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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DIELECTRIC HEATING DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF.
The amendment filed 20 May 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the Chinese Application No. 202011314469.4, is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 15 October 2021. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 20 May 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “adjust load impedance” (ll. 3–4), which should be “adjust the load impedance.”
Claim 1 recites “adjusting impedance” (l. 9), which should be “adjusting the impedance.”
Claim 10 recites “adjust load impedance” (l. 5), which should be “adjust the load impedance.”
Claims 2–9 and 11 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: Although the “electromagnetic wave generating module” and “matching module of claim 1 and 10 are formulated as limitations to be interpreted under § 112(f), they are not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the first to be a radio frequency generator or the like, and the second to be a proper arrangement of electrical elements (e.g. transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors) that achieve the claimed function (impedance matching elements are unit are replete in the art). See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “every preset time interval.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis, and it’s unclear if it’s supposed to be referring to the “preset adjustment time” of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishimoto (US Pub. 2020/0281234).
Claim 1: Kishimoto discloses a control method for a heating device (1), wherein the heating device comprises an electromagnetic wave generating module (4, evident from “incident wave” in ¶ 20) configured to generate an electromagnetic wave signal for heating an object to be processed, and a matching module (6) configured to adjust load impedance of the electromagnetic wave generating module by adjusting its own impedance (see ¶ 26), wherein the control method comprises:
controlling the electromagnetic wave generating module to generate an electromagnetic wave signal of a preset heating power (¶ 19, “desired power level”); and
determining a load matching degree of the electromagnetic wave generating module and adjusting impedance of the matching module based on the load matching degree (described in ¶¶ 23–26, and illustrated in fig. 3); wherein the control method further comprises:
controlling, if the load matching degrees (S5) determined within a preset adjustment time (S7, T1) are all less than or equal to a first matching threshold (¶ 26, “threshold X,” where the example of “10%” is best understood as a kind of reverse value, as the higher it goes, the less matching there is), the electromagnetic wave generating module to stop working (S8).
Claim 9: Kishimoto discloses executing, if the load matching degree is less than or equal to the first matching threshold, the step of adjusting the impedance of the matching module based on the load matching degree (¶ 26, “the controller 7 regulates the variable capacitors 6a and 6b, variable coil 6c, and other components in the matching circuit 6 to render the reflective power 0 W, when a ratio RW/FW exceeds a threshold X. The ratio RW/FW is the ratio of the reflective power (RW) to the incident power (FW). Such impedance regulation is repeated every time the ratio RW/FW exceeds the threshold X”).
Claim 10: Kishimoto discloses a heating device (1), comprising:
a cavity capacitor (formed by 1, 2a, and 2b) configured to receive an object to be processed (3);
an electromagnetic wave generating module (4, evident from “incident wave” in ¶ 20) configured to generate an electromagnetic wave signal for heating the object to be processed within the cavity capacitor;
a matching module (6) configured to adjust load impedance of the electromagnetic wave generating module by adjusting its own impedance (see ¶ 26); and
a controller (7) configured to execute the control method as defined in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto.
Claim 2: Kishimoto does not disclose determining the preset adjustment time based on a weight of the object to be processed. Instead, Kishimoto only discloses that its time T1 is set to allow the controller to determine that the reflective power is stable (¶ 37).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that objects that weight more would require more time to be processed, and concomitantly would be suited for greater preset adjustment times as the reflective power would stabilize at a slower rate.
Claim 3: Continuing from the line of reasoning for claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art match the preset adjustment time based on the weight according to a preset weight-time corresponding relationship as a straightforward way of adjusting the preset adjustment time in recognition of its suitability depending the weight of the object to be processed; and further, to have the weight-time corresponding relationship record preset adjustment times corresponding to different weights, where the preset adjustment time is in positive correlation with the weight, given that, as was discussed above, objects with more weight would require greater preset adjustment times to accord with their slower stabilization rates.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 10900418 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Kishimoto does not disclose determining a change rate of a dielectric coefficient of the object to be processed; and controlling, if the change rate is reduced to be less than or equal to a change rate threshold, the electromagnetic wave generating module to stop working.
However, Zhu discloses a similar method with determining a change rate of a dielectric coefficient of the object to be processed (“radio frequency generating module 130 is further configured to when the change rate of the dielectric coefficient of the processed object Δ e/Δ t falls to less than or equal to the second speed threshold value, stopping working”); and
controlling, if the change rate is reduced to be less than or equal to a change rate threshold, the electromagnetic wave generating module to stop working (ibid.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dielectric coefficient change rate control of Zhu to the method of Kishimoto as an additional means of determining that the electromagnetic wave generating module should be stopped because the object is thawed or otherwise sufficiently processed.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto in view of Zhu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Scott et al. (CN 110972345 A, cited by the Office).
Claim 6: Modified as per claim 5 above, Zhu does not disclose determining the change rate threshold based on the weight of the object to be processed.
However, Scott uses a change rate threshold in a similar way, and determines the change rate threshold based on the weight of the object to be processed (“the controller determines the rate of change of the impedance is below a predetermined threshold”; “threshold can determined by food loading weight of the food loading or other attributes or thawing process”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the change rate threshold of Zhu by considering the weight of the object to be processed, as taught by Scott, since objects that weigh more are likely to have slower dielectric coefficient change rates during processing that should be accounted for for proper treatment.
Claim 7: Modified as per claim 6 above, Scott is not explicit that its step of determining the change rate threshold based on the weight of the object to be processed comprises:
matching the change rate threshold based on the weight according to a preset weight-rate corresponding relationship; wherein
the weight-rate corresponding relationship records change rate thresholds corresponding to different weights, and the change rate threshold is in negative correlation with the weight.
However, Scott does disclose inputting a weight into its system (“the system controller may optionally receive an indication charging type (e.g., meat, liquid, or other material), additional input of the initial charge temperature and/or loading weight”), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a preset weight-rate corresponding relationship would be a straightforward way to allow Scott to use its own teachings to improve the rate change threshold by considering weight; and further, would have had the change rate threshold be in negative correlation with the weight to account for the slower rate change that accompanies an object that weighs more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Kishimoto speaks of changing the threshold X (see ¶ 31), but does not disclose having first and second matching thresholds, nor does it seem that such would be implemented into Kishimoto since the threshold X being reached causes an impedance adjustment that would prevent the match degree (which is essentially the reverse of the reflective power shown in fig. 3) from reaching a second threshold.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, determining the weight of the object to be processed using electromagnetic means seems known in the art (see Scott et al., US Pub. 2020/0205247), the limitations of these claims are specific and are not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761