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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 9/5/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16, 19-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP5279620) in view of Alonso (US20120138596), and further in view of Baldo (US20190124725), with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.1 of Tanaka
PNG
media_image2.png
440
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 5 of Tanaka
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches an induction cooktop comprising:
a cover plate (8) that includes an upper plate portion (top of plate 8) configured to support an object (P) to be heated (Fig. 1, [0011]);
a working coil (10);
the working coil (10) including a first working coil (10a) and a second working coil (10b); and
at least one inverter (22a and 22b) configured to be driven to allow electric current to flow through the first working coil and the second working coil ([0015] inverters 22a and 22b for supplying high-frequency current to the heating coils 10a and 10),
wherein a first direction of the electric current in the first working coil (10a) and a second direction of the electric current in the second working coil (10b) are controlled to match each other or to be different from each other based on the object to be heated ([0009] Fig. 5 current coils 10 a and 10 b shown by arrows).
Tanaka is silent on a case, the cover plate that is coupled to an upper end of the case and a thin film coated on the upper plate portion, the thin film defining an opening at a center thereof a working coil disposed inside the case, wherein the first working coil and the second working coil are in contact each other and disposed below the thin film, and wherein a center of the opening of the thin film is defined at a position vertically above a contact point between the first working coil and the second working coil.
PNG
media_image3.png
174
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Alonso
Alonso teaches a thin film (14) coated on the upper plate portion (12, [0033] being an upper plate portion of the entire top plate, being a combination of cover plate 12 and 22), the thin film (14) defining an opening (20) at a center thereof (Fig. 2),
wherein the first working coil and the second working coil ([0025] four heating inductors 10) are disposed below the thin film (14, Fig. 2 [0030] where layer 14 is above each of the coils 10).
Tanaka and Alonso are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of induction cook tops. It would have been obvious to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Alonso to have a thin film with an opening and to have the two working coils be below the thin film in order to improve the electromagnetic tolerance of the appliance and improve the fulfillment of the relevant standards relating to electromagnetic tolerance by use of a thin layer that has interruptions (Alonso [0008]).
Tanaka and Alonso are silent on a case, the cover plate that is coupled to an upper end of the case and a thin film coated on the upper plate portion, wherein the first working coil and the second working coil are in contact each other and disposed below the thin film, and wherein a center of the opening of the thin film is defined at a position vertically above a contact point between the first working coil and the second working coil.
Baldo teaches a case (18), the cover plate (14) that is coupled to an upper end of the case (18) and a working coil (16) disposed inside the case (18),
Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of induction cook tops. It would have been obvious to have modified Tanaka and Alonso to incorporate the teachings of Baldo to have a case that has a cover plate coupled to the upper end that contains the working coil so that a plurality of components may be contained such that a pluirality of cooking areas may be formed (Baldo[ 0021]).
Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo do not teach the first working coil and the second coil are in contact each other, wherein a center of the opening of the thin film is defined at a position vertically above a contact point between the first working coil and the second working coil. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have modified Tanaka and Alonso in view of Baldo to place the two coils in contact with each other, where the contact portion is below an opening of the thin film, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the positioning of the first and second coil being in contact with each other and below the opening of the thin film (see [0116, 0120] of the Instant Application indicating the first working coil WC-1 and the second working coil WC-2 "may be” disposed in contact with each other at one point and a portion of the opening of the thin film and the contact point "may overlap" in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches wherein the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b) are configured to,
based on the first direction and the second direction being controlled to be different from each other (Fig. 5a direction of arrows in coils 10a and 10b being different),
define a magnetic field in a common direction in a central region (52) between the first working coil and the second working coil (Fig. 5a, [0020] current flows in same direction in region 52, to create magnetic flux in the region).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches wherein the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b) are configured to,
based on the first direction and the second direction being controlled to be different from each other (Fig. 5a direction of arrows in coils 10a and 10b being different)
define a central magnetic field at a central region (Fig. 5a, current flows in same direction in region 52, to create magnetic flux in the region) between the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b), and
wherein a strength of the central magnetic field is greater than a strength of an outer magnetic field that is defined at an outer region of each of the first working coil and the second working coil ([0020] heating coil 10a, 10b can mutually strengthen the magnetic flux in the region 52 adjacent to each other, increase the magnetic flux density interlinking the pan P, which is understood to be stronger than a magnetic field at the edges of the coils 10a and 10b).
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches wherein the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b) are configured to
based on the first direction and the second direction being controlled to match each other (Fig. 5b arrows in 10 a and 10b being the same direction)
define a magnetic field ([0021] magnetic flux that interlinks the pan P in the wide area) in a common direction at outer regions (wide area 54) of the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b).
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches wherein the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b) are configured to
based on the first direction and the second direction being controlled to match each other (Fig. 5b arrows in 10 a and 10b being the same direction)
define a central magnetic field at a central region (52) between the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b), and
wherein a strength of the central magnetic field (52) is less than a strength of an outer magnetic field (54) that is defined at an outer region of each of the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b; [0021] magnetic flux that interlinks the pan P in the wide area indicated by the two-dot chain line 54 in FIG. 5 b distribution becomes uniform where it is understood that magnetic field at region 54 is greater than at region 52).
Regarding claim 23, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches further comprising a controller (15) configured to: compare a target power to an output power (power measured by the power amount measuring means 62) of the first and second working coils (10a, 10b); and
based on comparing the target power to the output power ([0032] if amount of power that is actually consumed becomes larger than the maximum power consumption) control the first direction and the second direction ([0032] switches to the high efficiency heating mode or the uniform heating mode based on the amount of power measured by the power amount measuring means 62, where the heating modes determine the direction of current in coils 10a and 10b).
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 23, and Tanaka teaches wherein the controller (15) is configured to control the first direction and the second direction to be different from each other (Fig. 5a, [0020] currents flow in the opposite directions as a whole in the respective heat coils 10a and 10b);
based on controlling the first direction and the second direction to be different from each other (Fig. 5a high-efficiency heating mode), determine whether the target power and the output power match each other ([0032] amount of power that is actually consumed becomes larger than the maximum power consumption; taken to be the same as determining if actual power matches a maximum power); and
control the first direction and the second direction to match each other or to be different from each other based on a determination whether the target power and the output power match each other (Fig. 5a [0032] high-efficiency heating mode maintained if actual power is not larger than maximum power, understood to apply to when actual power matches maximum power).
Regarding claim 25, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 24, and Tanaka teaches wherein the controller (15) is configured to:
control the first direction and the second direction to be different from each other (Fig. 5a, [0020] currents flow in the opposite directions as a whole in the respective heat coils 10a and 10b);
based on controlling the first direction and the second direction to be different from each other (Fig. 5a high-efficiency heating mode), determine whether the target power and the output power match each other ([0032] amount of power that is actually consumed becomes larger than the maximum power consumption; taken to be the same as determining if actual power matches a maximum power); and
control the first direction and the second direction to match each other based on a determination that the target power and the output power do not match each other ([0032] if the amount of power that is actually consumed becomes larger than the maximum power consumption, the control circuit 15 may make it switch to uniform heating mode; where uniform heating mode is Fig. 5B where direction of current in 10a and 10b match each other).
Regarding claim 26, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 23, and Tanaka teaches wherein the controller (15) is configured to: control the first direction and the second direction to match each other (Fig. 5b, [0021] heat coils 10a and 10b are controlled to flow in the same direction);
based on controlling the first direction and the second direction to match each other (Fig. 5b uniform heating mode), determine whether the target power and the output power match each other ([0021, 0032] when the actual power consumption is sufficiently small, taken to be a determination if actual power matches a sufficiently small power value); and
control the first direction and the second direction to match each other or to be different from each other based on a determination whether the target power and the output power match each other ([0021, 0032] when the actual power consumption is sufficiently small, the control circuit 15 may perform control so as to switch to the high-efficiency heating mode that requires large power consumption).
Regarding claim 27, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 26, and Tanaka teaches wherein the controller (15) is configured to: control the first direction and the second direction to match each other (Fig. 5b, [0021] heat coils 10a and 10b are controlled to flow in the same direction);
based on controlling the first direction and the second direction to match each other (Fig. 5b uniform heating mode), determine whether the target power and the output power match each other ([0021, 0032] when the actual power consumption is sufficiently small, taken to be a determination if actual power matches a sufficiently small power value); and
control the first direction and the second direction to be different from each other based on a determination that the target power and the output power do not match each other ([0021, 0032] when the actual power consumption is sufficiently small, the control circuit 15 may perform control so as to switch to the high-efficiency heating mode that requires large power consumption).
Regarding claim 28, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches further comprising a switch configured to control the first and second directions ([0025] switching elements 27a, 28a, 27b, and 28b, to supply high-frequency currents supplied to the heating coils 10a and 10b in the high-efficiency heating mode and the uniform heating mode).
Regarding claim 29, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches further comprising a controller (15) configured to: compare a target power to an output power of the first and second working coils ([0032] maximum and small power value compared to measured power); and
based on comparing the target power to the output power, control the first direction and the second direction ([0032] if the amount of power that is actually consumed becomes larger than the maximum power consumption, the control circuit 15 may make it switch to uniform heating mode; where uniform heating mode is Fig. 5B where direction of current in 10a and 10b match each other).
Regarding claim 30, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 23, and Tanaka teaches wherein the at least one inverter comprises: a first inverter (20a) configured to drive the first working coil (10a) and
a second inverter (20b) configured to drive the second working coil (10b), and
wherein the controller (15) is configured to:
control the first direction ([0032] direction of coil 10a) by the first inverter (20a), and
control the second direction ([0032] direction of coil 10b) by the second inverter (20b).
Regarding claim 31, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches further comprising a controller (15) configured to control the at least one inverter (20a, 20b) or a switch ([0025] switching elements 27a, 28a, 27b, and 28b) to thereby control the first direction and the second direction ([0032] direction of coil 10a and 10b).
Regarding claim 32, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 31, and Tanaka teaches wherein the controller (15) is configured to control each of the first direction and the second direction to be a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction (Fig. 5a and 5b [0020-0021] direction of current in coil 10a and 10b being clockwise or counterclockwise).
Regarding claim 33, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 16, and Tanaka teaches wherein the first working coil (10a) and the second working coil (10b) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1), but Tanaka and Baldo are silent on wherein the first working coil and the second working coil are spaced apart from each other and disposed below the thin film and wherein the opening of the thin film is defined at a position vertically above a space defined between the first working coil and the second working coil.
Alonso teaches wherein the first working coil and the second working coil (four coils 10) are spaced apart from each other and disposed below the thin film (14, Figs. 1 and 2 [0030] where layer 14 is above each of the coils 10, where coils are space apart), and wherein the opening of the thin film (20) is defined at a position vertically above a space defined between the first working coil and the second working coil (Fig. 2 coils 10, [0030-0031]in a position that is in the center of one working, which is between a portion of the one working coil and another working coil).
It would have been obvious to have modified Tanaka and Baldo to incorporate the teachings of Alonso to have the coils below the thin film and be aligned with the openings of the thin film to improve the electromagnetic tolerance of the appliance and improve the fulfillment of the relevant standards relating to electromagnetic tolerance by use of a thin layer that has interruptions (Alonso [0008]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP5279620), Alonso (US20120138596, and Baldo (US20190124725) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kwack (US11265973).
Regarding claim 35, Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo teach the induction cooktop of claim 28, but are silent on wherein the switch is disposed between the first working coil and the second working coil and configured to connect the first working coil and the second working coil to each other electrically in series.
PNG
media_image4.png
700
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Kwack
Kwack teaches wherein the switch (R1,R2) is disposed between the first working coil (WC1) and the second working coil (WC2) and configured to connect the first working coil (WC1) and the second working coil (WC2) to each other electrically in series (Fig. 4 Col. 7 lines 20-50).
Tanaka, Alonso and Baldo, and Kwack are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of induction cook tops. It would have been obvious to have modified Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo to incorporate the teachings of Kwack to have a switch between the first and second working coils so that the coils may be connected in series so that the direction of the currents within each coil may be controlled depending the configuration of the switch (Kwack Col. 10 lines 40-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “the cited references are entirely silent regarding working coils that contact each other at a point aligned with the center of the thin film opening along a vertical direction, or any associated technical benefits,” and it is not addresses how “the separate working coils disclosed in the cited references would continue to operate in the same manner after being modified to contact each other.”
Reference Tanaka consider operations in which two working coils are in contact with one another for operation, where Tanaka in Fig. 8 describes the connection of coils 12a and 12b in an alternative embodiment, so a rearranging of parts would be understood to be possible and would not have modified the operation of the device of Tanaka, as it is consider in alternative embodiments.
Additionally, even though the combination of Tanaka, Alonso, and Baldo do not teach the effect of the amended limitation to where “the claimed working coils are specifically configured so that the magnetic field passing through the opening in the thin film,” the interruptions 20 of Alonso are configured and space in such a way to improve the fulfillment of the relevant standards relating to electromagnetic tolerance by use of a thin layer that has interruptions (Alonso [0008]) which may be applied in a rearrangement of parts to have the interruptions to be aligned with “a contact point between the first working coil and the second working coil” as considered by Tanaka to achieve the same improvement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/3/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761