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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A).
Regarding claim 1, Metz discloses a method of arranging an induction coil in a food service well, the method comprising: supporting the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coils) at a first height (Shown in the figure below) in the food service well (Fig. 1 #20 housing); and supporting the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coils) at a second height (Shown in the figure below) in the food service well (Fig. 1 #20 housing), the first height different than the second height (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Metz does not disclose supporting, by supports in an extended position, rotating the supports from the extended position to a retracted position; and supporting, with the supports in the retracted position.
Nonetheless, Youn teaches supporting the induction coil (Fig. 4 #1 working coil), by supports in an extended position (Fig. 4 shows the legs (supports) #100a in the extended position), rotating the supports from the extended position (Fig. 4 shows the legs in the extended position) to a retracted position (The legs can be folded which would realize the retracted position with the legs folded.); and supporting the induction coil (Fig. 4 #1 working coil), with the supports in the retracted position (Page 3 para. 9 ---" Here, characteristically is possible to fold the legs are spread (100a) was coupled to the hinge (8) on the bottom of the leg (100a) for supporting a lower portion of the top plate 100, top plate 100, would you have configured.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz by incorporating the supporting of the induction coil in a extended and retracted positions, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Metz teaches further comprising:
providing a first pan (Fig. 1 #10A heating/warming pans left side) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) when the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure) is supported at the first height (Shown in the figure above);
and providing a second pan (Fig. 1 #10A heating/warming pans right side) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) when the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure) is supported at the second height (Shown in the figure above);
wherein the first pan has a first vertical dimension and the second pan has a second vertical dimension different than the first vertical dimension ([0029] lines 1-4 ---"Referring first to FIG. 1, a preferred induction heating unit, generally designated by reference numeral 20, may be used with any of various food heating/warming pans 10A and 10B, having differing depths and a pan ledge 11.”).
Regarding claim 3, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Metz teaches wherein the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) has a depth (Fig. 8 shows #22 shell to have a depth),
and wherein the depth corresponds to both a sum of the first height and the first vertical dimension and a sum of the second height and the second vertical dimension ([0018] lines 1-6 ---"In yet another alternative embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for induction heating food service pans having differing depths, including the step of providing a housing supporting an induction power enclosure and the food service pans, and also providing a plurality of height adjustment mechanisms.”).
Regarding claim 4, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Metz teaches wherein the first vertical dimension is 2 12 inches and the second vertical dimension is 4 inches ([0003] ---" Typical food service, food-holding/warming systems use a variety of pans, typically stainless steel, with a common overall maximum rectangular footprint. This footprint accommodates full-size pans, 2 half-size pans, 1/3 size, 1/6 size pans, etc. The pans further come in several standardized depths (in inches): 21/2, 4, 6, and some 11/4.”).
Regarding claim 5, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Metz teaches further comprising: providing a food pan (Fig. 1 #10B heating/warming pan) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell);
and inducing heat generation in the food pan by operating the induction coil ([0018] lines 12-15 ---"The method also includes the step of induction heating the pan or pans and, preferably, monitoring the temperature of the food service pan or pans, and displaying the temperature to an operator.”).
Regarding claim 11, Metz discloses a method of arranging a pod comprising an induction coil in a food service well, the method comprising: supporting, the pod at a second height (Shown in the figure below) in the food service well; and supporting, the induction coil at a first height (Shown in the figure below) in the food service well, the first height different than the second height (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
688
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Metz does not disclose supporting, while supports for the pod are in a retracted position, rotating the supports from the retracted position to an extended position; and supporting, with the supports in the extended position.
Nonetheless, Youn teaches supporting, while supports (Fig. 4 #100a legs) for the pod are in a retracted position (Fig. 4 #100a legs; The legs can be folded which would realize the retracted position with the legs folded.), rotating the supports (Fig. 4 #100a legs) from the retracted position (The legs can be folded which would realize the retracted position with the legs folded.) to an extended position (Fig. 4 shows the legs (supports) #100a in the extended position); and supporting, with the supports (Fig. 4 #100a legs) in the extended position (Fig. 4 shows the legs (supports) #100a in the extended position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz by incorporating the supporting of the induction coil in an extended and retracted positions, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 12, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), and Metz teaches further comprising:
providing a first pan (Fig. 1 #10A heating/warming pans left side) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) when the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure) is supported at the first height (Shown in the figure above);
and providing a second pan (Fig. 1 #10A heating/warming pans right side) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) when the induction coil (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure) is supported at the second height (Shown in the figure above);
wherein the first pan has a first vertical dimension and the second pan has a second vertical dimension different than the first vertical dimension ([0029] lines 1-4 ---"Referring first to FIG. 1, a preferred induction heating unit, generally designated by reference numeral 20, may be used with any of various food heating/warming pans 10A and 10B, having differing depths and a pan ledge 11.”).
Regarding claim 13, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), and Metz teaches wherein the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) has a depth (Fig. 8 shows #22 shell to have a depth),
and wherein the depth corresponds to both a sum of the first height and the first vertical dimension and a sum of the second height and the second vertical dimension ([0018] lines 1-6 ---"In yet another alternative embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for induction heating food service pans having differing depths, including the step of providing a housing supporting an induction power enclosure and the food service pans, and also providing a plurality of height adjustment mechanisms.”).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Allen et al (US 8,931,400).
Regarding claim 6, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises moving the supports into an inset portion of a housing for the induction coil.
Nonetheless, Allen in the same field of endeavor being cooking devices teaches wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises moving the supports into an inset portion of a housing for the induction coil (Fig. 7 shows the #130 handle being used as a support in the extended position and Fig. 5 shows the #130 handle being used as a support in the retracted position inset in the housing of the cooking device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating the rotating of the supports from the extended position to the retracted position by moving the supports into an inset portion of a housing, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 7, Metz in view of Youn and Allen teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), but does not explicitly teach wherein supporting the induction coil at the second height in the food service well comprises contacting the food service well with a bottom surface of the housing.
However, Metz in view of Youn and Allen teaches supports that sit flush with the housing of the cooking device and is capable of sitting flush with the bottom of the service well.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating supporting the induction coil at the second height in the food service well by contacting the food service well with a bottom surface of the housing, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 8, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein supporting, by the supports in the extended position, the induction coil at the first height in the food service well comprises contacting the food service well with contact surfaces of the supports.
However, Metz in view of Youn and Allen teaches supports that extend where contact surfaces of the supports are capable of contacting the bottom of the service well.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating supporting the induction coil at the first height in the food service well by contacting the food service well with contact surfaces of the supports, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 9, Metz in view of Youn and Allen teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Allen teaches wherein, in the extended position, the supports (Fig. 4 #100a legs) extend from a housing (Fig. 4 #100 top plate) for the induction coil (Fig. 4 #1 working coil) to the contact surfaces (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating contact surfaces as taught by Allen, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Parker et al (US 5,553,601).
Regarding claim 10, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises rotating each support by more than 90 degrees.
Nonetheless, Parker in the same field of endeavor being cooking devices teaches wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises rotating each support by more than 90 degrees (Col. 8 lines 61-64 ---" In one particular embodiment, the leg portions 107 are 4 inches long, the offsets 111 are 1 inch and the axis 101 is spaced 1 inch from the inside surface of the wall 14. The angle .alpha. is 120.degree..”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating the extended position of the supports by more than 90 degrees, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Allen et al (US 8,931,400).
Regarding claim 14, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein rotating the supports from the retracted position to the extended position comprises moving the supports out of an inset portion of a pod housing the induction coil.
Nonetheless, Allen teaches wherein rotating the supports from the retracted position to the extended position comprises moving the supports out of an inset portion of a pod housing the induction coil (Fig. 5 shows the #130 handle being used as a support in the retracted position inset in the housing of the cooking device and Fig. 7 shows the #130 handle being used as a support in the extended position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating the rotating of the supports from the retracted position by moving the supports into an inset portion of a housing to the extended position, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 16, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not explicitly teach wherein supporting the pod at the second height in the food service well comprises contacting the food service well with a bottom surface of the pod.
However, Metz in view of Youn and Allen teaches supports that extend where contact surfaces of the supports are capable of contacting the bottom of the service well.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating supporting the pod at the first height in the food service well by contacting the food service well with contact surfaces of the supports, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 17, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein supporting the pod at the first height in the food service well comprises contacting the food service well with the supports.
However, Allen teaches wherein, in the extended position, the supports (Fig. 4 #100a legs) extend from a housing (Fig. 4 #100 top plate) for the induction coil (Fig. 4 #1 working coil) to the contact surfaces (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating contact surfaces as taught by Allen, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A) as applied to claim 11, in view of Parker et al (US 5,553,601).
Regarding claim 10, Metz in view of Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises rotating each support by more than 90 degrees.
Nonetheless, Parker in the same field of endeavor being cooking devices teaches wherein rotating the supports from the extended position to the retracted position comprises rotating each support by more than 90 degrees (Col. 8 lines 61-64 ---" In one particular embodiment, the leg portions 107 are 4 inches long, the offsets 111 are 1 inch and the axis 101 is spaced 1 inch from the inside surface of the wall 14. The angle .alpha. is 120.degree..”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Metz in view of Youn by incorporating the extended position of the supports by more than 90 degrees, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (KR 101253578) in view of Metz et al (US 2014/0339220) and Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A).
Regarding claim 15, Yoon discloses a method, comprising:
providing a first induction device (Fig. 2 H1 cooking heater) and a second induction device (Fig. 2 H2 cooking heater) in a food service well (Fig. 2 #30 main body).
However, Yoon does not disclose selectively rearranging the first induction device between a first height in the food service well and a second height in the food service well by rotating first supports of the first induction device between retracted and extended positions; and selectively rearranging the second induction device between the first height in the food service well and the second height in the food service well by rotating second supports of the second induction device between the retracted and extended positions.
Nonetheless, Metz teaches selectively rearranging the first induction device between a first height in the food service well and a second height in the food service well (Shown in figure 2 below); and selectively rearranging the second induction device between the first height in the food service well and the second height in the food service well (Shown in figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoon by incorporating the selective rearranging of the first and second induction devices between a first and second height as taught by Metz for the benefit of arranging the height of the induction device to accommodate the size of a food pan.
However, Yoon in view of Metz does not teach rearranging by rotating first and second supports of the first and second induction devices between retracted and extended positions.
Nonetheless, Youn teaches rearranging by rotating first and second supports of the first and second induction devices between retracted (Fig. 4 #100a legs; The legs can be folded which would realize the retracted position with the legs folded.) and extended positions (Fig. 4 shows the legs in the extended position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoon in view of Metz by incorporating the supporting of the induction coil in an extended and retracted positions, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. Rearranging the height of the first and second induction coils involves performing the same method for each induction coil.
Regarding claim 19, Yoon in view of Metz and Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Yoon in view of Metz and Youn teaches wherein the step of selectively rearranging the first induction device between the first height in the food service well and the second height in the food service well is performed independently of the step of selectively rearranging the second induction device between the first height in the food service well and the second height in the food service well (This limitation is performed by the operator.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoon in view of Metz by incorporating the step of selectively rearranging the first and second induction devices independently, since it has been held that if a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, Yoon in view of Metz and Youn teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Metz teaches further comprising: providing a first pan(Fig. 1 #10A heating/warming pans left side) in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) aligned with the first induction device (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure) and a second pan in the food service well (Fig. 8 #22 shell) aligned with the second induction device (Fig. 9 #51 induction coil held within Fig. 1 #60 enclosure);
selecting between the first height and the second height for the first induction device based on a first dimension of the first pan; and selecting between the first height and the second height based on a second dimension of the second pan ([0029] lines 1-4 ---"Referring first to FIG. 1, a preferred induction heating unit, generally designated by reference numeral 20, may be used with any of various food heating/warming pans 10A and 10B, having differing depths and a pan ledge 11.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yoon in view of Metz and Youn by incorporating the selecting between the first height and the second height for the first and second induction devices based on the first or second dimension of the service pan for the benefit of accommodating various sizes of food service pans.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-14, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Youn et al (KR 20060005131 A).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach "rotating the supports from the extended position to a retracted position; and supporting, with the supports in the retracted position, the induction coil at a second height in the food service well, the first height different than the second height." Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Youn teaches "rotating the supports from the extended position to a retracted position; and supporting, with the supports in the retracted position, the induction coil at a second height in the food service well, the first height different than the second height."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights