaches that when the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is determined to be an anti-ferromagnetic (“non-magnetic” [0028]) object to be heated, the controller (“controller” [0055] Figure 1 Element 6) is configured to control the first relay such that the first relay does not connect (“turn off [or disconnect]the third switch” contained within the “First relay” as annotated in Figure 1) between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor, and is configured to control the second relay such that the second relay connects (“may turn on [or connect] the first and second switch” [0028] contained within the “Second Relay” as annotated in Figure 1) between the first end of the second working coil and the second end of the first working coil. Regarding Claim 10: Nishikoori further teaches a method (“control method” [0100]) for controlling an induction heating apparatus (“induction heating apparatus” Abstract) that includes a current conversion circuit (“inverter” [0055] Figure 1 Element 1) that converts current from an external power source (“an inverter configured to convert a direct current (DC) power received from a DC power source (5) into and alternating current (AC) power and configured to output the AC power” [0055]), a first working coil (“first working coil” [0058] Figure 1 Element 31) having a first end (See Figure 1 “First End…”) to connect to the current conversion circuit, a second working coil (“second working coil” [0058] Figure 1 Element 32) a resonance capacitor (“first capacitor” [0061] of resonance circuit Figure 1 Element C1) that connects to a second end (See figure 1 “Second End…”) of the second working coil, a first relay (Figure 1 as annotated “First relay” Element 13 “switching elements” [0055]) connected between a second end of the first working coil and the second end of the second working coil, a second relay (Figure 1 as annotated “Second relay” Element 13 “switching elements” [0055]) that selectively connects a first end of the second working coil to any one of the second end of the first working coil and the current conversion circuit, and a controller (“controller” [0055] Figure 1 Element 6 with “at least one processor controls a frequency F of a current flowing through the heating coil[s] …by controlling the switching operation of the switching element[s] 13” [0064]) the method comprising: determining, by the controller, a type of an object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus (“the processor may identify the material of the object to be heated based on the current value and a predetermined threshold” [0027]); determining, by the controller, a target output value (“current value at a resonance frequency” [0095]); and controlling, by the controller, connections of the first relay and the second relay, based on at least one of the determined type of the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus and the target output value (“the processor may identify the material of the object to be heated based on the current value and a predetermined threshold” [0027)] and “control the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]) wherein the controlling of the connections comprises: controlling the second relay to connect the first end of the second working coil to the second end of the first working coil such that the first working coil and the second working coil are connected in series (the controller controls the switching elements [00064] such that the “first heating coil…and the second heating coil are connected in series [0061]”); and controlling the second relay to connect the first end of the second working coil are connected in parallel (the controller controls the switching elements [00064] such that “the first resonant circuit (“of the first heating coil” [0019]) is connected to the “second heating coil in parallel” [0028]). {Examiners Notice for Claims 11-13: MPEP Section 2111.04 States that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B} Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11 discloses the method of claim 10 and adds the limitation when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is a ferromagnetic object to be heated and determines that the target output value is a predetermined reference output value or greater, controlling, by the controller (Given that the previous elements of the method claims are contingent claims, the proceeding steps are not given patentable weight under Broadest Reasonable interpretation), the first relay such that the first relay connects between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor; and when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is a ferromagnetic object to be heated and determines that the target output value is the predetermined reference output value or greater, controlling, by the controller, the second relay such that the second relay connects between the first end of the second working coil and the current conversion circuit. (In the event that the limitations of the claims were not contingent, the prior art teaches that the “controller measures the current flowing through the heating coils[s] by changing the frequency of the inverter and identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and “controls the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]. As such, the prior art has the capacity to control the connections of the relays by the claimed configuration and reads on the limitations of the claim.) Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 discloses the method of claim 10 and adds the limitation that when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is a ferromagnetic object to be heated and determines that the target output value is less than the predetermined reference output value (Given that the previous elements of the method claims are contingent claims, the proceeding steps are not considered under Broadest Reasonable interpretation), controlling, by the controller, the first relay such that the first relay does not connect between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor; and when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is a ferromagnetic object to be heated and determines that the target output value is less than the predetermined reference output value, controlling, by the controller, the second relay such that the second relay connects between the first end of the second working coil and the second end of the first working coil. (In the event that the limitations of the claims were not contingent, the prior art teaches that the “controller measures the current flowing through the heating coils[s] by changing the frequency of the inverter and identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and “controls the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]. As such, the prior art has the capacity to control the connections of the relays by the claimed configuration and reads on the limitations of the claim.) Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 further discloses the method of claim 10 and adds the limitation wherein the controlling of the connection of the first relay and the second relay, comprising: when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is an anti-ferromagnetic object to be heated (Given that the previous elements of the method claims are contingent claims, the proceeding steps are not considered under Broadest Reasonable interpretation), controlling, by the controller, the first relay such that the first relay does not connect between the second end of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor; and when the controller determines that the object to be heated that is provided on the induction heating apparatus is an anti-ferromagnetic object to be heated, controlling, by the controller, the second relay such that the second relay connects between the first end of the second working coil and the first end of the first working coil. (In the event that the limitations of the claims were not contingent, the prior art teaches that the “controller measures the current flowing through the heating coils[s] by changing the frequency of the inverter and identifies the type of pot and its resonance frequency according to whether or not the current exceeds a predetermined threshold value” [0096] and “controls the [first and second relay] according to the type of pot” [0098]. As such, the prior art has the capacity to control the connections of the relays by the claimed configuration and reads on the limitations of the claim.) 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. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikoori (US 2020/0196400 A1) in view of Kinouchi et al (US PG Pub No. 2006/0210291): Regarding Claim 2: Nishikoori does not teach that the coils are arranged in a Litz wire structure However, Kinouchi does teach that the first working coil and the second working coil are coupled to each other as a Litz wire structure (The prior art discloses induction heating coils... arranged in a Litz wire” structure [0026] Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Nishikoori to arrange the coils by the Litz wire structure as taught by Kinouchi so that the “current can flow effectively” [0027]. Regarding Claim 5: Nishikoori does not teach that a turn of the first working coil and a turn of the second working coil are alternately provided. However, Kinouchi does teach that the first working coil and the second working coil are accommodated on the working coil base such that a turn of the first working coil and a turn of the second working coil are alternately provided. (The prior art discloses induction heating coils... arranged in a Litz wire” structure [0026] which is known in the prior art as a style of braiding the wires together which alternately renders the component coils on top and on bottom which reads on the limitations of the claims). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Nishikoori to arrange the coils by the limitations taught by Kinouchi so that the “current can flow effectively” [0027]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569. 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. /SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 04, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543889
TRANSVERSELY-LOADABLE ROTISSERIE BASKETS FOR GRILLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12502020
Apparatus for Infusing a Liquid
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
20%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-20.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 5 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month