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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 6th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…claim 1 recites an induction heating device comprising, inter alia, a controller determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period based on a target output and a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which a target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value. As described in the present application, the recited features provide an unexpected technical benefit of addressing a problem that when an inverter circuit is operated close to a fixed upper limit frequency, the actual output of the working coil may vary depending on the material and size of a cooking container to be heated by induction due to differences in electrical impedance among containers such that the induction heating device cannot provide the precise heating performance desired by a user (see, for example, paragraphs 0005-0006). As described below, CHEUL and HWAN do not teach or suggest this combination of features…”, Remark Page 8/14.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, the claim languages in claim 1 is lack of the actual term argued in the Remark such as “…when an inverter circuit is operated close to a fixed upper limit frequency, the actual output of the working coil may vary depending on the material and size of a cooking container to be heated by induction due to differences in electrical impedance among containers such that the induction heating device cannot provide the precise heating performance desired…” or languages that similar to such statement. Furthermore, the claim languages just using a generic term such as “output”, “on-time”(refer to 112b below), “low-level operation”(refer to the 112b below) such terms can be interpreted into the prior art of record’s operation.
It is suggested that to further clarify/amend what “output”, “on-time” and/or “low-level operation” are, or further amend in structural limitation that would distinct from prior art of record, such that would restrict the interpretation of claim and make the argument above a stronger ground to stand on.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11 and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are examined as follow:
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(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “controller” in claims 1-8 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 “controller" coupled with functional language “…determining…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, there is not further description in the specification to further clarify the corresponding structure related to the functional languages, The limitation “controller" is ONLY described throughout the specification as something that can calculate, determine, set, reduce, control, increase, divide, detect, adjust, turn on and off and more functional languages. However, there does not describe what or any correspond structural to allow such “controller” to capable to perform most of the cited functional language in the claims.
Because this/these 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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1:
The limitation “…a controller determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period based on a target output and a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which the target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value.…” is indefinite, because the term “controller” invoke 112f and there is insufficient corresponding structural disclosed in the specification to allow the cited controller to perform the cited functional languages of determining, as it is not clear in what way the claimed controller performs this function by itself. General purpose controllers can store, receive, and transmit information. Specially configuring a controller to determine how something is moved or work or adjust requires additional structure (i.e., feedback control and/or software). Clarification is required.
The limitation “…a controller determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period based on a target output and a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which the target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value…” is indefinite, because the term “…determining on-time…”, it is unclear that how a controller determine an “on-time” of a working coil, What actually is on-time? Is it a time? Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such limitation is related to time or some kind of timing, which is how examiner original rejection interpreted.
The limitation “…a controller determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period based on a target output and a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which the target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value…” is indefinite, because the term “…a low-level operation…”, it is unclear what is considered as “low-level operation”, how the “determining” of the controller would involve such term, furthermore, the term “low” is also a relative term, and since present application’s specification does not specify what is considered as “low”, it is also unclear what is considered as “low”. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such term is just mean any reading that is below the targeted setting or targeted values.
Claims 2-15 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent 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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheul (KR1020180002247A previously cited) herein set forth as Cheul, in view of Hwan (KR101982781B1 previously cited) herein set forth as Hwan.
Regarding claim 1, Cheul discloses an induction heating device (electric stove, fig.1), comprising:
an inverter circuit (inverter circuit 120, fig.1) supplying electric currents to a working coil (working coil 131, fig.1)(refer Paragraph 0024 cited: “…inverter circuit 120 is configured to apply a high-frequency switched DC voltage to the working coil 131…”);
a driving circuit (microcomputer 190, fig.1) providing a switching signal to the inverter circuit (inverter circuit 120), based on a control signal (refer to paragraph 0024 cited: “…a control terminal for receiving an upper switching signal applied form the microcomputer 190…”);
an output detector (current measuring unit 141, fig.1) detecting an output of the working coil (working coil 131)(refer to paragraph 0026 cited: “…microcomputer 190 can measure the amount of the output of the induction heating performed through the working coil 131 based on the measured value from the current measuring unit 141 and thus can control the switching signal…”).
Cheul does not explicitly discloses a controller determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period based on a target output and a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which the target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan discloses a controller (controller 180 fig.2) determining (refer to the citation “…The output information setting unit 182 can select an item of the output related setting information to be changed depending on whether the requested heating step is equal to or higher than a reference value…” in Page 6 Paragraph 6th cited below, Examiner note: the term “depending” is a determining process, such process would determine the output interruption) on-time (refer to “the time to sustain the output interruption” in the citation below, Examiner note: refer to 112b above about “on-time”, and the timing of how long the output interruption would teaches the limitation of “on-time”) of the working coil within an on-off period (refer as the “on/off repetitive method” in the citation of page 6 paragraph 6th below) based on a target output and a current output (refer as “power level of the output power” in the citation below) of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation (refer as the operation of “below the reference value” in the citation below) in which the target output (refer as “below the reference value” in the citation below) is equal to or less than a predetermined value (refer as “set power level” in the citation below) (refer to Page 6, Paragraph 6th cited: “…The output information setting unit 182 can select an item of the output related setting information to be changed depending on whether the requested heating step is equal to or higher than a reference value. For example, when the requested heat generation step is lower than the reference value (for example, if the 6th step of the heat generation step set from the first step to the 10th step is the reference, the first to sixth steps may be judged as the heat generation step below the reference value)power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with a controller setting on-time of the working coil based on a current output of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation in which a target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Cheul further discloses sets an operation frequency of the inverter circuit (inverter circuit 120, fig.1) to an upper limit frequency, and adjusts the on-time of the working coil (working coil 131, fig.1) and controls the output of the working coil (working coil 131, fig.1), in the low-level operation (refer to Paragraph 0044 cited: “…as shown in fig.3(b), the pulse width of the on-do. 3(b) shows that the on-time pulse width D2 is reduced to 30% of one cycle. The output at this time may be 900W…”).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, Cheul does not disclose wherein when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output, the controller determines the on-time, based on the target output and the critical output.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output, the controller determines the on-time, based on the target output and the critical output (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Cheul does not disclose wherein the controller applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determines the on-time.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein the controller (controller 180 fig.2) applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determines the on-time (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein the controller applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determines the on-time, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, Cheul does not disclose wherein when the current output of the working coil is greater than a predetermined critical output, the controller determines the on-time, based on the target output and the current output.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein when the current output of the working coil is greater than a predetermined critical output (controller 180, fig.2, can be used to perform the function), the controller (controller 180, fig.2) determines the on-time, based on the target output and the current output (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and duration of the output interruption…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein when the current output of the working coil is greater than a predetermined critical output, the controller determines the on-time, based on the target output and the current output, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 5, Cheul does not disclose wherein the controller applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the current output to an on-off period and determines the on-time.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein the controller (controller 180 fig.2) applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determines the on-time (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein the controller applies a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determines the on-time, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Cheul does not disclose wherein the controller reduce an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time to off-time in one period.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein the controller (controller 180, fig.2) reduce an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time to off-time in one period (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein the controller reduce an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time to off-time in one period, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, Cheul does not disclose wherein when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the controller divide the on-off period by an integer while maintaining the ratio of the on-time to the off-time.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the controller (controller 180 fig.2) divide the on-off period by an integer while maintaining the ratio of the on-time to the off-time (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the controller divide the on-off period by an integer while maintaining the ratio of the on-time to the off-time, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 9, Cheul discloses a control method of an induction heating device (electric stove fig.1), comprising:
detecting (current measuring unit 141, fig.1) an output of a working coil (working coil 131 fig.1).
Cheul does not disclose determining whether the operation mode of the induction heating device is a low-level operation in which a target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value; determining on-time of the working coil within an on-off period, based on a target output and a current output of the working coil, and controlling the output of the working coil in the low-level operation.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan discloses determining on-time (refer to “the time to sustain the output interruption” in the citation below) of the working coil based on a current output (refer as “power level of the output power” in the citation below) of the working coil and controlling the output of the working coil, in a low-level operation (refer as the operation of “below the reference value” in the citation below) in which a target output (refer as “below the reference value” in the citation below) is equal to or less than a predetermined value (refer as “set power level” in the citation below) (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with determining whether the operation mode of the induction heating device is a low-level operation in which a target output is equal to or less than a predetermined value, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 9, Cheul further discloses controlling the output of the working coil (working coil 131 fig.1), comprises: setting an operation frequency of an inverter circuit (inverter circuit 120, fig.1) to an upper limit frequency; and comparing the current output of the working coil (working coil 131 fig.1) with a predetermined critical output and setting a determination method of the on-time(refer to Paragraph 0044 cited: “…as shown in fig.3(b), the pulse width of the on-do. 3(b) shows that the on-time pulse width D2 is reduced to 30% of one cycle. The output at this time may be 900W…”).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Cheul does not disclose wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the critical output, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the critical output, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the critical output, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, Cheul does not disclose wherein controlling the output of the working coil comprises applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determining the on-time, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein controlling the output of the working coil comprises applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determining the on-time, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein controlling the output of the working coil comprises applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the critical output to an on-off period and determining the on-time, when the current output of the working coil is equal to or less than a predetermined critical output, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Cheul does not disclose wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the current output, when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output; and applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the current output to an on-off period and determining the on-time, when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the current output, when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output (controller 180 fig.2 can be used to perform the function); and applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the current output to an on-off period and determining the on-time (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level and the duration of the output interruption…”), when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein controlling the output of the working coil, comprises: determining the on-time, based on the target output and the current output, when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output; and applying a value calculated by dividing the target output by the current output to an on-off period and determining the on-time, when the current output of the working coil is greater than the predetermined critical output, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 9, Cheul does not disclose wherein the control method further comprises reducing an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time and off-time in one period.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein the control method further comprises reducing an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time and off-time in one period(refer to fig. 4b and 4c) (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein the control method further comprises reducing an on-off period while maintaining a ratio of the on-time and off-time in one period, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Cheul and Hwan discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, Cheul does not disclose wherein reducing an on-off period comprises dividing the on-off period by an integer, while maintaining the ratio of the on-time and the off-time, when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
In the similar field of induction heater, Hwan further discloses wherein reducing an on-off period comprises dividing the on-off period by an integer (refer to fig. 4b and 4c), while maintaining the ratio of the on-time and the off-time, when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value (refer to Paragraph 0051 cited: “…power level of the output power, the duration of the output at the set power level, and the duration of the output interruption. This will include the time to sustain the output interruption because the heat generation function will be performed through the ON/OFF repetitive output method in the heating step below the reference value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheul’s induction device with wherein reducing an on-off period comprises dividing the on-off period by an integer, while maintaining the ratio of the on-time and the off-time, when the determined on-time is equal to or less than a predetermined value, as taught by Hwan, in order to provide a method for controlling the period of discontinuous output of an electric range (refer Paragraph 0001 for Hwan).
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed on April 6th 2026 has invoked 112f and raised new issue of 112b 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 14th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights