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 01/14/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 16, 19-22, 24 and 30-33 has /have been amended, claims 18 and 34-37 has /have been cancelled, claims 38-41 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 16-17, 19-29, 30-33 and 38-41 are pending in the application with claims 30-33 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 16-17, 19-29 and 38-41 are as follow.
The previous objections to the specification are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the specification with no new matter added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, under claim 28: “the safety unit is integrated at least to a large extent in the household unit”, and under claim 38: “the safety unit is physically located in the household unit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “a first induction unit configured to inductively supply energy” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “inductively supply energy” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0054], at least one first induction unit 14a of the household appliance 12a.
B. Claim limitation “a second induction unit configured to inductively receive the energy” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “inductively receive the energy” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0061], Figs 2-3, at least one second induction unit 18a.
C. Claim limitation “a safety unit configured to prevent… a transmission of energy” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “prevent… a transmission of the energy” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0062], Fig 3, at least one and advantageously precisely one safety unit 20a.
D. Claim limitation “a safety element to change a coupling parameter” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “to change a coupling parameter” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0063], Fig 3, at least one safety element 22a.
E. Claim limitation “a switching element” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “switching” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 20 and 40 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0091], Fig 6, further safety element 40c is designed in particular as a switching element, such as for example an, in particular magnetic, relay.
F. Claim limitation “a safety control unit configured to communicate with” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to communicate with” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 23 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0071], Fig 2, advantageously precisely one safety control unit 24a.
G. Claim limitation “a household appliance control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 23 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0054], Fig 1, advantageously precisely one household appliance control unit 26a.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 16-17, 19-29 and 38-41 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 16 recites the limitation “energy” in last line rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “energy” and the energy as mentioned in line 5 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “a safety element” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a safety element” and a safety element as mentioned in claim 16 line 8 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “energy” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “energy” and the energy as mentioned in claim 16 line 5 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 16, 17, an d19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2007/0221668 A1) in view of Wechlin et al. (US 2014/0191715 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Baarman et al. disclose a household appliance system, comprising:
a household appliance (a food preparation system 8, [0030], Fig 1) including a first induction unit (primary coils 18, 20, 22, [0030], Fig 1) configured to inductively
supply energy;
a household unit (Cooking utensils 24, 26, 28, [0030], Fig 1) including a second induction unit (secondary heater 110, [0033, 0052], Fig 6A) configured to inductively receive the energy that is supplied from the first induction unit (see [0033, 0052]); and
a safety unit (a safety shutoff, [0037]) configured to prevent, as a function of a safety parameter, at least in an interval a transmission of the energy to the second induction unit (power to the primary coils is reduced or eliminated, [0037]),
Baarman et al. discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein the safety unit includes a safety element to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit.
Wechlin et al. further teach a household appliance system (a device for the inductive energy transmission, [0015], Fig 1), and wherein the safety unit includes a safety element (via two switches S5 and S6, through which a short-circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, [0044], Fig 6. Note: “the safety unit” taught by Baarman et al. already) to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit (to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of primary coils 18, 20, 22, [0030], Fig 1, Baarman et al.) and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit (If the current supplied… exceeds a threshold current, then power to the primary coils is reduced or eliminated, [0037], Baarman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baarman et al. with Wechlin et al.’s further teaching of wherein the safety unit includes a safety element to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit; because Wechlin et al. teach, in Abstract, of providing an excellent induction heating system to determine whether an electrically conductive foreign body is present in the region of the magnetic field produced by the primary inductor.
Claim 17, constructed in the form of a hob-type cooking system (a food preparation system 8, [0030], Fig 1, Baarman et al.).
Claim 19, wherein the coupling parameter comprises an impedance (Power supply 17 preferable is an adaptive inductive power supply… primary coils 18, 20, 22 inductively couple to cooking utensils 24, 26, 28 in order to provide power to the utensils. [0031], Baarman et al.).
Claim 20, wherein the safety element is designed as a switching element (safety element including two switches and S6; through S5, a by-pass circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, and through S6, an open-circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, [0044], Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the safety element” taught by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 21, wherein the safety element and the second induction unit are connected in series (S6 and the second induction unit 4 are connected in series, when S6 is opened, the second induction unit 4 are disconnected, therefore prevented a transmission of energy to the second induction nuit 4. Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the second induction unit” taught by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 22, wherein the safety element and the second induction unit are connected parallel to one another (S5 and the second induction unit 4 are connected in parallel, when S5 is closed, the second induction unit 4 been by-passed, therefore prevented a transmission of energy to the second induction nuit 4. Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the second induction unit” taught by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 23, wherein the safety unit includes a safety control unit configured to communicate with a household appliance control unit of the household appliance (for control of the secondary switches S5 and S6, a suitable communication connection must exist between the control unit 7, [0045], Fig 1, Wechlin et al. Note: controller 36, [0032], Fig 1, taugut by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 24, wherein the safety control unit is configured to prevent, as the function of the safety parameter, which comprises an incorrect communication with the household appliance control unit (at least one parameter of the measured curve is compared with a corresponding parameter, [0009], Wechlin et al.), at least in the interval the transmission of the energy to the second induction unit (the secondary coil 4 can be short circuited by means of the switch S5, [0046], Fig 6, Wechlin et al.).
Claim 25, wherein the household unit includes an energy consumer (Cooking utensils 24, 26, 28 includes an energy consumer, Fig 1, Baarman et al.), said second induction unit supplying the energy consumer in one operating state at least in part with energy (Independent secondary heater 110 allows for the use of non-magnetic pots and pans with food preparation system, [0052], Figs 1 and 6A, Baarman et al.).
Claim 26, wherein the second induction unit is configured to transmit at least in part the energy in a wireless manner to the energy consumer (the non-contact power transfer system could be an inductive power system, [0007], Baarman et al.).
Claim 27, wherein the second induction unit is configured to transmit at least in part the energy in a wired manner to the energy consumer (the non-contact power transfer system could be an inductive power system, [0007], Baarman et al.).
Claim 29, wherein the household unit includes an item of cooking dishware (Cooking utensils 24, 26, 28, [0031], Fig 1, Baarman et al.).
Claims 28 and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2007/0221668 A1) in view of Wechlin et al. (US 2014/0191715 A1) applied to claim 16, further in view of Bally et al. (DE102009000273 A1).
Regarding Claims 28 and 38, Baarman et al. in view of Wechlin et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 28 and 38.
Bally et al. further teach a household appliance (a system, Fig 1) and, claim 28, wherein the safety unit (an integrated circuit 116, [0022], Fig 1) is integrated at least to a large extent in the household unit (116 in an intelligent pot 101, [0021]. Note: “the safety unit” and “the household unit” taught by Baarman et al. already); claim 38, wherein the safety unit (an integrated circuit 116, [0022], Fig 1) is physically located in the household unit (116 in physically located in pot 101, [0021]. Note: “the safety unit” and “the household unit” taught by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 39, wherein the safety unit includes a safety element (via two switches S5 and S6, through which a short-circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, [0044], Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the safety unit” taught by Baarman et al. already) to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit (to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of primary coils 18, 20, 22, [0030], Fig 1, Baarman et al.) and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit (If the current supplied… exceeds a threshold current, then power to the primary coils is reduced or eliminated, [0037], Baarman et al.).
Claim 40, wherein the safety element is a switching element a switching element (safety element including two switches and S6; through S5, a by-pass circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, and through S6, an open-circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, [0044], Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the safety element” taught by Baarman et al. already) and the safety element and the second induction unit are in a common electrical switching circuit (see Fig 6, Wechlin et al. Note: “the second induction unit” taught by Baarman et al. already).
Claim 41, wherein the household unit includes an item of cooking dishware (Cooking utensils 24, 26, 28, [0030], Fig 1, Baarman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baarman et al. in view of Wechlin et al. with Bally et al.’s further teaching of Claim 28 and 38-41; because Bally et al. teach, in Para. [0022], of providing an excellent household appliance for processing data and outputting data to a transmitter in odder forward to control unit 110 of the operating divide 106 for control purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Applicant respectfully submits that Wechlin is not available to the Examiner for use in a rejection because Wechlin is clearly non-analogous art. In order for a reference to be proper for
use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The examiner must determine what is "analogous prior art" for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Wechlin is neither within the field of Applicant's endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which Applicant was concerned”, “The question of whether a reference is reasonably pertinent often turns on how the problem to be solved is perceived. It may be necessary for the examiner to explain why an inventor seeking to solve the identified problem would have looked to the reference in an attempt to find a solution to the problem, i.e., factual reasons why the prior art is pertinent to the identified problem. Applicant submits that the Office Action does not adequately explain why an inventor would look to Wechlin, which addresses the problem of detecting the presence of an electric vehicle in the region of an inductive vehicle charger”, “Knowledge of applicant's disclosure must be put aside in reaching this determination, yet kept in mind in order to determine the 'differences,' conduct the search and evaluate the 'subject matter as a whole' of the invention. The tendency to resort to 'hindsight' based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of facts gleaned from the prior art." (Emphasisadded, M.P.E.P. § 2142)”, and “As a result, Applicant submits that it would not have been obvious to combine features that relate to charging of a rechargeable battery incorporated into an electric vehicle with a reference that relates to food preparation”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Baarman et al. in view of Wechlin et al. teach exactly a household appliance system as claimed under Independent Claim 1, fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claim 1 as set forth in this office action shown above. Baarman et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed as shown above; except does not disclose: wherein the safety unit includes a safety element to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit. However, Wechlin et al. further teach a household appliance system (a device for the inductive energy transmission, [0015], Fig 1), and wherein the safety unit includes a safety element (via two switches S5 and S6, through which a short-circuit of the secondary coil 4 can be produced, [0044], Fig 6. Note: “the safety unit” taught by Baarman et al. already) to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit (to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of primary coils 18, 20, 22, [0030], Fig 1, Baarman et al.) and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit (If the current supplied… exceeds a threshold current, then power to the primary coils is reduced or eliminated, [0037], Baarman et al.); Wechlin et al. modified the safety unit of Baarman et al. to include a safety element to change a coupling parameter of a coupling of the first induction unit and of the second induction unit so as to prevent the transmission of energy to the second induction unit, for the purpose of providing an excellent induction heating system to determine whether an electrically conductive foreign body is present in the region of the magnetic field produced by the primary inductor (see Abstract); also, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). (See MPEP 2145 X. A.). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
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 376
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761