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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal phraseology such as “means” or “comprises” or “comprising” or “said” often used in patent claims should be avoided in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 14-15, 17, 21-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2312908A cited by applicant. Regarding claims 14 and 26-27, EP 2312908A discloses induction hob (Figure 4, par. 0009) comprising an inductor (12a-12d); an insulating layer unit (30) electrically insulating the inductor (12a-12d); and a detection coil (16) for object recognition, said detection coil (16) connected to the insulating layer (30, par. 0009-par. 0026). For better understanding it is emphasized at this point that the temperature-resistant film (30) inevitably, and therefore implicitly, provides for electrical insulation with respect to the inductor (12a-12d). Furthermore, the detection coils (16) are applied to or printed onto the film (30). The detection coils (16) are thus also connected to the insulation layer unit (30). Regarding claims 15, 17, 22, 28, 30, the term “integrated” could be mean encapsulation in the insulation layer unit, even though this does not seem to be technically feasible. Furthermore, “the printing” of claims 17 and 30, which also refers back indirectly to claims 15 and 28, can also be regarded as “integrated”. This is disclosed by EP 2312908A. The same can be applied to the integration specified in claim 22. Regarding claim 21, EP 2312908A discloses a further detection coil (16) connected to the insulating layer unit (30, par. 0020). Regarding claims 23 and 33, EP 2312908A discloses all detection coils (16) inherently connected to a control unit (26). Regarding claims 24 and 25, EP 2312908A discloses inductor matrix, said inductor forming part of the inductor matrix (2x2) or even inductor vectors (2x1).
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-20, 29 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2312908A cited by applicant, in view of EP 3139702B1. Regarding claims 16, 18-19, 29 and 31, EP 2312908A discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except the insulating layer unit includes a first insulating layer element and a second insulating layer element, said detection coil being arranged between the first insulating layer element and the second insulating layer element. EP 3139702B1 discloses insulating layer unit includes a first insulating layer element (14) and a second insulating layer element (16), said detection coil (20) being arranged between the first insulating layer element (14) and the second insulating layer element (16). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to utilize in EP 2312908A the insulating layer unit includes a first insulating layer element and a second insulating layer element, said detection coil being arranged between the first insulating layer element and the second insulating layer element as taught by EP 3139702B1 in order to isolate the detection coil from other devices. Regarding claims 20 and 32, the term “adapted” does not have a precise meaning and must therefore be considered unclear. EP 3139702B1 discloses, in figure 1, the second insulation layer (16) element would also be adapted to the coil (15).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: LU 81401A1 discloses induction heated hob, as well as inducer and safety device for incorporating therein. Liu et al (US 2010/0237064) discloses electromagnetic module of electronic apparatus and manufacturing process thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG T VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/QUANG T VAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 December 11, 2025