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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-13 are as previously presented. Claim 14 remains withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 14 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification overcomes the 3/11/2026 objections to the specification.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 3/11/2026 objection to claim 1.
Applicant’s argument’s regarding the 3/11/2026 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-13 and the corresponding interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are persuasive [Remarks, p. 8-9], thus these rejections, and the 3/11/2026 objection to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the corresponding 3/11/2026 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13, are not persuasive [pp. 9: “…Independent claim 1 recites, "the induction coil is exposed to said magnetic energy through an aperture within said ferromagnetic base or by the induction coil being mounted around the ferromagnetic base," which is not anticipated by Martinez…”], Examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on p. 10: “However, Martinez fails to disclose that the induction coil is exposed to magnetic energy through an aperture within the receiving unit (presumably equated to the claimed "ferromagnetic base") or that the induction coil is mounted around the receiving unit, as recited in the independent claim 1.” Garcia Martinez discloses [see fig. 1] the receiving unit 16a within an intermediate space (i.e., the open space or aperture; merriam-webster.com) formed by the exterior housing part 34a and the ferromagnetic interior housing part 36a, the receiving unit 16a mounted near the ferromagnetic interior housing [i.e., the induction mixer pot of Garcia Martinez, configured to be powered by a coil of a residential induction cooktop, wherein the conventional induction receiving coil powering the mixing action is housed in the open space of a base formed by housing parts 34a/36a,], thus Garcia Martinez teaches wherein the induction coil is exposed to said magnetic energy through an aperture within said ferromagnetic base; as well as teaches wherein the induction coil is exposed to said magnetic energy by the induction coil being mounted around the ferromagnetic base [i.e., the coil is near/around the ferromagnetic base; merriam-webster.com].
Claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus 10, to be placed within a diamagnetic food container 1, the apparatus 10 configured to receive and be powered by placement on an induction heating element 50 [e.g., an induction coil of a residential induction cooktop]. The apparatus configured to agitate/stir the food product 3.
While it may be argued that Garcia Martinez does not explicitly disclose structure or an arrangement relative to a method of using an induction mixer wherein the mixer is intended to be replaceable in a container during a powered mixing process [p. 10: “Instead, Martinez merely discloses generic induction coils that are magnetized by an external electromagnetic alternating field, without any disclosure regarding positioning of the induction coils comprised in the receiving unit relative to the receiving unit or any structural configuration of the induction coils around the receiving unit.”; p. 11: “Further, Martinez is directed to improving inductive coupling and power transfer efficiency through the use of multiple coils and fails to disclose any structural relationship between the induction coil included in the receiving unit with respect to the receiving unit.”], Examiner maintains that Garcia Martinez teaches the limitations recited in apparatus claim 1, including the conventional structures/features therein [i.e., induction coils for receiving/generating power, conventional food preparation structures (e.g., motors, agitators, waterproof vessels), ferromagnetic/diamagnetic materials relative to inductive heating/power], wherein the apparatus could be placed in a larger diamagnetic container, and predictably perform an inductive food mixing operation with a reasonable expectation of success [e.g., the container also providing insulation]. Furthermore, considering the well-understood structure of the induction power art, a PHOSITA, at least in view of Garcia Martinez, would readily understand the structural relationship of a coil for generating power [e.g., a stovetop coil connected to mains], a coil for receiving power [e.g., the coil powering the mixing process] as it relates to the position of the food product, agitator/motor, and any housings/containers.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant indicates [i.e., p. 11: “ In contrast, the Application discloses a structural configuration in which a ferromagnetic base converts magnetic energy into thermal energy while an induction coil is strategically positioned either through an aperture within the ferromagnetic base or around the ferromagnetic base to harvest electrical energy from the same magnetic field received through the claimed "induction heating element." Accordingly, Martinez fails to disclose the above-mentioned feature of the independent claim 1.”] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145(VI.). In this case, in view of Garcia Martinez teaching the limitations of claim 1, Examiner invites further limitations directed towards strategic positioning of a particular structural configuration not taught or rendered obvious by Garcia Martinez is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1:
the step of “use with” in “An apparatus for use with an induction heating element” is used by the claim to indicate that the apparatus converts magnetic energy from the induction heating element into thermal energy and electrical energy [i.e., the known practice in the arts wherein an inductive source is used to generate heat in a ferromagnetic metal or electricity in a coil] and that the apparatus controls a motor so as to drive an agitator, e.g., such that the apparatus can be placed into a diamagnetic container containing food (i.e., liquid in a cooking vessel, the cooking vessel made of non-ferrous material that would not generate heat in response to magnetic energy from an induction heating element), wherein the converted thermal energy and electrical energy is used to heat and stir the food in the container [p. 3, lines 3-22: “According to another aspect, a system for heating a liquid in a diamagnetic container is provided, the system comprising an induction heating element and the apparatus of any of the herein described embodiments… Consequently, an apparatus is provided that can be used to heat and stir food products in a diamagnetic container on an induction heating element such as a heating zone of an induction hob without the need for the induction heating element to generate a rotating magnetic field to activate the agitator. Hence, the apparatus according to embodiments of the present invention may be used with any type of induction heating element.”];
the limitation “circuit” in “an electronic circuit… a motor controlled by said electronic circuit using said electrical energy; and an agitator driven by said motor” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [Remarks, p. 8: “In response to the rejection, it is submitted that the term "electronic circuit" is a well-understood structural term in the field of electronics and refers to a physical arrangement of active and passive components such as switches, resistors, capacitors, diodes, and transistors configured to form a closed path for the flow of electrical current. In the context of independent claim 1, the electronic circuit is conductively coupled to an induction coil and is used to control a motor using the electrical energy derived from the induction coil. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSIT A) would readily understand that when current is induced in an induction coil, the induced current is processed through conventional electronic circuit elements that regulate, direct, and supply power to various other components such as a motor, thereby inherently defining the structure of the electronic circuit. The claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 does not rely on any unconventional electronic circuitry, but rather on known and standard implementations of general electronic circuits, and therefore the specification, when read in light of common general knowledge, sufficiently conveys the structure and operation of the claimed electronic circuit…Since the term "electronic circuit" is well known and includes definite structure, an explicit recitation of each individual component in the claim or specification is not required…”].
Claims 6 and 7:
the step of “coupled” in “wherein the agitator is mechanically/magnetically coupled to…” is used by the claim to indicate conventional means known in the art, e.g., when connecting a motor to a structure to be rotated using conventional means (e.g., mechanical, magnetic, etc.) so as to induce a movement in the structure [p. 4, lines 17-24], and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Garcia Martinez teaches
An apparatus [fig. 1: cooking utensil 10a] for use with an induction heating element [for use with an induction unit 44a of cooktop apparatus 42a], the apparatus comprising:
a ferromagnetic base arranged to convert magnetic energy from said induction heating element into thermal energy [i.e., a bottom horizontal base portion of the interior housing 36a is formed of a ferromagnetic material to generate heat; para. 0020: “In particular the induction heating element is provided to heat at least a part of the cooking utensil, in particular at least a part of the interior housing part of the cooking utensil… An "induction heating element" in this context refers in particular to an element which is provided to generate an electromagnetic alternating field… which is provided in particular to be converted to heat in an in particular metallic, preferably ferromagnetic, cooking utensil base positioned thereon by eddy current induction and/or magnetic reversal effects.” para. 0034: “The interior housing part 36a is made largely of a ferromagnetic metal.”];
an induction coil arranged to convert magnetic energy from said induction heating element into electrical energy [i.e., an induction coil in receiving unit 16a; para. 0006: “In particular the receiving unit has at least one coil, which is provided in particular to be magnetized and/or to generate at least one induction current as a function of at least one magnetic field, in particular an electromagnetic alternating field, supplied by at least one induction unit.”];
a waterproof housing [i.e., cooking utensil housing unit 32a; para. 0014: “The exterior housing part and the interior housing part are connected in particular mechanically to one another and delimit in particular at least one intermediate space in at least one assembled state… This allows in particular a protected arrangement of the receiving unit to be achieved. In particular a high level of stability can be attained.”; para. 0033: “The cooking utensil housing unit 32a of the cooking utensil 10a has an exterior housing part 34a facing away from the food chamber 22a. The cooking utensil housing unit 32a of the cooking utensil 10a has an interior housing part 36a facing the food chamber 22a.”] containing:
an electronic circuit conductively coupled to the induction coil [electronics unit 28a; para. 0043]; and
a motor controlled by said electronic circuit using said electrical energy [electric motor 18a; para. 0040]; and
an agitator driven by said motor [processing tool 68a], wherein the induction coil is exposed to said magnetic energy [para. 0006]
through an aperture within said ferromagnetic base or by the induction coil being mounted around the ferromagnetic base
[see fig. 1, showing the receiving unit 16a within the intermediate space formed by the exterior housing part and the ferromagnetic interior housing part, the receiving unit 16a mounted near the ferromagnetic interior housing].
Regarding claim 3, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
further comprising at least one thermally insulating spacing member on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base [i.e., the conventional practice of using thermally insulating material to protect nearby structures; para. 0016] facing away from the waterproof housing [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange insulating material, so as to face away from the waterproof housing, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to protect any nearby thermally sensitive structures from excessive heat, such as heat generated by the ferromagnetic base].
Regarding claim 4, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermally insulating spacing member comprises a plurality of discrete spacer elements [i.e., the thermally insulating material may be discrete bundles of mineral wool; para. 0016] spatially separated from each other [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange discrete bundles of insulating material, so as be spatially separated from each other, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to minimize material usage and reduce costs].
Regarding claim 5, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermally insulating spacing member comprises a thermally insulating film [Since it is known that insulating material can come in various shapes, selecting a shape would have been an obvious matter of design choice, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to conform to the shapes of adjacent structures].
Regarding claim 6, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the agitator is mechanically coupled to a rotatable axis [processing tool 68a of consumer 14a, mechanically connected to shaft 56a; para. 0036; fig. 1] driven by said motor [shaft 56a transferring the rotational movement of the motor to consumer 14a; para. 0041: “The cooking utensil 10a has a shaft 56a. In the assembled state the shaft 56a connects the electric motor 18a and the consumer 14a to one another. In the operating state the shaft 56a transfers the rotational movement generated by the electric motor 18a to the consumer 14a.”].
Regarding claim 7, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the agitator is magnetically coupled to said motor [para. 0060: “FIG. 7 shows an alternative cooking system 40c, with an alternative cooktop apparatus 42c. In an operating state a drive unit 12c of the cooktop apparatus 42c drives a consumer 14c. In the operating state the drive unit 12c supplies a magnetic field to drive the consumer 14c. The drive unit 12c has an electric motor 18c. The electric motor 18c is provided to drive the consumer 14c.”].
Regarding claim 8, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a permanent magnet fitted on a rotatable axis driven by said motor, and wherein the agitator comprises a ferromagnetic stirring element magnetically coupled to the permanent magnet [para. 0061: “In the present exemplary embodiment the drive unit 12c has a permanent magnet 64c. In the assembled state the permanent magnet 64c is supported in such a manner that it can rotate about a rotation axis 20c. The drive unit 14 has a transfer element 66c. In the assembled state the transfer element 66c connects the electric motor 18c and the permanent magnet 64c to one another. The transfer element 66c is configured as a shaft.”].
Regarding claim 9, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the waterproof housing is spatially separated from the ferromagnetic base [i.e., the ferromagnetic base of the interior housing] by a plurality of arms extending between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, and since Garcia Martinez at least shows the conventional practice of providing insulating material to spatially separate and protect structures from heat generated by the ferromagnetic base (see 35 USC 102 rejections for claims 3 and 4, above), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange a plurality of arms extending between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base so as have them be spatially separated from each other, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to minimize material usage and reduce costs], and
wherein the agitator is located within a clearance between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base [see fig. 1, showing the processing tool 68a in a food chamber 22a defined by a clearance between the ferromagnetic base of the inner housing and the vertical walls of the waterproof housing].
Regarding claim 10, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the ferromagnetic base has a diameter of at least 100 mm [In this case, since Garcia Martinez discloses that heating is restricted such that it only occurs in predetermined regions (para. 0015), it seems the size of the ferromagnetic base would be an obvious matter of design choice according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., the size of the ferromagnetic portion of the interior housing would be selected according to the desired heat output].
Regarding claim 12, Garcia Martinez teaches the induction heating element and the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
A system for heating a liquid [para. 0011: “The food processing unit is provided in particular to process different types and/or consistencies of food, for example dough and/or liquid and/or at least partially fluid materials and/or sauces and/or at least partially solid foods. In”] in a diamagnetic container [para. 0034: “The exterior housing part 34a is made largely of a non-metal.”], the system comprising the induction heating element and the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Garcia Martinez teaches the system of claim 12.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the induction heating element forms part of an induction hob [fig. 2: cooktop apparatus 42a].
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1) in view of Oh (US 20210176832 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Garcia Martinez does not disclose:
further comprising a ferrite shield extending across said aperture such that the ferrite shield is located between the induction coil and the waterproof housing.
Oh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the conventional practice of shielding electrical circuitry from EMI, specifically, that a ferrite shield can prevent magnetic fields generated by coils from influencing nearby circuitry [para. 0046: “Further, the ferrite can serve as a shield to prevent the influence of the magnetic fields, generated by the working coils 51, 52, and 53, or an external magnetic field, on the internal circuit of the cooking apparatus 1.”].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a ferrite shield such that it is located between the induction coil and any circuitry, since Oh teaches this would prevent unwanted influence of magnetic fields thereon, wherein, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the ferrite shield such that it extends across the aperture between the induction coil and the waterproof housing, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to protect circuity from any magnetic field.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1) in view of Snyder (US 20170188743 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Garcia Martinez does not disclose:
further comprising at least one fin on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base facing the waterproof housing for stabilizing the apparatus during operation of the agitator.
Snyder, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cooking utensil [cooking vessel 20; figs. 1-4] comprising an interior housing [inner vessel 24; figs. 1-4, 6] with an agitator [figs. 3, 6: stirring plate 80], the interior housing to be removably disposed in a diamagnetic exterior housing [outer vessel 22; para. 0017: “The outer vessel 22 is contemplated to be a polymeric vessel which is substantially transparent, and is configured to hold water for a sous vide cooking procedure.”], wherein a surface base (i.e., support structure) of the agitator comprises at least one fin thereon [standoff features 45; figs. 1, 4].
Therefore, in view of Snyder disclosing a portable agitator relative to an exterior housing, wherein it has been held by the courts that the fact a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include at least one fin on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base facing the waterproof housing for stabilizing the apparatus during operation, since Snyder teaches standoff features 45 that support the agitator during operation, while also inherently acting against any rotational force generated by the agitator, but also further providing a flow path of liquid, thereby facilitating stirring [para. 0021: “Standoff features 45 extend downwardly from the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24, such that the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24 is spaced apart from the bottom wall 28 of the outer vessel 22. In this way, water can travel from the gap G to a spacing S defined between the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24 and bottom wall 28 of the outer vessel 22.”].
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights