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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/15/2025 have been entered.
Claims 15, 27, 34, and 38 have been amended. Claims 1-14, 16-18, and 28-29 have been cancelled. Claims 19-26, 30-33, 35-37, and 39 are as previously presented. Thus, claims 15, 19-27, and 30-39 are currently pending and have been considered below.
In light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/15/2025, the objection to claims 34-39 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/15/2025, pgs. 9-11, regarding the rejection of claims 15, 19, 22-25, 27, 30, 32-35, and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 10, p. 6) that it is unclear how Yaman would be modified over Zhao. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yaman discloses a rectifier 5 as a voltage converter (see pg. 9, p. 3 of Office Action filed 10/14/2025). Zhao discloses a voltage cascade (seven levels) of a voltage converter (“AC-DC rectifier” 301 [0062]; see pg. 9, p. 4 of Office Action filed 10/14/2025). Zhao modifies the voltage converter unit of Yaman to include a plurality of stages in a voltage cascade. This mapping can also be found below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/15/2025, pgs. 9-11, regarding the rejection of claims 15, 19, 22-25, 27, 30, 32-35, and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 10, ps. 6-7 and p. 11, ps. 1-2) that if one were to modify Yaman over Zhao that the operating member M would be connected to the rectifier of Zhao in order to “obtain a rectifying system able to accommodate different power ratings and load ranges”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yaman discloses “one or more than one electronic circuit (3)” [0031] that is supplied power and may “control… means (E) like RFID, user interface and sensors” [0031]. By modifying the rectifier 5 of Yaman which supplies a DC voltage to power control circuitry (4) to comprise a voltage cascade with a plurality of stages like that of Zhao, then one could further “accommodate different power ratings and load ranges” like that of accessories (E) rather than operating member M for example. The teachings and motivation of Zhao need not be directed toward integrating member M of Yaman.
Applicant’s argument, filed 12/15/2025, pgs. 11, regarding the rejection of claims 15, 19, 22-25, 27, 30, 32-35, and 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 11, ps. 2-3) that prior art of record Yamana and Zhao do not teach the amended limitations of claims 15, 27, and 34 has been considered but is not persuasive. The claim mapping to these claims can be found in this revised response below.
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: a "first receiving induction element", “second receiving induction element”, “third receiving induction element” and a “voltage converter unit” in claims 15, 27, and 34; and a “supply induction element” in claims 23 and 33.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes the first receiving induction element, second receiving induction element, and third receiving induction element as a coil [0012].
The specification describes the voltage converter unit as follows: “A "voltage converter unit" is intended to be understood to mean, in particular, an electronic subassembly which is provided for a conversion of at least one input voltage, in particular of at least one first effective voltage, into at least one output voltage which differs in terms of value from the input voltage, in particular at least one second effective voltage which is preferably higher in terms of value than the input voltage” [0015]; “The voltage converter unit preferably comprises at least one "voltage cascade" with at least one stage in which at least some of the electrical components of the voltage converter unit are arranged, whereby advantageously an electrical voltage may be converted and, in particular, increased in terms of value and/or rectified by simple technical means, in particular by simple and cost-effective electrical components. A further advantage of a voltage converter unit with at least one voltage cascade results from the fact that in such an embodiment inductive electrical and/or inductive electronic components, such as in particular coils in the voltage converter unit, may be dispensed with, whereby in particular it is possible to supply voltage to the at least one additional unit in a manner which is reliable and less prone to error. Alternatively or additionally, it would be conceivable that the voltage converter unit contains a step-down converter and/or a step-up converter and/or a buck-boost converter. A "voltage cascade" is intended to be understood to mean, in particular, a specific arrangement of electrical components of the voltage converter unit inside an electrical circuit which is provided, in particular, for a conversion and optionally additionally for a rectification of an electrical input voltage. The voltage cascade comprises at least one first stage for a first conversion of an electrical input voltage. Preferably, the voltage cascade comprises at least two and particularly preferably a plurality of, in particular in each case individually activatable, stages for a further, and in particular flexible, conversion of an electrical input voltage. For example, the at least one voltage cascade could be configured as a "Villard circuit" or as a "Greinacher circuit" or as a "Delon circuit" and particular preferably as a "Cockcroft-Walton circuit", wherein both single-stage and preferably multi-stage arrangements and further expedient modifications of the aforementioned circuit topologies are conceivable. In cases where the electrical input voltage of the voltage converter unit is already present as an electrical direct voltage, it is also conceivable that the at least one voltage cascade is configured as a "charge pump" and in particular as a "Dickson charge pump", wherein both single-stage and preferably multi-stage arrangements of charge pumps are conceivable” [0017].
The specification describes the supply induction element as a coil [0012].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15, 19, 22-25, 27, 30, 32-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaman et al. (US 20140332523 A1), hereinafter Yaman, further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20210057934 A1), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 15, Yaman teaches an induction energy transmission system (kitchen appliance 1 and induction heating cooker K, Fig. 1) comprising:
a receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2) comprising a first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2), a second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2),… for receiving an inductively provided energy (“that partially collects and provides transfer of the power generated by the induction coil (B)” [0032]); and
a voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2) connected to the first receiving induction element (see connection of circuitry 4, rectifier 5, and receiver coil 7 in Fig. 2) and configured to convert an electrical voltage of the first receiving induction element (“that converts the AC voltage to DC voltage” [0031]) for supply of energy to an additional unit (“power control circuitry (4) that supplies the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with low level DC voltage” [Claim 1])…; and
a control unit (programmable microcontroller 2, Fig. 2) connected to the voltage converter unit (see connection of circuitry 4 and microcontroller 2 in Fig. 2), the control unit including a voltage regulator (“one or more than one electronic circuit (3) that provides the communication and/or control means (E) to be controlled by the microcontroller (2)” [Claim 1]) configured to adjust a supply voltage (“voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]) for the additional unit (“switching means (8) that is controlled by” the control means of circuit 3 of “the microcontroller (2), that regulates the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)… to supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with constant and uninterrupted voltage.” [0032]),… a supply voltage required by the additional unit (“supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with a constant, uninterrupted and ripple-free DC voltage (for example 5V)” [003]), and
wherein the control unit is configured to activate one or more of the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element, and/or the third receiving induction element (“switching means (8) that is controlled by the microcontroller (2), that regulates the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]) with an activation sequence (“by activating or deactivating one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) in situations wherein the voltage delivered by the induction coil (B) changes” [0032]; An activation sequence is construed as selective activation of receiver coils 7, 107) configured to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit (“and that provides the power control circuitry (4) to supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with constant and uninterrupted voltage” [0032]; Providing “constant and uninterrupted voltage” based on a “voltage delivered” that “changes” is construed as optimizing a supply voltage.).
Yaman does not teach and a third receiving induction element… the voltage converter unit comprising a voltage cascade, the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages for conversion of the electrical voltage;… wherein the control unit is configured to activate one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade with an activation sequence configured to optimize.
Regarding a third receiving induction element, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The inclusion of a third receiving induction element achieves the predictable result of regulating voltage at numerous values. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide multiple receiving inductions elements and connect them directly to a controller. By doing so, one would be able to regulate the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils so as to provide a constant and uninterrupted voltage, as identified by Yaman ([0032]), and simplify circuitry with direct connections.
Yaman teaches the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2) and the control unit (programmable microcontroller 2, Fig. 2) but does not teach the voltage converter unit comprising a voltage cascade, the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages for conversion of the electrical voltage;… wherein the control unit is configured to activate one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade with an activation sequence configured to optimize. Zhao teaches comprising a voltage cascade (“7-level switched-capacitor AC-DC rectifier” [0062], Fig. 4), the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages (“7-level” [0062]) for conversion of the electrical voltage (“AC-DC rectifier” [0062]);… wherein the control unit (see mapping to Yaman) is configured to activate one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade (A process can “generate an output voltage in response to a plurality of control signals… that can be applied to the switches of the MSC rectifier” [0086], Fig. 12) with an activation sequence configured to optimize (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point based on voltage (V.sub.load), current (I.sub.load), or power (P.sub.load)” [0076]).
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 voltage converter unit of Yaman to include a multi-stage voltage cascade selectively activated. Yaman and Zhao are analogous arts because they both relate to circuit arrangements for inductive coupling. Yaman teaches a rectifier and switching receiver coil connections to obtain a target power. Zhao teaches a multilevel AC-DC rectifier including switches that operate in response to control signals generated to achieve a desired operating point/voltage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a multi-stage voltage cascade. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a rectifying system able to “accommodate different power ratings and load ranges” [0041], as identified by Zhao.
Yaman teaches wherein the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, second receiving induction element, and/or third receiving induction element is configured to be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit (“microcontroller (2) provides the activation or deactivation of one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) with respect to the voltage level desired” [0041]). Zhao teaches wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade is configured to be varied by a control unit (compensator 907) to optimize the supply voltage required by an additional unit (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point”). These teachings in combination is construed as teaching wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade and the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element, and/or the third receiving induction element are configured to both be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit.
Regarding claim 19, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman) is configured to convert an electrical alternating voltage into a first electrical direct voltage (“that converts the AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032] to “DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman).
Regarding claim 22, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2; Yaman), the second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2) and the third receiving induction element (see argument in claim 15 above) are part of a common secondary coil (“receiver coils (7, 107) are connected in series and have a common end (C)” [0035], Fig. 1; Yaman).
Regarding claim 23, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), further comprising a supply unit (power source unit U, Fig. 1; Yaman) comprises a supply induction element (induction coil B, Fig. 1; Yaman) configured to provide a magnetic alternating field (“magnetic field generated by the induction coil (B)” [0034]) for the first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2; Yaman).
Regarding claim 24, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), wherein the supply unit (power source unit U, Fig. 1; Yaman) is configured as a cooking appliance (Fig. 1 shows power supply unit U inside induction heating cooker K; Yaman).
Regarding claim 25, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2; Yaman) is configured as an item of cookware (coils 7, 107 are contained in kitchen appliance 1, Fig. 1; Yaman).
Regarding claim 27, Yaman teaches an item of cookware (kitchen appliance 1, Fig. 1) or support unit for positioning an item of cookware, comprising an induction energy transmission system (kitchen appliance 1 and induction heating cooker K, Fig. 1), said induction energy transmission system comprising:
a receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2) which includes a first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2), a second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2),… for receiving an inductively provided energy (“that partially collects and provides transfer of the power generated by the induction coil (B)” [0032]);
a voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2) connected to the first receiving induction element (see connection of circuitry 4, rectifier 5, and receiver coil 7 in Fig. 2) and configured to convert an electrical voltage of the first receiving induction element (“that converts the AC voltage to DC voltage” [0031]) for supply of energy to an additional unit (“power control circuitry (4) that supplies the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with low level DC voltage” [Claim 1]),…; and
a control unit (programmable microcontroller 2, Fig. 2) connected to the voltage converter unit (see connection of circuitry 4 and microcontroller 2 in Fig. 2), the control unit including a voltage regulator (“one or more than one electronic circuit (3) that provides the communication and/or control means (E) to be controlled by the microcontroller (2)” [Claim 1]) configured to adjust a supply voltage (“voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]) for the additional unit (“switching means (8) that is controlled by” the control means of circuit 3 of “the microcontroller (2), that regulates the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)… to supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with constant and uninterrupted voltage.” [0032]),
…a supply voltage required by the additional unit (“supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with a constant, uninterrupted and ripple-free DC voltage (for example 5V)” [003]), and
wherein the control unit is configured to activate the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element, and/or the third receiving induction element (“switching means (8) that is controlled by the microcontroller (2), that regulates the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]) with an activation sequence (“by activating or deactivating one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) in situations wherein the voltage delivered by the induction coil (B) changes” [0032]; An activation sequence is construed as selective activation of receiver coils 7, 107) configured to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit (“and that provides the power control circuitry (4) to supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with constant and uninterrupted voltage” [0032]; Providing “constant and uninterrupted voltage” based on a “voltage delivered” that “changes” is construed as optimizing a supply voltage.).
Yaman does not teach and a third receiving induction element… the voltage converter unit comprising a voltage cascade, the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages for conversion of the electrical voltage… wherein the control unit is configured to activate the stages of the voltage cascade with an activation sequence configured to optimize.
Regarding and a third receiving induction element, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The inclusion of a third receiving induction element achieves the predictable result of regulating voltage at numerous values. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide multiple receiving inductions elements and connect them directly to a controller. By doing so, one would be able to regulate the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils so as to provide a constant and uninterrupted voltage, as identified by Yaman ([0032]), and simplify circuitry with direct connections.
Yaman teaches the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2) and the control unit (programmable microcontroller 2, Fig. 2) but does not teach the voltage converter unit comprising a voltage cascade, the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages for conversion of the electrical voltage… wherein the control unit is configured to activate the stages of the voltage cascade with an activation sequence configured to optimize.
Zhao teaches comprising a voltage cascade (“7-level switched-capacitor AC-DC rectifier” [0062], Fig. 4), the voltage cascade including a plurality of stages (“7-level” [0062]) for conversion of the electrical voltage (“AC-DC rectifier” [0062]);… wherein the control unit (see mapping to Yaman) is configured to activate the stages of the voltage cascade (A process can “generate an output voltage in response to a plurality of control signals… that can be applied to the switches of the MSC rectifier” [0086], Fig. 12) with an activation sequence configured to optimize (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point based on voltage (V.sub.load), current (I.sub.load), or power (P.sub.load)” [0076]).
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 voltage converter unit of Yaman to include a multi-stage voltage cascade selectively activated. Yaman and Zhao are analogous arts because they both relate to circuit arrangements for inductive coupling. Yaman teaches a rectifier and switching receiver coil connections to obtain a target power. Zhao teaches a multilevel AC-DC rectifier including switches that operate in response to control signals generated to achieve a desired operating point/voltage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a multi-stage voltage cascade. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a rectifying system able to “accommodate different power ratings and load ranges” [0041], as identified by Zhao.
Yaman teaches wherein the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, second receiving induction element, and/or third receiving induction element is configured to be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit (“microcontroller (2) provides the activation or deactivation of one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) with respect to the voltage level desired” [0041]). Zhao teaches wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade is configured to be varied by a control unit (compensator 907) to optimize the supply voltage required by an additional unit (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point”). These teachings in combination is construed as teaching wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade and the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element, and/or the third receiving induction element are configured to both be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit.
Regarding claim 30, Yaman and Zhao teaches the item of cookware or support unit of the item of cookware or support unit of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), wherein the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman) is configured to convert an electrical alternating voltage into a first electrical direct voltage (“that converts the AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032] to “DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman).
Regarding claim 32, Yaman and Zhao teaches the item of cookware or support unit of the item of cookware or support unit of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), wherein the first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2; Yaman), the second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2) and the third receiving induction element (see argument in claim 15 above) are part of a common secondary coil (“receiver coils (7, 107) are connected in series and have a common end (C)” [0035], Fig. 1; Yaman) with the first receiving induction element.
Regarding claim 33, Yaman and Zhao teaches the item of cookware or support unit of the item of cookware or support unit of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), wherein the induction energy transmission system comprises a supply unit (power source unit U, Fig. 1; Yaman) which includes a supply induction element (induction coil B, Fig. 1; Yaman) configured to provide a magnetic alternating field (“magnetic field generated by the induction coil (B)” [0034]) for the first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2; Yaman).
Regarding claim 34, Yaman teaches a method for operating an induction energy transmission system (kitchen appliance 1 and induction heating cooker K, Fig. 1) which includes a first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2), a second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2),… and a voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2) connected to (see connection of circuitry 4 and microcontroller 2 in Fig. 2) a control unit (programmable microcontroller 2, Fig. 2), the voltage converter unit… which in an operating state receive inductively provided energy (state of coils 7, 107 when they “partially collects and provides transfer of the power generated by the induction coil (B)” [0032]), said method comprising:
activating the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element and/or the third receiving induction element (“switching means (8) that is controlled by the microcontroller (2), that regulates the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]) with an activation sequence (“by activating or deactivating one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) in situations wherein the voltage delivered by the induction coil (B) changes” [0032]; An activation sequence is construed as selective activation of receiver coils 7, 107) configured to optimize a supply voltage required by the additional unit (“and that provides the power control circuitry (4) to supply the microcontroller (2) and the electronic circuits (3) with constant and uninterrupted voltage” [0032]; Providing “constant and uninterrupted voltage” based on a “voltage delivered” that “changes” is construed as optimizing a supply voltage.); and….
Yaman does not teach and a third receiving induction element… including a voltage cascade with a plurality of stages for conversion of electrical voltage… activating one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade as a function of with an activation sequence configured to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit.
Regarding and a third receiving induction element, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The inclusion of a third receiving induction element achieves the predictable result of regulating voltage at numerous values. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide multiple receiving inductions elements and connect them directly to a controller. By doing so, one would be able to regulate the voltage at the outlet of the receiver coils so as to provide a constant and uninterrupted voltage, as identified by Yaman ([0032]), and simplify circuitry with direct connections.
Yaman does not teach including a voltage cascade with a plurality of stages for conversion of electrical voltage… activating one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade with an activation sequence configured to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit.
Zhao teaches a voltage cascade (“7-level switched-capacitor AC-DC rectifier” [0062], Fig. 4) with a plurality of stages (“7-level” [0062]) for conversion of the electrical voltage (“AC-DC rectifier” [0062])… activating one or more of the stages of the voltage cascade (A process can “generate an output voltage in response to a plurality of control signals… that can be applied to the switches of the MSC rectifier” [0086], Fig. 12) with an activation sequence configured to optimize (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point based on voltage (V.sub.load), current (I.sub.load), or power (P.sub.load)” [0076]) the supply voltage required by the additional unit (see mapping to Yaman).
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 voltage converter unit of Yaman to include a multi-stage voltage cascade selectively activated. Yaman and Zhao are analogous arts because they both relate to circuit arrangements for inductive coupling. Yaman teaches a rectifier and switching receiver coil connections to obtain a target power. Zhao teaches a multilevel AC-DC rectifier including switches that operate in response to control signals generated to achieve a desired operating point/voltage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a multi-stage voltage cascade. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a rectifying system able to “accommodate different power ratings and load ranges” [0041], as identified by Zhao.
Yaman teaches wherein the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, second receiving induction element, and/or third receiving induction element is configured to be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit (“microcontroller (2) provides the activation or deactivation of one or more than one receiver coil (7, 107) with respect to the voltage level desired” [0041]). Zhao teaches wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade is configured to be varied by a control unit (compensator 907) to optimize the supply voltage required by an additional unit (“MSC rectifier 901 can regulate the output on the load to the desired operating point”). These teachings in combination is construed as teaching wherein the activation sequence of the voltage cascade and the activation sequence of the first receiving induction element, the second receiving induction element, and/or the third receiving induction element are configured to both be varied by the control unit to optimize the supply voltage required by the additional unit.
Regarding claim 35, Yaman and Zhao teaches the method of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above), wherein the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman) is configured to convert an electrical alternating voltage into a first electrical direct voltage (“that converts the AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032] to “DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman).
Regarding claim 38, Yaman and Zhao teaches the method of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above), wherein the receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2; Yaman) includes the first receiving induction element (receiver coil 7, Fig. 2; Yaman), the second receiving induction element (receiver coil 107, Fig. 2) and the third receiving induction element (see argument in claim 15 above) which are part of a common secondary coil (“receiver coils (7, 107) are connected in series and have a common end (C)” [0035], Fig. 1; Yaman).
Regarding claim 39, Yaman and Zhao teaches the method of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above), wherein the receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2; Yaman) is configured as an item of cookware (coils 7, 107 are contained in kitchen appliance 1, Fig. 1; Yaman).
Claims 20-21, 31, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaman et al. (US 20140332523 A1), hereinafter Yaman, further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20210057934 A1), hereinafter Zhao, and Sasada et al. (US 20170257036 A1), hereinafter Sasada.
Regarding claim 20, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above).
While Modified Yaman teaches the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman), the electrical alternating voltage (AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]; Yaman), and a polarity (whatever polarity “DC voltage” [0031] has) of the first electrical direct voltage (“DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman), Modified Yaman does not teach wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage with a polarity opposing a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
Sasada teaches wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage (output voltage of the negative polarity high voltage generating circuit 16 [0031], Fig. 1) with a polarity opposing (“positive polarity voltage” of circuit 14 [0028]) a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
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 voltage converter of Yaman to generate direct voltages with opposite polarities. Yaman, Zhao, and Sasada are analogous arts because they all relate to converting AC power to DC power with active and passive electrical components. Yaman teaches converting AC voltage to DC voltage with a rectifier. Zhao teaches a multi-level rectifier. Sasada teaches Cockcroft-Walton voltage multipliers for converting electrical power into direct voltages of opposite polarities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a means for generation voltage of an opposite polarity. By doing so, one would be able to reduce circuit complexity by eliminating switching elements for switching polarities and the noise associated with those elements, as identified by Sasada ([0007]).
Regarding claim 21, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman).
Modified Yaman does not teach comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit.
Sasada teaches comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit (“positive polarity voltage doubler rectifier circuit 22 is a known type of circuit referred to as a Cockcroft-Walton circuit” [0028], Fig. 1).
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 voltage converter of Modified Yaman to comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit. Yaman, Zhao, and Sasada are analogous arts because they all relate to converting AC power to DC power with active and passive electrical components. Yaman teaches converting AC voltage to DC voltage with a rectifier. Zhao teaches a Cockcroft-Walton circuit as a switched-capacitor converter. Sasada teaches Cockcroft-Walton voltage multipliers for converting electrical power into direct voltages of opposite polarities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a Cockcroft-Walton circuit. By doing so, one would be able to power devices with higher energy requirements, as one could obtain a “direct current of four times the voltage input” [0028], as identified by Sasada.
Regarding claim 31, Yaman and Zhao teaches the item of cookware or support unit of the item of cookware or support unit of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30 above).
While Modified Yaman teaches the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman), the electrical alternating voltage (AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]; Yaman), and a polarity (whatever polarity “DC voltage” [0031] has) of the first electrical direct voltage (“DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman), Modified Yaman does not teach wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage with a polarity opposing a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
Sasada teaches wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage (output voltage of the negative polarity high voltage generating circuit 16 [0031], Fig. 1) with a polarity opposing (“positive polarity voltage” of circuit 14 [0028]) a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
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 voltage converter of Yaman to generate direct voltages with opposite polarities. Yaman, Zhao, and Sasada are analogous arts because they all relate to converting AC power to DC power with active and passive electrical components. Yaman teaches converting AC voltage to DC voltage with a rectifier. Zhao teaches a multi-level rectifier. Sasada teaches Cockcroft-Walton voltage multipliers for converting electrical power into direct voltages of opposite polarities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a means for generation voltage of an opposite polarity. By doing so, one would be able to reduce circuit complexity by eliminating switching elements for switching polarities and the noise associated with those elements, as identified by Sasada ([0007]).
Regarding claim 36, Yaman and Zhao teaches the method of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above).
While Modified Yaman teaches the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of power control circuitry 4, Fig. 2; Yaman), the electrical alternating voltage (AC voltage” from “at the outlet of the receiver coils (7, 107)” [0032]; Yaman), and a polarity (whatever polarity “DC voltage” [0031] has) of the first electrical direct voltage (“DC voltage” [0031]; Yaman), Modified Yaman does not teach wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage with a polarity opposing a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
Sasada teaches wherein the voltage converter unit is configured to convert the electrical alternating voltage into a second electrical direct voltage (output voltage of the negative polarity high voltage generating circuit 16 [0031], Fig. 1) with a polarity opposing (“positive polarity voltage” of circuit 14 [0028]) a polarity of the first electrical direct voltage.
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 voltage converter of Yaman to generate direct voltages with opposite polarities. Yaman, Zhao, and Sasada are analogous arts because they all relate to converting AC power to DC power with active and passive electrical components. Yaman teaches converting AC voltage to DC voltage with a rectifier. Zhao teaches a multi-level rectifier. Sasada teaches Cockcroft-Walton voltage multipliers for converting electrical power into direct voltages of opposite polarities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a means for generation voltage of an opposite polarity. By doing so, one would be able to reduce circuit complexity by eliminating switching elements for switching polarities and the noise associated with those elements, as identified by Sasada ([0007]).
Regarding claim 37, Yaman and Zhao teaches the method of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above), wherein the voltage converter unit (rectifier 5 of circuitry 4, Fig. 1; Yaman).
Modified Yaman does not teach comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit.
Sasada teaches comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit (“positive polarity voltage doubler rectifier circuit 22 is a known type of circuit referred to as a Cockcroft-Walton circuit” [0028], Fig. 1).
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 voltage converter of Modified Yaman to comprises a Cockcroft-Walton circuit. Yaman, Zhao, and Sasada are analogous arts because they all relate to converting AC power to DC power with active and passive electrical components. Yaman teaches converting AC voltage to DC voltage with a rectifier. Zhao teaches a Cockcroft-Walton circuit as a switched-capacitor converter. Sasada teaches Cockcroft-Walton voltage multipliers for converting electrical power into direct voltages of opposite polarities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a Cockcroft-Walton circuit. By doing so, one would be able to power devices with higher energy requirements, as one could obtain a “direct current of four times the voltage input” [0028], as identified by Sasada.
Claims 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaman et al. (US 20140332523 A1), hereinafter Yaman, further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20210057934 A1), hereinafter Zhao, and Moon et al. (US 20210100391 A1), hereinafter Moon.
Regarding claim 26, Yaman and Zhao teaches the induction energy transmission system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the receiving unit (more than one receiver coils 7, 107; Fig. 2).
Modified Yaman does not teach is configured as a support unit for positioning an item of cookware.
Moon teaches is configured as a support unit (“support 20 of the smart kettle 1 may include a power receiving coil 210” [0058], Figs. 5-6) for positioning an item of cookware (“support 20 is coupled to the bottom of the body 10 to support the body 10” [0031], Fig. 6).
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 receiving unit of Modified Yaman to be a support unit. Yaman, Zhao, and Moon are analogous arts because they all relate to heating by magnetic induction. Yaman teaches inductively heated kitchen appliances. Zhao teaches converting electrical powers. Moon teaches a support with induction coils for a heated kettle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to a support unit. By doing so, one would be able to non-magnetic devices like the kettle of Moon with an induction cooking apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761