DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazor (US 20180177001 A1), in view of Pfaffmann et al. (US 20040200550 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lazor discloses
An induction heater (single-phase induction furnace arrangement 200, fig.7) comprising:
an induction coil (induction coil 220, fig.7) operatively connected to a power source (power source 230, fig.7);
However, Lazor does not disclose
a shell positioned directly adjacent to the induction coil;
wherein the shell is configured as a coating or over-molding converting an exterior surface of the induction coil; and
wherein the shell is configured to cradle a product to be heated such that when the product is positioned within the induction heater, the shell is interposed between the induction coil and the product and at least circumferentially contacts an exterior surface of the product.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pfaffmann discloses an induction coil (induction coil 1570, fig.744); a shell (filler material 1580, fig.44) positioned directly adjacent to the induction coil (induction coil 1570) [Par.0180 cited: “…filler material 1580 can be a cast ceramic material which is used to secure the induction coils …”];
wherein the shell (filler material 1580, fig.44) is configured as a coating or over-molding converting an exterior surface of the induction coil (induction coil 1570) [Par.0180 cited: “…filler material 1580 can be a cast ceramic material which is used to secure the induction coils …”].
PNG
media_image2.png
372
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify an induction coil of Lazor, by including a shell positioned directly adjacent to the induction coil; wherein the shell is configured as a coating or over-molding converting an exterior surface of the induction coil, as taught by Pfaffmann, in order to secure the induction coils (Par.0180, Pfaffmann).
Such that the modification of Lazor and Pfaffmann is capable to perform the function the shell is configured to cradle a product to be heated such that when the product is positioned within the induction heater, the shell is interposed between the induction coil and the product and at least circumferentially contacts an exterior surface of the product.
Regarding claim 2, Lazor discloses
magnetic flux guides to redirect and focus energy to the core of the product [Par.0012 cited: “…four power sources generate an upward traveling electromagnetic wave which creates a generally uniform inward and upward electromotive force F…”].
Regarding claim 3, Lazor discloses
the magnetic reactor comprises iron, cobalt nickel, strontium gadolinium, brass, aluminum, copper, steel, silicon carbide, carbon, graphite, or combinations thereof [the limitation is intended use, the furnace arrangement 200, fig.7 can be used to perform].
Regarding claim 4, Lazor discloses
the induction coil (induction coil 220, fig.7) is wrapped one or more times around the shell (container 210, fig.7) [Par.0043 cited: “…stack 220A can be positioned about more than or less than the top half of the cavity of the container. Likewise, stack 220B can be positioned about more than or less than the bottom half of the cavity of the container…”].
Regarding claim 6, Lazor discloses
the induction coil (induction coil 220, fig.7) is constructed from copper [Par.0043 cited: “…the induction coil is formed of a copper tube or other type of electrically conductive tube …”], aluminum, copper coated carbon fiber, nickel, metal coated carbon fiber, copper or aluminum or nickel coated fiberglass, stainless steel filaments, copper strands, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Pfaffmann discloses
the shell (filler material 1580, fig.44) is constructed from a ceramic material [Par.0180 cited: “…filler material 1580 can be a cast ceramic material which is used to secure the induction coils …”], foam, rubber, polymeric material, or combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify an induction coil of Lazor, by including a shell is constructed from a ceramic material, as taught by Pfaffmann, in order to secure the induction coils (Par.0180, Pfaffmann).
Regarding claim 8, Lazor discloses
the power source (power source 230, fig.7) is a source of AC current (power source 230 is a source of AC current).
Regarding claim 9, Lazor discloses
the product to be heated is a golf ball [the limitation is intended use, the furnace arrangement 200, fig.7 can be used to perform].
Regarding claim 10, Lazor discloses
circuitry (LC circuit, fig.12) to regulate the temperature of the product (intended use) to be heated.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazor (US 20180177001 A1), in view of Pfaffmann et al. (US 20040200550 A1) and further in view of Lussier (US 20150268488 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Lazor and Pfaffmann discloses substantially all the features as set forth in claim 1.
Lazor discloses the induction heater (single-phase induction furnace arrangement 200, fig.7) but does not disclose a golf ball comprising a magnetic reactor with a core of the gold ball, wherein the golf ball is the product to be heated.
Lussier discloses a golf ball comprising a magnetic reactor with a core of the gold ball [Par.0173 cited: “…golf ball may include a magnet that applies the magnetic field to the club face …”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to replace a product of Lazor, by using a golf ball comprising a magnetic reactor with a core of the gold ball, as taught by Lussier, in order to heat up the golf ball.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10 and 21, filed on 01/23/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The newly cited Pfaffmann reference discloses an induction coil (induction coil 1570, fig.744); a shell (filler material 1580, fig.44) positioned directly adjacent to the induction coil (induction coil 1570) [Par.0180 cited: “…filler material 1580 can be a cast ceramic material which is used to secure the induction coils …”]; wherein the shell (filler material 1580, fig.44) is configured as a coating or over-molding converting an exterior surface of the induction coil (induction coil 1570) [Par.0180 cited: “…filler material 1580 can be a cast ceramic material which is used to secure the induction coils …”].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
02/01/2026