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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mitsubishi (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2014186843; in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Mitsubishi discloses a heating cooking apparatus (Mitsubishi, Figs. 2-3, 10), comprising:
a top plate (Mitsubishi, 2) that has a heating zone that is an area on which a heating target is to be placed;
a heating coil (7) located under the heating zone;
an electricity-recovery coil (leakage flux recovery coil 11) configured to recover a leakage magnetic flux that leaks from the heating coil and to generate electricity;
a storage battery (Mitsubishi, 41, ¶0054) configured to store the electricity generated by the electricity-recovery coil;
a first driving circuit (rectifying unit 21/14 through 16, ¶0024) configured to receive electricity supplied by a commercial electricity source and to supply high-frequency current to the heating coil;
a second driving circuit (with power conversion means 15, ¶0023) configured to receive electricity supplied by the storage battery and to supply high-frequency current to the heating coil; and
a controller (Mitsubishi, control unit 19) configured to operate in an induction heating mode to inductively heat the heating target placed on the heating zone by the heating coil supplied with high-frequency current from the first driving circuit, and to operate in a power supply mode to supply power to a power receiver placed on the heating zone by the heating coil supplied with high-frequency current from the second driving circuit,
an electric heater (Mitsubishi, ¶0010, “a grill heating chamber provided with a heating means such as an electric heater is provided inside the main body 1”) provided under the heating zone and outside an outer periphery or inside an inner periphery of the heating coil ; and
a switching circuit (25) configured to connect an output end of the second driving circuit to either the heating coil (connects end to coil 6/7) or the electric heater.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2014186843; in applicant’s IDS) in view of Ito (Wipo Patent Publication WO2013140666A1; attached) and Suga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0214091).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses a heating cooking apparatus (Mitsubishi, Figs. 2-3, 10), comprising:
a top plate (Mitsubishi, 2) that has a heating zone that is an area on which a heating target is to be placed;
a heating coil (7) located under the heating zone;
an electricity-recovery coil (11) configured to recover a leakage magnetic flux that leaks from the heating coil and to generate electricity;
a storage battery (Mitsubishi, 41, ¶0054) configured to store the electricity generated by the electricity-recovery coil;
a first driving circuit (rectifying unit 21/14 through 16, ¶0024) configured to receive electricity supplied by a commercial electricity source and to supply high-frequency current to the heating coil;
a second driving circuit (with power conversion means 15, ¶0023) configured to receive electricity supplied by the storage battery and to supply high-frequency current to the heating coil; and
a controller (Mitsubishi, control unit 19) configured to operate in an induction heating mode to inductively heat the heating target placed on the heating zone by the heating coil supplied with high-frequency current from the first driving circuit, and to operate in a power supply mode to supply power to a power receiver placed on the heating zone by the heating coil supplied with high-frequency current from the second driving circuit,
Mitsubishi does not disclose the electricity-recovery coil being a copper foil provided on a substrate, the substrate being disposed along the top plate and between the top plate and the heating coil.
However, Ito teaches an “electricity-recovery coil being a copper foil provided on a substrate” (Ito, p. 10, 4th paragraph, “copper foil 10A on 40”) in his heater that has a magnetic flux leakage collector. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsubishi in view of Ito, to have a copper foil on a substrate for collecting leakage magnetic flux, in order to , in a conventional way, collect any leaked magnetic flux and use it for powering an electric load (Ito, p. 2 end of paragraph 1) and this would be a conventional method for doing a conventional thing to get the not unexpected result of collecting magnetic flux leakage and repurposing it.
While Mitsubishi in view of Ito teach all the above limitations, it still does not teach, “the substrate being disposed along the top plate and between the top plate and the heating coil.. However, there are teachings within the art to locate the recovery coil in different places, either entirely below the coil and the top plate, such as in Mitsubishi or Ito, noted above, or entirely above the top plate and the coil, such as in Suga (fig. 3, recovery coil 80). Thus, in light of the prior art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to look at Mitsubishi in light of Ito and Suga, recognizing that it only is a matter of Rearrangement of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)) to place the recovery coil in between the heating coil and the top plate, as it would have collected the leakage flux that was not going to be used to heat the vessel above, and this placement would have worked equally well, and there is evidence in the record to have the recovery coil placed in different places to be effective to collect a leakage of magnetic flux.
Regarding claim 4, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a heating cooking apparatus wherein the heating coil is supplied with no high-frequency current from the first driving circuit in the power supply mode (Mitsubishi, Embodiment 2, ¶38, keeping the power going after the main power is off).
Regarding claim 5, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a heating cooking apparatus wherein the heating coil is supplied with high-frequency current simultaneously from the first driving circuit and the second driving circuit in the induction heating mode (Mitsubishi, ¶¶34-37, embodiment 1, using the second circuit to stabilize the power generation).
Regarding claim 6, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further explicitly teach a heating cooking apparatus wherein a frequency of high-frequency current supplied to the heating coil from the first driving circuit and a frequency of high-frequency current supplied to the heating coil from the second driving circuit are equal to each other in the induction heating mode. However, since both the first and second circuits submit current to the common switch (14), it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make sure that the frequencies of the current supplied to the heaters are the same so that that the frequencies of the currents keep the heating consistent.
Regarding claim 7, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a heating cooking apparatus comprising a first operation unit configured to instruct the controller to operate in either the induction heating mode or the power supply mode (Mitsubishi, ¶38, embodiment 2/4, the controller 19 gives off signals).
Regarding claim 8, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a heating cooking apparatus comprising: an electric heater (Mitsubishi, ¶0010, “a grill heating chamber provided with a heating means such as an electric heater is provided inside the main body 1”) provided under the heating zone and outside an outer periphery or inside an inner periphery of the heating coil ; and
a switching circuit (25) configured to connect an output end of the second driving circuit to either the heating coil (connects end to coil 6/7) or the electric heater.
Regarding claim 9, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a heating cooking apparatus comprising a casing (33) that stores the heating coil (41), wherein the storage battery is disposed outside the casing (Mitsubishi, figs. 10-11).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2014186843; in applicant’s IDS) in view of Ito (Wipo Patent Publication WO2013140666A1; attached) and Suga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0214091) and further in view of Jiangxi Saite New Energy Technology Co (Japanese Patent Publication CN104135784A; in applicant’s IDS, herein “Jiangxi”)
Regarding claim 11, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a heating cooking apparatus comprising a charging path through which electricity is input to the storage battery from the commercial electricity source. However, in his induction heater, Jiangxi teaches “a charging path through which electricity is input to the storage battery (7) from the commercial electricity source (1, fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga with the teaching of Jiangxi, to also input energy into the battery from the commercial electricity source, to ensure that there is enough energy within the battery, even if not enough heating occurred to so as to collect energy via the flux leakage, in order to make sure that the loads that the battery is charging or giving supplemental energy to has enough power to provide sufficient energy so this supplemental way of energy being put into the battery would ensure smoothness and consistency in the process.
Claim(s) 2,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2014186843; in applicant’s IDS) in view of Ito (Wipo Patent Publication WO2013140666A1; attached) and Suga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0214091) and further in view of Mitsubishi ‘516 (Wipo Patent Publication WO2017/022516A1; in Applicant’s IDS; herein “Mitsubishi ‘516).
Regarding claim 2, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a heating cooking appliance comprising an inductance change unit configured to change an inductance value of the heating coil, wherein the inductance change unit is configured to set the inductance value of the heating coil to a first value when the heating coil is supplied with high-frequency current from the first driving circuit, and the inductance change unit is configured to set the inductance value of the heating coil to a second value that is smaller than the first value when the heating coil is supplied with no high- frequency current from the first driving circuit and is supplied with high-frequency current from the second driving circuit.
However, Mitsubishi ‘516 teaches a heating cooking appliance comprising an inductance change unit (Mitsubishi ‘516, switch 21, figs. 7,10) configured to change an inductance value of the heating coil (circuits either have 101 and 102, or they have 101-104), wherein the inductance change unit is configured to set the inductance value of the heating coil to a first value when the heating coil (Mitsubishi ‘516parameters change, p. 12 line 463 et. Seq). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga with the teachings of Mitsubishi ‘516, to have the circuit supplied with different driving circuits and parameters depending on the inductance of the device, depending on the coils and the intended target on the coils, in order to best heat the intended target with the appropriate power in order to maintain a consistent power, depending on the load and the desired process of heating.
Regarding claim 3, Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga and Mitsubishi ‘516 teach all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach a heating cooking appliance wherein the number of turns of the heating coil when the heating coil is supplied with high-frequency current from the second driving circuit is smaller than the number of turns of the heating coil when the heating coil is supplied with high-frequency current from the first driving circuit. However, Mitsubishi ‘516 does teach wherein the number of turns of the heating coil (101+102) when the heating coil is supplied with high-frequency current (p. 14, lines 574-579). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsubishi in view of Ito and Suga and Mitsubishi ‘516, and have the driving circuit be two driving circuits, rather than changing the parameters of the one driving unit, in order to have a simpler system, rather than one that varies electrically, in accordance with the inductance value resulting from the different complete circuits with the different turns if the switch is engaged, in order to maintain the power appropriate with the intended target and to keep power appropriate)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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 at 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 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761