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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to the Applicant
The examiner submits that an interview may be beneficial prior to filing a response to this action. Should the applicant and applicant’s representative find this suggestion amenable, the examiner encourages the applicant’s representative to reach out to the examiner (via telephone or via the AIR system) and request an interview.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 6, 2026 have been entered. Claims 7-12 remain pending in the application. The examiner notes here that the 112f interpretation of “a communication device” is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action is provided
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The combination of Viroli in view of Brosnan does not teach the limitations of independent Claim 7 as amended: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. In order to address the amended limitations of claim 7, a revised rejection of in view of Viroli and Brosnan is provided which specifically addresses the limitation “from at least one of a server or user terminal” as newly mapped to Brosnan which discloses a user terminal (“user interface” [0024]). This rejection is provided as an alternative to the newly presented rejection of Claims 7-12 in view of Yoon and Viroli which is also provided to address the amended limitations.
The computer of Viroli is a “software execution mechanism” and is not “a communication device within an induction heating apparatus”: The examiner appreciates the intended distinction and respectfully submits that the communication device being “within” the induction heating apparatus is not required by the claims as currently written. As such, the computer of Viroli still reads on the limitations of the communication device.
“the reception of an operation time and target output power value corresponding to product information from an external server or user terminal means that a specific ‘cooking recipe’ …” and that the cooking time adjustment of Viroli is not “an active, controlled adjustment to ensure the completion of a pre-defined cooking recipe”: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The continuous assessment of Viroli suggests an active controlled adjustment of the cooking parameters in accordance with the active assessment of the system. The absence of explicitly defined “recipe” information does not impact the manner in which the prior art reads on the claims. Furthermore, the claims, as written, do not require that the product information be drawn to a particular cooking recipe but rather that the operating conditions are established based on the intended target to be heated which is taught by the prior art as cited which takes the necessary power and time of the object to be cooked into account during the heating process.
Viroli does not teach or suggest that “the control process is triggered when the resonance current value exceeds a preset reference value”: This argument is not found to be persuasive as this implied limitation is not currently required by the claims as written. Currently the claim requires the determination of a resonance current value and comparing the resonance current value with a preset current value, but they do not require that any change of state or action is initiated (or is triggered) as a result of this determination as suggested by the arguments submitted.
Viroli does not teach that at least one of the operation time or the target power values based on the container efficiency index is adjusted: In making this argument, the applicant cites a passage from Viroli which states “the switching frequency of the induction generator or the power transfer of the cooking pot” which correspond to the working parameters of the invention. The examiner submits that the ultimate result of this adjustment is the adjustment of the target output power.
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2019/0141,793 A1) in view of Viroli (EP 3764740 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
553
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Yoon teaches an induction heating apparatus (“induction heating device” Abstract) comprising: a working coil (“working coil” Abstract) disposed to correspond to a heating region (“heating region” [0057] Figure 1 Element 12) ;
an inverter circuit (“inverter” [0010]) comprising a plurality of switching elements (“switching operation of the inverter” [0010]) , and configured to provide a current to the working coil (“inverter configured to apply current to the working coil based on a switching operation of the inverter” [0010]);
a drive circuit (“inverter driving unit” [0010]) configured to provide a switching signal to each of the switching elements (“inverter driving unit configured to apply a switching signal” to the elements of the inverter that perform the switching operation [0010]);
a controller (“control unit” [0010]) configured to drive the working coil by providing, to the drive circuit, a control signal for adjusting the switching signal (the control unit is “configured to generate a control signal, that is configured to apply the control signal to the inverter driving unit, and that is configured to cause the inverter driving unit to generate the switching signal based on the control signal” [0010]);
a communication device (“loading plate” [0040] wherein information from the “the information output from the interface 114 may be displayed through the loading plate 106” [0040]) configured to receive, from at least one of a server or a user terminal (“interface” [0040] Figure 1 Element 114) , and a target output power value corresponding to product information ( the “interface 114” [0039] allows for “heating power set by the user” [0062] in accordance with the characteristics of the intended product) ;
and a resonance current sensor (“sensor” [0014]) configured to measure a resonance current value of the working coil (the sensor is “configured to measure a resonant current from the working coil based on operation of the inverter driving unit” [0014]) ,
wherein the controller (“control unit” [0010]) is configured to: drive the working coil (“working coil” [0010]) based on “heating power set by the user” [0062]), determine a resonance current value ( “first resonant current values” [0079]) of the working coil (“working coil” [0010]) based on the resonance current sensor (“sensor “ [0014]), compare the resonance current value with a preset reference current value (“first reference value” 0056]), determine a container efficiency index (“determination result as transmitted from the determination unit” [0060] as the determination unit confirms “the loaded-object…, to have the inductive-heating property, is an object without an inductive-heating property.” ) of the container, and adjust at least one of the operation time or the target output power value based on the determined container efficiency index (“The control unit 20 may determine whether to perform a heating operation based on the determination result as transmitted from the determination unit 22” [0060] which means that the operation time and the power may be set to 0 and thus be adjusted based on the determination result)
Yoon does not teach setting of an operation time or that the container efficiency index is based on an actual output power value of the working coil and the target output value
However, Viroli does teach an induction heating apparatus (“induction cooking hob” [Abstract]) wherein operation time is set (“predetermined time” [0006] which may be “between five seconds and twenty seconds”) wherein the apparatus has a working coil (“the cooking hob comprises one or more induction coil” which correspond to the heating region [0002]) and control unit (a “control unit”[0002]) that determines a container efficiency index of the container provided on the working coil based on an actual output power value of the working coil and the target output power value (the controller determines energy efficiency EE provided to the container is given by the relationship EE=EP/EI wherein EP is the electric energy transferred to a cooking pot and EI is the electric energy provided by the mains supply” [0009] which reads on the limitations of the claim)
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yoon such that the controller enables the input of operation time and determines an additional efficiency index of the container provided on the working coil based on an actual output power value of the working coil and the target output power value as disclosed by Viroli in order to provide a method for “very fast heating” [0002] of the object being cooked in an optimized manner taking the characteristics of the product and the container into account adaptively as well as provide an induction heating apparatus which “optimizes the energy efficiency of said induction cooking hob” [0002])
Regarding Claim 8: Yoon as modified by Viroli further teaches that the communication device (Yoon- “loading plate” [0040] receives, from a server (Yoon- “interface” [0040] Figure 1 Element 114), the operation time (Viroli- “predetermined time” [0006] ) and the target output power value that correspond to the product information (Yoon- the “interface 114” [0039] allows for “heating power set by the user” [0062] in accordance with the characteristics of the intended product).
Alternately: Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viroli (EP 3764740 A1) in view of Brosnan et al (US Patent Pub No. 2014/0014647 A1):
PNG
media_image2.png
532
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Viroli teaches an induction heating apparatus (“induction cooking hob” [0001]) comprising: a working coil disposed to correspond to a heating region (“the cooking hob comprises one or more induction coil” which correspond to the heating region [0002]); a drive circuit configured to provide a switching signal to each of the switching elements (The prior art teaches an “induction generator”[0002] which provides switching power to “switching elements that are switches” [0011] which functions as a drive circuit for the invention and reads on the limitations of the claim); a controller configured to drive the working coil by providing, to the drive circuit, a control signal for adjusting the switching signal (the prior art additionally teaches a “control unit”[0002] which is configured to drive the working coil by providing, to the drive circuit, a control signal for adjusting the switching signal); a communication device configured to receive an operation time and a target output power value corresponding to product information (the prior art discloses that “the present invention program product stored on a computer usable medium… causing a computer to perform the method” [0015]. The computer serves as the communication device for the invention allowing for the input of the target operation time and target power by the user) ; and a resonance current sensor configured to measure a resonance current value of the working coil (the prior art discloses a “detector for detecting a current” [0003] which is known in the art to be able to detect the point of resonance of the relevant working coil and reads on the limitations of the claim), wherein the controller is configured to: drive the working coil based on the operation time and the target output power value (the prior art additionally teaches a “control unit”[0002] which is configured to drive the working coil by based on the operation time (“predetermined time period” [0005]) and target output value (The art teaches that the controller drives the working coil according to the power target “threshold value EDthr” [0028]) which reads on the limitations of the claim), determine a container efficiency index of the container provided on the working coil based on an actual output power value of the working coil and the target output power value (the controller determines energy efficiency EE provided to the container is given by the relationship EE=EP/EI wherein EP is the electric energy transferred to a cooking pot and EI is the electric energy provided by the mains supply” [0009] which reads on the limitations of the claim), and adjust at least one of the operation time or the target output power value based on the determined container efficiency index (the controller determines energy efficiency EE is given by the relationship EE=EP/EI wherein EP is the electric energy transferred to a cooking pot and EI is the electric energy provided by the mains supply” [0010] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be an equivalent relationship between the actual output over the target output and reads on the limitations of the claims) and adjusts the power /time accordingly as the steps for “estimating dissipated electric energy and comparing [it] with the threshold value are periodically repeated…By this way, the threshold value is not exceeded for a longer time interval…the present invention allows an optimized energy efficiency, while possibly the cooking speed is reduced…[or] elongated” accordingly[0031-0033]) .
Viroli does not teach an inverter circuit, that the current sensor explicitly measures the resonance current, that the communication device is configured to received input from at last one server or user terminal, or that the controller is further configured to determine a resonance current value of the working coil based on the resonance current sensor and compare the resonance current value with a preset reference current value,
However, Brosnan discloses an induction heating apparatus with an inverter circuit (“inverter module” Figure 1 Element 108) wherein operation parameters are configured to be received by a communication device (within the “controller” [0024]) from a server or user interface (“user interface” [0024])
Brosnan further teaches that the controller is configured to determine a resonance current value of the working coil based on the resonance current sensor and compare the resonance current value with a preset reference current value
(“controller processes the signal from the feedback circuit to generate information related to the current magnitude, pan presence and proximity to system resonance (full power) …the characteristics if the signal from the feedback current is used to determine…the resonant frequency of the power circuit with the pan present” [0025-0026] the last step of which requires the comparison of the resonance current value with the preset current reference and thus reads on the limitations of the claim)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Viroli with the inverter circuit of Brosnan in order to “prevent the occurrence of power loss caused by an excessive switching operation (as evidenced by Kim (US Patent No. 7,176,424 B2) in the Abstract).” Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Viroli with the configuration of the controller to circuit of Brosnan to determine the resonance current and compare the resonance current value with a preset reference current value because “the closer the system is driven to the resonant frequency, the more efficiently power can be delivered..[as] the maximum power output of the system occurs are resonance” Brosnan [0022].
Regarding Claim 8: Viroli as modified by Brosnan further teaches that the communication device receives, from a server (Viroli- “ a computer program product stored on a computer usable medium, comprising computer readable program means for causing a computer to perform the method [of operating the induction cooking hob]” [0022], the program of which is the server of the invention), the operation time and the target output power value that correspond to the product information (the computer program allows the user to input the target output power and the operation time into the computer (or communication device) which reads on the limitations of the Claims).
Regarding Claim 9: Viroli as modified by Brosnan further teaches that the controller is to determine the container efficiency index by dividing the actual output power value by the target output power value (Viroli-the controller determines energy efficiency EE is given by the relationship EE=EP/EI wherein EP is the actual output power “transferred to a cooking pot and is the electric energy provided by the mains supply” [0012] and EI is the EP + ED in which EP is the actual power and ED is the target power [0025] which reads on the limitations of the claims).
Regarding Claim 10: Viroli as modified by Brosnan further teaches that the controller is configured to determine whether the target output power value is equal to the maximum output power value (Viroli- the maximum output power is understood as a preset threshold to which the dissipated electric energy is compared. The prior art discloses that the target output power (dissipated electric energy ED) is compared with a threshold value EDthr…which is defined in in such a way that a certain desired level of energy efficiency EE is obtained. [0032)], and to adjust at least one of the operation time or the target output power value based on a result of the determination (Viroli-The prior art further discloses that the output power is adjusted once the comparison is performed “If the dissipated electric energy ED is not bigger than the threshold value EDthr for said dissipated electric energy, then …the working parameters of the induction generator are maintained. However, if the dissipated electric energy ED is bigger than the threshold value EDthr for said dissipated electric energy, then the control unit acts on one or more working parameters of the induction generator in step 18, i.e. the working parameters of the induction generator are changed. For example, the estimated power transfer to the induction coil is reduced. [0031-0033]” Additionally, the time is also accordingly adjusted as the steps for “estimating dissipated electric energy and comparing [it] with the threshold value are periodically repeated… this way, the threshold value is not exceeded for a longer time interval…the present invention allows an optimized energy efficiency, while…the cooking speed is reduced…[or] elongated” accordingly [0031-0033] which reads on the limitations of the claims.)
Regarding Claim 11: Viroli as modified by Brosnan further teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the operation time based on the container efficiency index, when the target output power value is determined to be equal to the maximum output power value (Viroli- teaches that when the target output power value is determined to be equal to the maximum output power value, the time is also accordingly adjusted as the steps for “estimating dissipated electric energy and comparing [it] with the threshold value are periodically repeated… this way, the threshold value is not exceeded for a longer time interval…the present invention allows an optimized energy efficiency, while…the cooking speed is reduced…[or] elongated” accordingly [0031-0033] which reads on the limitations of the claims ), and the controller is configured to adjust the target output power value based on the container efficiency index, unless the target output power value is determined to be equal to the maximum output power value (The prior art further discloses that the controller adjusts the output power once the comparison is performed “If the dissipated electric energy ED is not bigger than the threshold value EDthr for said dissipated electric energy, then …the working parameters of the induction generator are maintained. However, if the dissipated electric energy ED is bigger than the threshold value EDthr for said dissipated electric energy, then the control unit acts on one or more working parameters of the induction generator in step 18, i.e. the working parameters of the induction generator are changed. For example, the estimated power transfer to the induction coil is reduced. [0031-0033]” which reads on the limitations of the claim).
Regarding Claim 12: Viroli as modified by Brosnan further teaches that the controller is configured to re-adjust the maximum output power value to be the target output power value, when the adjusted target output power value exceeds the maximum output power value, and the controller is configured to adjust the operation time based on the initial target output power value, the maximum output power value and the container efficiency index (Viroli- The prior art teaches that the determination of the Efficiency index and subsequent adjustments described in the sections regarding Claim 10 and 11 are “periodically repeated” [0031] by the controller which reads on the limitations of the claim)
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
Prosecution Insights