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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 11/17/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9 and 12-14 has /have been amended, claims 16-20 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are pending in the application with claims 9-15 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-8 are as follow. Previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims with no new matter added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first frequency change cycle” in second to the last line rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a first frequency change cycle” and each frequency change cycle mentioned in line 15 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the initial driving frequency” in second to the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2018/0317284 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Park et al. disclose an induction heating apparatus, comprising:
a working coil (induction heating coils 201, [0054], Figs 2-4 and 11) disposed to correspond to a heating area (cooking plate 102, [0052], Fig 2);
an inverter (inverter circuit 153, [0112], Fig 11) comprising a plurality of switching elements (switching circuit 153a may include a first switch Q1 and a second switch Q2, [0122], Fig 11), and configured to provide current to the working coil;
a driving circuit (circuit of the driving processor 157, [0112], Fig 11) for providing a switching signal to the inverter (see Fig 11); and
a controller (controller 110, [0079], Figs 4-11; driving processor 157, [0112], Fig 11) configured to:
receive a power level for the heating area (determine the intensity of a magnetic field produced by the induction heating coil 201, [0174]),
determine a required power value corresponding to the power level (have buttons to increase the output level (power up button) and decrease the output level (power down button), [0171]),
determine a heating frequency corresponding to the required power value (driving processor 157 may calculated a switching frequency, [0154], Fig 11),
determine an upper limit frequency and a lower limit frequency based on the heating frequency (controller 110 may control the first driver 150 to selectively apply the driving current to the plurality of induction coils 201 according to the user input received through the user interface 120, [0165]. Clearly, any user can “determine an upper limit frequency and a lower limit frequency based on the heating frequency” as claimed),
set a driving frequency of the working coil to an initial frequency to drive the working coil (first and second drivers 150 and 160 may each receive power from an external power source and apply a current to the induction heating coil 201 according to a driving control signal from the controller 110, [0111]), and
change, at each frequency change cycle, the driving frequency from a current driving frequency to a target frequency (the controller 110 may control the first driver 150 to selectively apply the driving current to the plurality of induction coils 201 according to the user input received through the user interface 120, [0165]; a sum of the output power of the first driver 150 and the output power of the second driver 160 corresponds to the output power of the cooking apparatus 100, which is defined by the user, [0241]),
wherein the target frequency newly determined at the each frequency change cycle as a random value between the lower limit frequency and the upper limit frequency (controller 110 of the cooking apparatus 100 may determine the intensity of a magnetic field produced by the induction heating coil 201 based on the output level input by the user, [0174]. Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller so that “the target frequency newly determined at the each frequency change cycle as a random value between the lower limit frequency and the upper limit frequency” as claimed), and
wherein the current driving frequency at a first frequency change cycle is the initial driving frequency (Clearly, the user capable of set “the current driving frequency at a first frequency change cycle is the initial driving frequency” as claimed).
Claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: determine the initial frequency to be a value that is equal to or less than the upper limit frequency and that is equal to or greater than the lower limit frequency (controller 110 of the cooking apparatus 100 may determine the intensity of a magnetic field produced by the induction heating coil 201 based on the output level input by the user, [0174]. Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller to “determine the initial frequency to be a value that is equal to or less than the upper limit frequency and that is equal to or greater than the lower limit frequency” as claimed).
Claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to: determine the target frequency to be equal to or less than the upper limit frequency and to be equal to or greater than the lower limit frequency (Clearly, any user capable of controlling “the controller” to “determine the target frequency to be equal to or less than the upper limit frequency and to be equal to or greater than the lower limit frequency” as claimed).
Claim 4, wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes linearly increasing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency, within the each frequency change cycle (Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller “wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes linearly increasing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency, within the each frequency change cycle” as claimed).
Claim 5, wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes linearly decreasing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency, within the each frequency change cycle (Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller “wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes linearly decreasing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency, within the each frequency change cycle” as claimed).
Claim 6, wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes changing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency based on a linear interpolation function, within the each frequency change cycle (Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller “wherein the change of the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency includes changing the driving frequency from the current driving frequency to the target frequency based on a linear interpolation function, within the each frequency change cycle” as claimed).
Claim 7, wherein the linear interpolation function is defined based on a predetermined unit interpolation cycle or a predetermined unit frequency change value (Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller, “wherein the linear interpolation function is defined based on a predetermined unit interpolation cycle or a predetermined unit frequency change value” as claimed).
Claim 8, wherein the driving frequency increases or decreases linearly within the each frequency change cycle (Clearly, any user capable of controlling the controller, “wherein the driving frequency increases or decreases linearly within the each frequency change cycle” as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761