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 amendment filed on or after October 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 7-12 remain pending in the application. Claim 10 is amended. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
“Communication device” should not be interpreted under 112f: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The claim, as written meets the requirements of a means plus function for a 112f. The 112f interpretation is therefore appropriate and sustained.
The Amendment to Claim 10 overcomes the previously set forth rejection in view of 112b for lack of antecedent basis: The examiner concedes that the amendment overcomes the 112b rejection. The rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
Viroli does not teach receiving an operation time and a target output value corresponding to product information: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. As set forth in previous correspondence, Viroli teaches 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). As such, the operation time and target output value are set by the user and therefore must be set in accordance to the characteristics of the product being processed.
Viroli does not teach the limitation of Claim 7 as regards the “resonance current”: As set forth in previous correspondence, this feature is taught by Viroli as modified by Brosnan which teaches this limitation.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of a heating apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 20, 2025.
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 is: “a communication device configured to receive an operation time and a target output power…” in claim 7 which is “configured to received information from a user terminal and/or server” [00113]”. The user terminal and server are structural elements that will be used to limit the claim of the communication device.
Because this claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 Viroli (EP 3764740 A1) in view of Brosnan et al (US Patent Pub No. 2014/0014647 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
532
906
media_image1.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, 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),
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 further teaches that the communication device receives, from a server (“ 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). All of the limitations of Claim 8 are taught by Viroli.
Regarding Claim 9: Viroli 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 (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). All of the limitations of Claim 9 are taught by Viroli.
Regarding Claim 10: Viroli further teaches that the controller is configured to determine whether the target output power value is equal to the maximum output power value (According to the interpretation provided in the section on 112b rejections, 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 (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.) All of the limitations of Claim 10 are taught by Viroli.
Regarding Claim 11: Viroli 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 (The prior art 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). All of the limitations of Claim11 are disclosed by Viroli.
Regarding Claim 12: Viroli 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 (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) All of the limitations of Claim 12 are taught by Viroli.
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 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