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 .
Election/Restriction Response
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-7) and Species 2 (Figs. 10-11) with traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The Applicant traverses on the ground(s) that: on p. 1-2 of the Remarks,
“Group I and Group II are directed to a controller and a control method to adjust the duty ratio
and frequency magnitude "when the difference between the first driving frequency and
the second driving frequency is included in a first predetermined reference range" (i.e., the audio frequency band). This limitation clearly defines a conditional trigger: the control logic is activated reactively only upon detecting that the frequency difference has actually fallen into the noise-causing band.
B. Contrast with Falcon: Constraint vs. Correction
Falcon teaches a fundamentally different control philosophy based on proactive avoidance
( or constraints) rather than the reactive correction of the claimed invention.
Pre-requisite Constraint: As described in paragraphs [0003] and [0026] of Falcon, the
device operates using sets of frequencies where the difference is defined to be at least 14 kHz
(or 17 kHz). Falcon treats this frequency difference as a fixed constraint that must be met
before operation, not as a parameter to be adjusted after entering the noise band.
Pre-determination: Paragraph [0028] of Falcon explicitly states that the control unit
"determines first" the frequencies by means of which a flicker-free operation is possible.
This indicates that Falcon selects a safe frequency pair prior to operation, rather than reacting
to an in-band interference event.
Response to Failure: According to paragraph [0030] of Falcon, if the specific noise avoidance
conditions cannot be met, the device lowers the target power or shuts down a
coil. This stands in stark contrast to the subject invention, which actively modifies parameters
(frequency and duty ratio) to maintain the required output power even when the frequency
is forced to change.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s argument is respectfully not found persuasive because Falcon discloses the controller 14 is configured to set the difference between the first and second frequency to be equal to noise avoidance value i.e. 17 kHz (at least 17 kHz, para. 0005; fig. 3) by adjusting a duty ratio of a switching signal input to the first inverter circuit (duty cycle of at least one heating frequency unit) (para. 0028 and 0016) and adjusting magnitude of the first driving frequency (set the frequency of at least one heating frequency unit) (para. 0026 and “during operation of the heating frequency units 10, 12, a correction can be made in real time, if necessary, to react to fluctuations in performance”, see 0028. It is noted the frequency and duty ratio of the heating frequency units can be adjusted in real time to ensure the frequency difference is outside of the audible range and the heating output is maintained at the desired heating output), when the difference between the first driving frequency (f1a; fig. 3) and the second driving frequency (f2a; fig. 3) is included in a first predetermined reference range (para. 0018) (greater than 17 kHz. It is noted the value 17 kHz is included in the range greater than 17 kHz). It is noted the controller operates to set the frequency difference to be of value 17 kHz by adjusting the duty ratio of the at least one heating frequency unit (fig. 5) and adjusting the magnitude of frequency of the at least one heating frequency unit (para. 0028), when the difference (i.e. value of 17 kHz) is included in the range greater than 17 kHz. It is noted the claim does not define what the first predetermined reference range is. It is Examiner’s position that the first predetermined reference range is the inaudible range.
Moreover, as set forth in the prior art rejection to claim 1, the feature of claim 1 is known in the art as disclosed by KR’913 (KR 20170075913).
The common technical feature shared among the groups I and II is not special as it does not make contribution over the prior art KR’913 (KR 20170075913), or Falcon (EP 2506665), therefore Group I and II lack unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The status of the 09/27/2022 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. KR 10-2020-0037649 filed on 03/27/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (2) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 and 09/27/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3:
The phrase “the noise avoidance frequency” in line 1 should be read “the predetermined noise avoidance frequency”.
The phrase “the noise avoidance value” in line 2 should be read “the predetermined noise avoidance value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’913 (KR 20170075913, hereinafter KR’913, published on 07/04/2017) in view of Barrangan Perez (US 20070135037, hereinafter Perez)
Regarding Claim 1, KR’913 discloses an induction heating device (induction heating cooker, para. 0001), comprising:
a first working coil (induction burner 8);
a first inverter circuit (driving unit 18) configured to operate at a first driving frequency (frequency f1) that corresponds to a first required output value of the first working coil (firepower set by the input device) and supply an electric current to the first working coil (para. 0061 and 0010, Table 3);
a second working coil (induction burner 9);
a second inverter circuit (driving unit 18) configured to operate at a second driving frequency (frequency f2) that corresponds to a second required output value of the second working coil (firepower set by the input device), and supply an electric current to the second working coil (para. 0061 and 0010, Table 3); and
a controller (control unit) configured to set a difference between the first driving frequency (f1) and the second driving frequency (f2) to be equal to a predetermined noise avoidance value (values less than 2 kHz) (para. 0063 and 0004; Table 3. It is noted the audible frequency range approximately 2 kHz to 20 kHz) by adjusting a duty ratio of a switching signal input to the first inverter circuit (duty from 6/6 to 3.66/6) (para. 0038; Table 3) and adjusting magnitude of the first driving frequency (frequency change to f1 i.e. from 38.9 kHz to 34 kHz; Table 3) (para. 0037-0038 and 0063), when the difference between the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency is included in a first predetermined reference range (audible frequency band) (para. 0037 and 0063).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
1617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR’913 does not disclose the second driving frequency being greater than the first driving frequency.
However, Perez discloses an induction heating device (para. 0002) comprises at least two coils that can be operated at the same time (abstract), wherein the second driving frequency (f2) being greater than the first driving frequency (f1) (para. 0023; fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 second driving frequency of KR’913 being greater than the first driving frequency as Perez, in order to incorporate known technique (i.e. f2 greater than f1) to a known device (induction cooktop) to yield a predictable result, which is to yield different heating output associated to respective heating coils.
Regarding Claim 2, KR’913 discloses the induction heating device, wherein when the difference between the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency (difference between f1 and f2 is in audible frequency band) is included in the first predetermined reference range, the controller (control unit) is configured to adjust the duty ratio of the switching signal input to the first inverter circuit to a predetermined reference duty ratio (duty from 6/6 to 3.66/6) and adjust the first driving frequency to a predetermined noise avoidance frequency (34 kHz) (frequency change to f1 i.e. from 38.9 kHz to 34 kHz; Table 3) (para. 0037-0038).
Regarding Claim 3, KR’913 discloses the induction heating device, wherein the noise avoidance frequency (34 kHz) is a value obtained by subtracting the noise avoidance value (values less than 2 kHz) from the second driving frequency (f2) (para. 0038 and 0063).
Regarding Claim 4, KR’913 discloses the induction heating device, wherein the controller (control unit) is configured to increase the duty ratio of the switching signal input to the first inverter circuit (duty associated with burner 8) when an actual output value of the first working coil is less than the first required output value (set firepower) after the magnitude of the first driving frequency is changed (frequency change) (para. 0009, 0032, 0037-0038, and 0021. It is noted after the frequency change to ensure the frequency difference is outside the audible range, the duty is adjusted to maintain the heating power output at the desired heating power output. The phrase “adjusted” implies that the duty is either increased or decreased such that the heating power output is at the desired power output).
Regarding Claim 5, KR’913 discloses the induction heating device, wherein the controller (control unit) is configured to decrease the duty ratio of the switching signal input to the first inverter circuit (duty associated with burner 8) when an actual output value of the first working coil is greater than the first required output value (set firepower) after the magnitude of the first driving frequency is changed (frequency change) (para. 0009, 0032, 0037-0038, and 0021. It is noted after the frequency change occurs to ensure the frequency difference is outside the audible range, the duty is adjusted to maintain the heating power output at the desired heating power output. The phrase “adjusted” implies that the duty is either increased or decreased such that the heating power output is at the desired power output).
Regarding Claim 6, KR’913 discloses the induction heating device, wherein the controller (control unit) is configured to maintain an actual output value of the first working coil (heating power output of burner 8) to be the same as the first required output value (set firepower) after the duty ratio of the switching signal input to the first inverter circuit is adjusted (duty is adjusted) (para. 0021 and 0009).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of KR’913 (KR 20170075913, hereinafter KR’913, published on 07/04/2017) and Barrangan Perez (US 20070135037, hereinafter Perez) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Christiansen (US 20160381736)
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. KR’913 discloses when the frequency difference is greater than the lowest frequency of the audible frequency range (i.e. 2 kHz), the controller determines that noise is generated (para. 0063).
The modification does not disclose the controller is configured to set the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency to have a same value when the difference between the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency is included in a second predetermined reference range.
However, Perez further discloses the controller is configured to determine that no noise is generated when the difference between the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency (fs) is included in a second predetermined reference range (less than g1 i.e. less than 2 kHz) (para. 0023-0024) (it is noted when the frequency difference fs is less than 2 kHz, the noise is inaudible to human’s ears).
PNG
media_image2.png
622
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of KR’913 to operate the burners at frequencies, at which the frequency difference is less than 2 kHz as further taught by Perez, in order to ensure the no noise is generated when the two burners are operated simultaneously.
The modification does not disclose the controller is configured to set the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency to have a same value when the difference is included in the second predetermined reference range.
However, Christiansen discloses the controller (control unit) is configured to set the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency to have a same value (same working frequency) (para. 0044) in order to cancel acoustic interference noise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of KR’913 in view of Perez to set the first driving frequency and the second driving frequency to have a same value when the difference is included in the second predetermined reference range (i.e. less than 2 kHz of Perez) as taught by Christiansen, in order to ensure no noise is generated when the frequency of the burner 8 and the burner 9 at the same frequency at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 on (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 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights