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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature is known in the art. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature, “at least one current conversion unit of a second power unit is supplied with a first output direct current of the at least one output direct current of a first power unit”, is taught by Shubitidze et al (US 2021/0251053).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-15 do not begin with the proper article. Claim 1 should begin with the article “A.” Claims 2-15 should begin with the article “The.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
power unit, interpreted as “unit for power” in claims 1, 4, 9, and 12,
current conversion unit, interpreted as “unit for current conversion” in claims 1-2, 4-7, and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 10-14, and 16 recited the limitation “frequency converting means”, which is interpreted as a means plus function limitation.
Each power unit comprises a current conversion unit ([0028] DC/DC converter or [0029] AC/DC converter) and a frequency converting means ([0050] inverter or generator).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein at least one outputs at least one output voltage for supplying different loads.” It is unclear what element “at least one” is associated with. Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to recite the appropriate element that outputs at least one output voltage for supplying different loads. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “at least one” to refer to the first current conversion unit.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viroli et al (US 2014/0319127) in view of Shubitidze et al (US 2021/0251053).
Regarding claim 1, Viroli discloses circuit device for a cooking device, comprising: - at least two power units (Shown in the figure below) each power unit supplied with electrical power by a different mains current phase (Fig. 1 L1-L3 different lines of a three-phase mains),
- wherein each power unit (Shown in the figure below) of the at least two power units comprises frequency converting means (Fig. 1 #s 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 power sections/half-bridge inverters) configured to supply electrical power to at least one induction element (Fig. 1 #s 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50 induction coils) to generate heating power,
- wherein each power unit (Shown in the figure below) of the at least two power units comprises at least one current conversion unit (Fig. 1 #s 20, 22, and 24 rectifiers) for converting an input direct or alternating current into at least one output direct current,
PNG
media_image1.png
616
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Viroli does not disclose - wherein each power unit of the at least two power units comprises at least one load supplied with electrical power by the at least one output direct current, - wherein the at least one current conversion unit of a second power unit of the at least two power units is supplied with a first output direct current of the at least one output direct current of a first power unit and is configured to convert the first output direct current into at least one second output direct current.
Nonetheless, Shubitidze in the same field of endeavor being induction cooking devices teaches - wherein each power unit (Shown in the figure below) of the at least two power units comprises at least one load (Fig. 2A #s 36a-36n load) supplied with electrical power by the at least one output direct current (Shown in the figure below; Output direct current is produced by Fig. 2A #32 AC/DC converter),
- wherein the at least one current conversion unit of a second power unit (Fig. 2A #34b DC/AC+DC converter) of the at least two power units is supplied with a first output direct current of the at least one output direct current of a first power unit (Fig. 2A #32 AC/DC converter and #34a DC/AC+DC converter) and is configured to convert the first output direct current into at least one second output direct current.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit device of Viroli by incorporating the load and second power unit supplied by current from the first power unit as taught by Shubitidze for the benefit of tuning each individual load with respect to the operating frequency. (Shubitidze [0022])
Regarding claim 2, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein at least one of the current conversion units is an insulated current conversion unit (Fig. 1 # 52 galvanic insulation means insulates Fig. 1 #22 rectifier).
Regarding claim 3, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shubitidze teaches - wherein the first current conversion unit (Fig. 2A #32 AC/DC converter) is an AC/DC converter that outputs at least one direct voltage and/or current from the first mains current phase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit device of Viroli in view of Shubitidze by incorporating the AC/DC converter as taught by Shubitidze for the benefit of providing DC power to the subsequent power units.
Regarding claim 4, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches - wherein the first current conversion unit, by supplying at least the second current conversion unit , generates supply voltages for multiple loads on at least the second power unit and/or referred to different mains current phases and/or to different phase-neutral voltages or to different phase- phase AC voltages (Examiner notes that the phrase “the first current conversion unit, by supplying at least the second current conversion unit , generates supply voltages…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Viroli in view of Shubitidze can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 5, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shubitidze teaches - wherein at least one of the current conversion units is a DC/DC conversion unit (Fig. 2B #37 DC/DC converter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit device of Viroli in view of Shubitidze by incorporating the DC/DC converter as taught by Shubitidze for the benefit of resulting in zones of control wherein the power to groups of loads, or work coils, may be controlled independently via traditional electronic control. (Shubitidze [0025])
Regarding claim 6, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein each power unit comprises at least one conversion unit (Fig. 1 #s 20, 22, and 24 rectifiers) for supplying currents and/or voltages to the loads.
Regarding claim 7, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shubitidze teaches - wherein only the first current conversion unit (Fig. 2A #32 AC/DC converter) is supplied by a mains (Fig. 2A #30 mains) current phase, and the second current conversion unit (Fig. 2A #34b DC/AC+DC converter) is only supplied by the first current conversion unit (Fig. 2A #32 AC/DC converter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit device of Viroli in view of Shubitidze by incorporating the first current conversion unit powered by a mains and the second current conversion unit powered by the first current conversion unit as taught by Shubitidze for the benefit of resulting in zones of control wherein the power to groups of loads, or work coils, may be controlled independently via traditional electronic control. (Shubitidze [0025])
Regarding claim 8, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein at least one (Fig. 1 #20 rectifiers) outputs at least one output voltage for supplying different loads.
Regarding claim 9, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shubitidze teaches - wherein the first power unit is electrically connected with each of the other power units for supplying voltages for loads (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit device of Viroli in view of Shubitidze by incorporating the first power unit connected with each of the other power units as taught by Shubitidze for the benefit of resulting in zones of control wherein the power to groups of loads, or work coils, may be controlled independently via traditional electronic control. (Shubitidze [0025])
Regarding claim 10, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein the total power from the frequency converting means of each mains current phase is limited by a control unit (Fig. 1 #10 control unit) to a predetermined maximum power to ensure that total power is below the rated power of each mains current phase ([0048] ---" For example, the harmonic distortion reduction technique is performed by a dynamic wave form correction, wherein a frequency converter rectifies the input power signal into a half wave signal, in particular a half wave voltage signal. The half wave signal is delimited by two subsequent zero crossings. A half wave duration is defined by the time lag between said zero crossings. The frequency converter converts the half wave signal into a working signal, in particular a working current signal for supplying the induction heating device. A working frequency of the working signal is first increased from a first base frequency to a maximum frequency. Then the working frequency is decreased to a second base frequency within a time smaller than the half wave duration. The first base frequency and the second base frequency are different from each other.” and [0049] lines 1-4 ---" The control unit 10 applies the harmonic distortion reduction technique, if said control unit 10 recognize a known pattern of the power as function of the frequency, also to the second line L2 and to the third line L3.”).
Regarding claim 11, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - comprising induction elements (Fig. 1 #s 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50 induction coils), wherein each power unit supplies at least one induction element (Fig. 1 #s 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50 induction coils) with electrical power by the frequency converting means.
Regarding claim 12, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein on each power unit, by a different current phase (Fig. 1 L1-L3 different lines of a three-phase mains), at least one frequency converting means (Fig. 1 #s 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 power sections/half-bridge inverters)is supplied with electrical power.
Regarding claim 13, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein the frequency converting means (Fig. 1 #s 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 power sections/half-bridge inverters) is a generator (a half-bridge inverter is a generator) for converting an input current with an input frequency into an output current with a high frequency.
Regarding claim 14, Viroli in view of Shubitidze teaches the circuit device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Viroli teaches - wherein the frequency converting means comprises at least one rectifying means and/or
at least one frequency generation means (Fig. 1 #s 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 power sections/half-bridge inverters) driven with a driving frequency, wherein the driving frequency is supplied with electrical power by a control unit ([0043] lines 7-9 ---"A control input of each power section 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 is connected to the control unit 10.”; The control device provides a driving frequency for the inverters via the control inputs.), wherein the control unit is supplied with electrical power by the current conversion unit of the power unit (Abstract ---"The induction generator includes a control unit (10) connected to a current transformer (38), placed on one (L1) of the lines (L1, L2, L3) of the three-phase mains.”).
Regarding claim 15, Viroli in view of Shubitidze discloses a cooking device with the circuit device according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1; Both Viroli and Shubitidze disclose cooking devices with induction heating elements.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights