FINAL REJECTION
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
The Amendment filed 11/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 12-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-29 are newly added. Claims 1-11, 21-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/04/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “a PLC” should be revised to:
-- a program logic circuit (PLC) --,
in order to define the abbreviation in the first instance of its use, for sake of clarity.
In claims 2-11, 24-29, the preamble should be revised as follows:
--The induction cooking system [[vessel]] --;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 21-29 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 12, recites “the induction heat source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11, 21-29 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 3, 979, 572, previously cited in the 08/04/2025 Office Action), further in view of Hegedis (US 2013/0112683 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ito discloses an induction heating system, comprising
an induction heating vessel (Fig. 2B), comprising,
an interior wall 25, 26 (“ferromagnetic plate” with a “highly conductive plate” coupled thereto, that is attached to inner plate 22 with an interior space inside the vessel, Fig. 2B) formed of a first material (Col. 3, ln. 15-30, a ferromagnetic plate 25 forms part of the “interior wall”, which can be made of iron, and a highly conductive non-magnetic plate 26, which can be aluminum or iron; alternatively, Fig. 12, the ferromagnetic plate 25 forms the cooking surface/inner plate of the vessel, Col. 7, ln. 4-12),
an exterior wall 21 (outer plate) formed of a second material (non-magnetic material, Col. 3, ln. 4-7, “The material of the outer plate 21 must be non-magnetic and have a high electrical resistance. This material is preferably stainless steel but can also be ceramic”), where the second material is different from the first material (iron versus stainless steel or ceramic), and the second material is no more magnetic than the first material (the second material “must be non-magnetic”, hence is less magnetic than the magnetic ferromagnetic plate 25), and
a thermally insulating barrier 23 (a vacuum gap) between the interior wall and the exterior wall (Fig. 2B, Col. 2, ln. 63-Col. 3, ln. 4);
an induction heater 30 (Fig. 2C, 3, 4, a “range table” having windings 41-44 and magnetic poles 51-55, generating the magnetic field that causes the induction heating vessel to heat up, Col. 4, ln. 53-Col. 5, ln. 59).
Ito fails to disclose a temperature sensor, and a PLC in communication with the temperature sensor, the PLC having an interface for receiving time and temperature set-points from an operator, whereby the PLC adjusts power delivered to the induction heat source so as to maintain the induction heating vessel at the set-point temperature for the set-point time.
Hegedis teaches an induction heating system (Fig. 1) comprising an induction heating vessel 11, an induction heater 10, a temperature sensor 20, 25, 104, 105, 106 (Fig. 1, 10A-10D, Para. 0061, 0070, 0098, 0099), and a PLC (including a micro controller unit (MCU) 26, Power Driving Circuit 29, and remote device 32, Para. 0062; Fig. 2B) in communication with the temperature sensor (Para. 0061-62), the PLC having an interface 14 (user interface, Fig. 2B, 11) for receiving time and temperature set-points from an operator (Para. 0062, 0101-103, “A basic user interface panel 115 is shown in FIG. 11. The panel incorporates rotating user inputs or temperature 116, time 117 and heating intensity or heat task 118, …A user can pre-set time and temperature settings that are to their personnel liking”), whereby the PLC adjusts power delivered to the induction heat source (interpreted as the induction heater 10 induction coil) so as to maintain the induction heating vessel at the set-point temperature for the set-point time (Para. 0062, 0106-110, “The micro controller 26 also receives inputs from the user operated switches and controls 15, 16. The MCU 26 co-operates with proportional control software 27 and a cooking control programme 28 to effect control over the power control hardware 29”, the user interface “selection will in turn be determinative of the way that the MCU communicates information to the power control hardware and thus to the way that power supply to the induction coil. This temperature and time regime is monitored to create a feedback loop 165 that is continuously regulated during the cooking process”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the induction heating system of Ito to include a temperature sensor, a PLC/controller in communication with the sensor and an interface for receiving temperature and time set-points, the PLC adjusting power to maintain the temperature set-point for the set time, as taught by Hegedis, in order to provide a temperature sensor that can monitor the cooking temperature and provide the temperature data to a controller that controls operation of the system according to user settings, the interface allowing a user to set preferred cooking time and temperatures, the PLC/controller allowing data on the cooking process to be collected and utilized for controlling the power supplied to the induction heater with greater accuracy and control (Hegedis Para. 0062-66, 0106-110).
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is formed of an electrically conductive non-magnetic material (the interior wall comprises a “non-magnetic highly conductive plate 26” that is aluminum or copper, Col. 3, ln. 27-29, Fig. 2B, 12).
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is formed of at least one of aluminum, copper, silver, and alloys thereof (Col. 3, ln. 27-29, the interior wall comprises a “non-magnetic highly conductive plate 26” that is “preferably aluminum plate or copper plate”).
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is formed of an electrically conductive highly magnetic material (the ferromagnetic plate 25 of the interior wall, which is made of iron, is magnetic and electrically conductive, Col. 3, ln. 19-21; Col. 7, ln. 4-12).
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is formed of at least one of iron, nickel, cobalt, magnetic steel, rare earth metal, and permanent magnet (Col. 3, ln. 19-21, the ferromagnetic plate 25 forming the interior wall is made of iron).
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is formed of an electrically conductive highly magnetic material (Col. 3, ln. 19-21, the ferromagnetic plate 25 forming the interior wall is made of iron, and is magnetic and electrically conductive) and the exterior wall 21 is formed of an electrically conductive non-magnetic material (Col. 3, ln. 4-7, “The material of the outer plate 21 must be non-magnetic and have a high electrical resistance. This material is preferably stainless steel but can also be ceramic”).
Regarding claim 7, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the exterior wall 21 is formed of at least one of aluminum, copper, silver, and non-magnetic stainless steel (Col. 3, ln. 4-7, “The material of the outer plate 21 must be non-magnetic and have a high electrical resistance. This material is preferably stainless steel but can also be ceramic”) and the interior wall 25, 26 is formed of at least one of iron, nickel, cobalt, magnetic steel, rare earth metal, and permanent magnet (Col. 3, ln. 19-21, the ferromagnetic plate 25 forming the interior wall is made of iron, and is magnetic and electrically conductive).
Regarding claim 8, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the insulating barrier is formed of at least one of at least a partial vacuum, polystyrene, plastic, composite material, carbon fiber, and porous silica (Col. 2, ln. 63-66, “The space 23 is maintained as a vacuum. An inert gas having low heat conductivity such as argon gas can be sealed under low pressure in space 23. Although heat insulation is slightly decreased by the inert gas, the vacuum pressure applied to the outer cover 21 can be decreased”).
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches wherein the interior wall is coated with a protective coating (Col. 7, ln. 4-12, “The surface of the iron plate 25 can be coated with a coating membrane for protection or appearance such as tetrafluoroethylene coating.”, Fig. 12 embodiment).
Regarding claim 11, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, and Ito further teaches further comprising at least one of a lid (Fig. 2A, the “cover 10”), handle (Fig. 2B, there are two handles on opposite sides of the vessel as shown), and spout.
Regarding claim 21, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the PLC adjusts the power by cycling the power off and on [functional language].
Hegedis does teach the PLC (MCU 26) adjusts the power controlling power to the induction coil/element as needed to maintain a desired temperature (Para. 0062, 0066, 0098, 0109, claim 1, “a processor module that receives the temperature signal and controls power to the induction element for providing the desired temperature”).
It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. Consequently, the system of Ito in view of Hegedis is capable of operating in the manner described in the claim, since the system is capable of controlling power delivered to the induction heater to maintain a desired temperature.
Regarding claims 22, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the PLC adjusts the power by selectively increasing and decreasing the power as needed to maintain the set- point temperature [functional language].
Hegedis teaches the PLC (MCU 26) adjusts the power by selectively increasing and decreasing the power as needed to maintain a set-point temperature (Para. 0062, 0066, 0098, 0109, claim 1, “a processor module that receives the temperature signal and controls power to the induction element for providing the desired temperature”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Ito in view of Hegedis such that the PLC adjusts power by increasing/decreasing power to maintain a set-point temperature, as taught by Hegedis, in order to provide a control feedback loop for maintaining a desired cooking temperature of the induction heating vessel (Hegedis Para. 0062, 0066, 0098, 0109, claim 1). Furthermore, it has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case, the system of Ito in view of Hegedis is capable of operating in the manner described in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, 24, 25, 26, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the communication between the temperature sensor and the PLC is wireless.
Hegedis teaches wherein the communication between the temperature sensor 104, 105, 106 and the PLC 26 is wireless (Fig. 10A, via an RFID transducer 100 and tag reader 103, Para. 0098; Fig. 10D, via an RFID or wi-fi signal, Para. 0099); wherein the wireless communication is a Bluetooth protocol (Fig. 10D, Para. 0099), or wherein the wireless communication is a WiFi protocol (Fig. 10D, Para. 0099), or wherein the wireless communication is an RFID protocol (Fig. 10D, Para. 0099, “the temperature sensor 111 may be suspended from the rim of a vessel by a rigid or semi-rigid hook 112. In this way, wireless communication 113 between the probe in and the MCU 26 can occur for example, as an exchange of any one or more of blue tooth, RFID or WI-FI signals”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Ito in view of Hegedis such that the communication between the temperature sensor and PLC is wireless using Bluetooth, wi-fi, or RFID, as taught by Hegedis, in order to remove the need for a wired connection between the temperature sensor and the PLC, thereby permitting increased operational flexibility (Hegedis Para. 0099).
Regarding claim 27, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the PLC is disposed in a mobile device in wireless communication with the temperature sensor and the induction heater.
Hegedis teaches wherein the PLC is disposed in a mobile device 32 (at least part of the control circuit can be in a remote device 32 that is a phone, tablet or computer, Fig. 2B, Para. 0071-77) in wireless communication 31 (Fig. 2B, wi-fi, Bluetooth, RFID) with the temperature sensor 20 and the induction heater 10 (Fig. 2B, Para. 0071-77).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Ito in view of Hegedis to include a PLC disposed in a mobile device in wireless communication with the sensor, as taught by Hegedis, in order to provide an external remote device wirelessly connected to the induction heater and induction heating vessel to enable updating of software/firmware, diagnostics, customizing user interfaces, and wireless communication with other remote devices (Hegedis Para. 0071-77).
Regarding claim 28, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the temperature sensor further comprises multiple temperature sensors.
Hegedis teaches wherein the temperature sensor further comprises multiple temperature sensors 20, 25, and/or 65 (Fig. 2B, Para. 0016, 0062, 0070; Fig. 6A,7, Para. 0083-85).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Ito in view of Hegedis, multiple temperature sensors as taught by Hegedis, in order to provide multiple cooperating temperature sensors that can monitor the temperatures of the system proximate the induction heating elements, as well as the temperature within the cooking vessel, to ensure desired and optimal temperatures are achieved (Hegedis Para. 0016, 0062, 0070, 0083-85).
Regarding claim 29, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the temperature sensor senses a temperature of the exterior vessel wall of the induction heating vessel, and the PLC adjusts the power to ensure that the exterior wall of the induction heating vessel is below a desired threshold [functional language].
Hegedis teaches a temperature sensor 65 that senses a temperature of the exterior vessel wall of the induction heating vessel 67 (Fig. 6A, 7, Para. 0083-85, the sensors abut the exterior surface of the vessel 67 at the bottom of the vessel as shown; also Fig. 9A-E shows another sensor for measuring the temperature of the exterior bottom of the vessel), and a PLC (MCU 26) adjusts power to ensure the temperature of the vessel does not exceed a desired threshold (a “preset upper temperature limit”, Para. 0159).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Ito in view of Hegedis to include a temperature sensor that senses a temperature of the exterior vessel wall to allow the PLC to adjust power to ensure the exterior wall does not exceed a threshold, as taught by Hegedis, in order to ensure the system maintains the vessel below a preset upper temperature limit (Hegedis Para. 0159).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Hegedis, further in view of England (US 2009/0065500, previously cited in the 08/04/2025 Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Ito in view of Hegedis teaches the induction heating vessel of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the interior wall is coated with at least one of zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, yttria-stabilized zirconia, polytetrafluoroethylene, ceramic, silicone, porcelain enamel, seasoned cast iron, and a superhydrophobic material. Ito does teach the interior wall (Fig. 12 embodiment) can be coated by “a coating membrane for protection or appearance such as tetrafluoroethylene coating” (Col. 7, ln. 4-12).
England teaches an induction heating vessel 100 (Fig. 7) including an interior wall 111 that is coated with polytetrafluoroethylene material (Para. 0076).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the vessel of Ito in view of Hegedis, a coating of polytetrafluoroethylene on the interior wall, as taught by England, in order to provide the interior cooking surface with a non-stick coating (England Para. 0076). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. In this case, one skilled in the art would be motivated to incorporate a non-stick coating to the vessel, such as using polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by England, for ease of cooking items with the vessel and ease of cleaning the vessel after use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 21-29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741