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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “an induction, generator” should read “an induction generator”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brosnan (US 2014/0014647).
Regarding claim 1, Brosnan teaches a method for controlling an induction cooking hob (100), comprising an operation mode for estimating energy efficiency EE (para. 0020) that includes the steps of: a) estimating dissipated electric energy ED of the induction cooking hob (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053; energy is calculated from power [input power (power provided by the main power supply) and output power (power transferred to a cooking pot)]; as detailed in the description page 2 of the instant application, the dissipated electric energy used to control the induction cooking hob is estimated via measurement of the electric energy transferred to the cooking pot and the electric energy provided by the main power supply, same as Brosnan), b) comparing the estimated dissipated electric energy ED with a threshold value EDthr for said estimated dissipated electric energy ED (para. 0035-0041; 0045), C) maintaining current working parameters of the induction cooking hob if the estimated dissipated electric energy ED is not bigger than the threshold value EDthr (para. 0035-0041; 0045; 0048; 0053), d) changing the current working parameters if the estimated dissipated electric energy ED is bigger than the threshold value EDthr (para. 0035-0041; 0045; 0048; 0053), and e) repeating the steps a) and b) and then c) or d), respectively, after a predetermined time period (para. 0035-0041; 0045; 0048; 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the operation mode for estimating the energy efficiency EE is activated or activatable by a user (para. 0053).
Regarding claim 4, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the energy efficiency EE is given by the relationship EE = EP/ EI, wherein EP is electric energy transferred to a cooking pot arranged on the induction cooking hob and EI is electric energy provided by a mains supply for the induction cooking hob (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053; energy is calculated from power [input power (power provided by the main power supply) and output power (power transferred to a cooking pot)]; it is conventionally known that Energy Efficiency = Useful Energy Output/Total Energy Input).
Regarding claim 5, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the electric energy EI provided by the main supply is composed of the electric energy EP transferred to the cooking pot and the dissipated electric energy ED and thereby satisfies the expression ED = EI - EP (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053; energy is calculated from power [input power (power provided by the main power supply) and output power (power transferred to a cooking pot)]; it is conventionally known that ED = EI - EP).
Regarding claim 9, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is estimated from detected temperatures of the cooking pot, induction coils and/or electronic components (para. 0004; 0041).
Regarding claim 10, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein relationships between the dissipated electric energy ED and detectable working parameters are stored as software in a memory of a control unit of the induction cooking hob (abstract; para. 0007; 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 11, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein relationships between the dissipated electric energy ED and detectable working parameters of the induction cooking hob are stored as tables and/or mathematical functions (para. 0038-0040; 0045; 0049; 0057-0058; Fig. 10; calculations require mathematical functions; storing known values requires some type of table).
Regarding claim 14, Brosnan teaches a computer-storage medium (memory; abstract; 0007; 0057), comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by a computer (abstract; 0007; 0057), will cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (abstract; 0007; 0057).
Regarding claim 19, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dissipated electric energy ED satisfies the expression ED = EI - EP, wherein EI is electric energy supplied to the induction cooking hob and EP is electric energy transferred to a cooking pot arranged on the induction cooking hob (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053; energy is calculated from power [input power (power provided by the main power supply) and output power (power transferred to a cooking pot)]; it is conventionally known that ED = EI - EP).
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan.
Regarding claim 3, Brosnan teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the time period is between five seconds and twenty seconds.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed time period range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein relationships between the dissipated electric energy ED and detectable working parameters of the induction cooking hob are obtained from test or set-up mode prior to or separate from a cooking process or during cooking (para. 0056; 0041; 0045-0046; 0048-0049; 0059)
Branson fails to explicitly disclose wherein relationships between the dissipated electric energy ED and detectable working parameters of the induction cooking hob are obtained from experiments in a lab.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to obtain relationships between the dissipated electric energy ED and detectable working parameters of the induction cooking hob from experiment in a lab, to assure optimum operation of the induction cooking hob, and cooking quality.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0077761).
Regarding claim 6, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is consumed by switching elements and induction coils (para. 0029; 0038; 0052).
Brosnan fails to disclose wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is consumed by cooling fans.
Takahashi teaches a method for controlling an induction cooking hob (1), wherein energy is consumed by cooling fans (10, 11).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brosnan, with Takahashi, by providing cooling fans that consume dissipated energy, to help cooling the induction coils and electronic components. POSITA would have known that providing cooling fans that consume dissipated energy would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as cooling the induction coils and electronic components.
Regarding claim 7, Brosnan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is estimated from detected parameters of an induction generator and an induction coil (abstract; para. 0025; 0038; 0048; 0050; 0052).
Brosnan fails to disclose wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is estimated from detected parameters of a cooling fan.
Takahashi teaches a method for controlling an induction cooking hob (1), wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is estimated from detected parameters of a cooling fan (Takahashi teaches providing cooling fans 10, 11 for cooling of the induction coils and electronic components (abstract; para. 0025; 0038; 0048; 0050; 0052), wherein parameters of the cooling fan are detected (para. 0040-0043; 0050; 0082; 0087; 0100) and the cooling fans inherently consume energy; when combined with Brosnan, the dissipated electric energy will be estimated from detected parameters of the cooling fan).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Brosnan, with Takahashi, by providing cooling fans and detecting its parameters, to help cooling the induction coils and electronic components. POSITA would have known that providing cooling fans and detecting its parameters would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as cooling the induction coils and electronic components.
Regarding claim 8, Brosnan and Takahashi combined teach the method according to claim 7, wherein the dissipated electric energy ED is estimated from a voltage, current and/or power of the cooling fan, induction generator and induction coil (Brosnan; abstract; 0007; 0022-0023;0025-0026; 0029; 0031; 0038; Takahashi, when viewed in combination with Brosnan).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the restriction requirement, Examiner provided a response to the Applicant’s election with traverse in the previous action mailed on 08/28/2025 and indicated that the requirement was still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Brosnan is directed to an induction heating system having program instructions for determining operational performance characteristics of the system, including system efficiency (see e.g., Abstract and paragraph [0040]). However, Brosnan fails to disclose or suggest any estimation of "dissipated electric energy" (i.e., the portion of energy supplied to the cooking hob that is consumed by the cooking hob itself rather than transferred to the cooking pot). For example, paragraph [0040] discloses that "input and output power allows for the calculation of the system efficiency. Generally efficiency is defined as the ratio of the output power to the input power." However, estimating efficiency (i.e., the ratio of output and input powers) does not teach estimating dissipated electric energy. Rather, dissipated electric energy corresponds to the difference (i.e., not ratio) between input power and output power. Brosnan does not disclose estimating this difference. Moreover, Takahashi fails to address this deficiency of Brosnan… In rejecting claim 1, the Office action on pages 4-5 contends that "Brosnan teaches a method for controlling an induction cooking hob (100), comprising.. estimating dissipated electric energy ED of the induction cooking hob (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053 ; as detailed in the description page 2 of the instant application, the dissipated electric energy used to control the induction cooking hob is estimated via measurement of the electric energy transferred to the cooking pot and the electric energy provided by the main power supply, same as Brosnan)." However, paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0048], and [0053] do not disclose estimating dissipated electric energy via the electric energy transferred to the cooking pot and the electric energy provided by the main power supply. Although paragraph [0040] discloses that efficiency is defined as the ratio of the outer power (i.e., electric energy transferred to the cooking pot) to the input power (i.e., electric energy provided by the main power supply), estimating efficiency (i.e., the ratio of output power to input power) does not teach estimating dissipated electric energy. Again, dissipated electric energy corresponds to the difference (i.e., not ratio) between input power and output power. Paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0048], and [0053] do not disclose estimating this difference. The Office action on page 3 further argues that "power is calculated from voltage and current which are known as disclosed in paragraph 0038." However, the mere disclosure that "power is calculated from voltage and current" does not teach estimating dissipated electric energy (i.e., the portion of energy supplied to the cooking hob that is consumed by the cooking hob itself rather than transferred to the cooking pot). Rather, this simply teaches estimating power, and in no way teaches or suggests estimating dissipated electric energy. The Office action on page 3 further argues that "[e]nergy is calculated from power which is known as disclosed in paragraphs 0039-0040." However, the mere disclosure that "[e]nergy is calculated from power" does not teach estimating dissipated electric energy (i.e., the portion of energy supplied to the cooking hob that is consumed by the cooking hob itself rather than transferred to the cooking pot). Rather, this simply teaches estimating energy, and in no way teaches or suggests estimating dissipated electric energy. In summary, the Office action has not identified any disclosure in Brosnan that teaches estimating dissipated electric energy (i.e., the portion of energy supplied to the cooking hob that is consumed by the cooking hob itself rather than transferred to the cooking pot). Indeed, Brosnan does not disclose estimating any such parameter. Although it described parameters such as input power and output power that can be used to estimate dissipated electric energy, it does not actually disclose any such estimation of dissipated electric energy.” on remarks page 7, lines 3-13 and 16-30, and page 8, lines 1-18. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the system of Brosnan estimates the dissipated electric energy since energy is calculated from power [input power (power provided by the main power supply) and output power (power transferred to a cooking pot)], and as detailed in the description page 2 of the instant application, the dissipated electric energy used to control the induction cooking hob is estimated via measurement of the electric energy transferred to the cooking pot and the electric energy provided by the main power supply, same as Brosnan (para. 0039-0040, 0048, 0053).
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-12, 14 and 19, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore the same response applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/01/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761