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election without traverse of Species 1, Fig 2, including Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-19 (with Claims 10, 13 and 20 withdrawn) in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 was acknowledged and has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2022 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 19 found in figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under page 5, line 4 contains the information "a glass ceramic plate 2"; under page 22, line 8 contains the information "a pan 2". Numerical 2 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least resonant capacitor assembly” in various places. Suggest changing “the at least resonant capacitor assembly” to “the at least a resonant capacitor assembly” to obviate this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the at least resonant capacitor assembly” in various places. Suggest changing “the at least resonant capacitor assembly” to “the at least a resonant capacitor assembly” to obviate this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
A. Claim limitation “a sensing network” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “network” coupled with functional language “sensing” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. Page 6 line 6, Figs. 2 and 5, a sensing assembly 20.
B. Claim limitation “a sensing element” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “sensing” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 22 line 19, a sensing element 23.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 recites the limitation “a node” in line 10 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a node” and a node mentioned in line 7 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an electric parameter” in line 42 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “an electric parameter” and an electric parameter mentioned in line 31 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preferably a current” in various places, the term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a current through the first induction heater or a voltage in a point of the first resonant circuit” and “a current through the second induction heater or a voltage in a point of the second resonant circuit” respectively. It is unclear what the relation are between each of the “a current”? It is unclear what the relation are between each of the “a voltage”? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a damped oscillation” in 5th to the last line rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a damped oscillation” and a damped oscillation mentioned in 16th to the last line are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a damped oscillation occurs between them” in various places rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what these them stand for? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first or the second induction heater” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably” in various places, the term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 5, the term “particular” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first and the second converter switch” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first and second converter switch” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a first node” and “a second node” respectively rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between these “a first node” or “a second node” and a node mentioned in claim 1 line 7 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a first node” and “a second node” respectively rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between these “a first node” or “a second node” and a node mentioned in claim 1 line 7 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 4, the term “particular” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a plurality of resonant capacitor assembly comprising a first resonant capacitor assembly and a second resonant capacitor assembly” in line 2 rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between “a plurality of resonant capacitor assembly comprising a first resonant capacitor assembly and a second resonant capacitor assembly” and at least a resonant capacitor assembly mentioned in claim 1 line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the node” in line 7 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “the node” and a node mentioned in line 7 and 10 respectively of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second terminal” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “approximately” in second to the last line, the term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the voltage of the DC bus” in second to the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the first and second induction heaters” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the inverter” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “it is closed” in various places rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what these “it” stands for? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an electric parameter” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “an electric parameter” and an electric parameter mentioned in claim 1 line 31 and 42 respectively are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first or second resonant circuit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the node” in line 6 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “the node” and a node mentioned in line 7 and 10 respectively of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a pan” in 8th to the last line rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a pan” and a pan mentioned in 3rd to the last line of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the respective first or second main switch” in third to the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a common node” in line 6 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a common node” and a node mentioned in claim 1 line 7 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “first main switch, second main switch, first auxiliary switch and second auxiliary switch” in line 12 rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between “first main switch, second main switch, first auxiliary switch and second auxiliary switch” and a first main switch, a second main switch, a first auxiliary switch and a second auxiliary switch respectively mentioned in claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 is an independent method claim; for method claims, the applicant should define the method invention by a series of active steps. Each defined active step should be further inter-related with previous active step(s). Currently, the method claim contains: “the method comprising the steps of: to sense an electric parameter regarding the first induction heater”, “to sense an electric parameter regarding the second induction heater” and “detect the presence of a pan on the cooktop”; none of these limitations positive recited with active step. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an induction cooktop” in line 2 rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “an induction cooktop” and an induction cooktop mentioned in line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a node” in line 10 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a node” and a node mentioned in line 7 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the control unit” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a current through the first induction heater or a voltage in a point of the first resonant circuit” and “a current through the second induction heater or a voltage in a point of the second resonant circuit” respectively. It is unclear what the relation are between each of the “a current”? It is unclear what the relation are between each of the “a voltage”? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an electric parameter” in line 32 rendering the claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “an electric parameter” and an electric parameter mentioned in line 21 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a damped oscillation” in 9th to the last line rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what this “a damped oscillation” and a damped oscillation mentioned in line 31 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a damped oscillation occurs between them” in various places rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what these “them” stand for? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a pan” in 8th to the last line rendering these claim indefinites. It is unclear what the relation between this “a pan” and a pan mentioned in line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “in particular” in 7th to the last line, the term “particular” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first or the second induction heater” in 6th to the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “preferably” in various places, the term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “preferably” in various places, the term “preferably” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “in particular” in various places, the term “particular” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said first and/or second induction heater” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a current or a voltage” in last line. It is unclear what the relation of “a current or a voltage” and a current, a voltage mentioned in claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Independent Claim 1, Pastore et al. (US 2023/0217553 A1) disclose an induction cooktop (an induction heating system 100, [0023], Figs 1-2) comprising:
a DC bus (a conventional rectifier circuit 104, [0024], Figs 1-2);
at least a resonant capacitor assembly (capacitors CCE and CR, [0042], Figs 1-2) connected to the DC bus ([0012-0013], Figs 1-2);
a first resonant circuit (an inverter module 108, [0025], Figs 1-2) comprising a first induction heater (an induction coil 110, [0023], Figs 1-2) and the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (CCE) connected one another in a node (a node connected 110 and CCE, Fig 2);
at least a second resonant circuit (an inverter module 120, [0027], Figs 1-2) comprising a second induction heater (second induction coil 123, [0027], Figs 1-2) and the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (CCE) connected one another in a node (a node connected 123 and CCE, Fig 2);
a switching converter (a half-bridge series resonant converter circuit, [0043]);
a control unit (controller 114, [0026], Figs 1-2);
a first main switch (switching device Q1, [0043], Fig 2) and a second main switch (switching device Q2, [0043], Fig 2) configured to be operated by the control unit to selectively connect the first induction heater and the second induction heater (see Fig 2), to the switching converter for selectively energizing the first induction heater and/or the second induction heater (the associated induction coil 110, 123, respectively, may be disabled by the controller 114, [0029]);
wherein the control unit is configured:
to sense an electric parameter regarding the first induction heater in the first resonant circuit (voltage or current sensor 117 senses the current supplied to the induction coil 110, [0031]), preferably a current through the first induction heater or a voltage in a point of the first resonant circuit,
to sense an electric parameter regarding the second induction heater in the second resonant circuit (voltage or current sensor 125 senses the current supplied to the second induction coil 123, [0032]), preferably a current through the second induction heater or a voltage in a point of the second resonant circuit (66),
detect the presence of a pan on the cooktop on the basis of the sensed electric parameter in vicinity of the first or the second induction heater (to sense or detect the presence of the cookware 112, [0033], to sense or detect the presence of the cookware 121 on the second induction coil 123, [0034], Fig 2).
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, or fairly suggest or render obvious comprising: a first auxiliary switch (30) connected from a side to the first induction heater (3) and from another side to the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (60; 62) and configured to be able to close the first resonant circuit (65); a second auxiliary switch (40) connected from a side to the second induction heater (4) and from another side to the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (61; 62) and configured to be able to close the second resonant circuit (66); when the second induction heater (4) is not fed from the switching converter (16) and the second auxiliary switch (40) closes the second resonant circuit (66) in such a way that the at least resonant capacitor assembly (61; 62) is connected to the second induction heater (4) by means of the second auxiliary switch (40) and a damped oscillation occurs between them; when the second induction heater (4) is not fed from the switching converter (16) and the second auxiliary switch (40) closes the second resonant circuit (66) in such a way that the at least resonant capacitor assembly (61; 62) is connected to the second induction heater (4) by means of the second auxiliary switch (40) and a damped oscillation occurs between them. Furthermore, there is no motivation found to modify the prior art to obtain the claimed limitations.
As such, claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action shown above. With respect to Claims 2-9, 11-12 and 16-19; their dependency on Claim 1 makes them allowable.
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Pastore et al. (US 2023/0217553 A1) disclose a method to detect a pan over an induction cooktop (an induction heating system 100, [0023], Figs 1-2) for an induction cooktop; wherein the induction cooktop comprising: a DC bus (a conventional rectifier circuit 104, [0024], Figs 1-2); at least a resonant capacitor assembly (capacitors CCE and CR, [0042], Figs 1-2) connected to the DC bus ([0012-0013], Figs 1-2); a first resonant circuit (an inverter module 108, [0025], Figs 1-2) comprising a first induction heater (an induction coil 110, [0023], Figs 1-2) and the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (CCE) connected each another in a node (a node connected 110 and CCE, Fig 2); a second resonant circuit (an inverter module 120, [0027], Figs 1-2) comprising a second induction heater (second induction coil 123, [0027], Figs 1-2) and the at least a resonant capacitor assembly (CCE) connected each another in a node (a node connected 123 and CCE, Fig 2); a switching converter (a half-bridge series resonant converter circuit, [0043]) shared between the first induction heater and the second induction heater by means of a first main switch (switching device Q1, [0043], Fig 2) and a second main switch (switching device Q2, [0043], Fig 2) configured to be operated by the control unit (controller 114, [0026], Figs 1-2) to selectively connect the first induction heater and/or the second induction heater (see Fig 2) to the switching converter for selectively energizing the first induction heater and/or the second induction heater (the associated induction coil 110, 123, respectively, may be disabled by the controller 114, [0029]);
The method comprising the steps of:
to sense an electric parameter regarding the first induction heater in the first resonant circuit (voltage or current sensor 117 senses the current supplied to the induction coil 110, [0031]), preferably a current through the first induction heater or a voltage in a point of the first resonant circuit,
to sense an electric parameter regarding the second induction heater in the second resonant circuit (voltage or current sensor 125 senses the current supplied to the second induction coil 123, [0032]), preferably a current through the second induction heater or a voltage in a point of the second resonant circuit (66),
detect the presence of a pan on the cooktop on the basis of the sensed electric parameter, in particular in vicinity of the first or the second induction heater (to sense or detect the presence of the cookware 112, [0033], to sense or detect the presence of the cookware 121 on the second induction coil 123, [0034], Fig 2),
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, or fairly suggest or render obvious comprising: when the first induction heater (3) is not fed by the switching converter (16), and a first auxiliary switch (30),distinct from the first main switch (17), closes the first resonant circuit (65) in such a way that the at least resonant capacitor assembly (60; 62) is connected to the first induction heater (3) by means of the first auxiliary switch (30) and a damped oscillation occurs between them; when the second induction heater (4) is not fed from the switching converter (16), and the second auxiliary switch (40), distinct from the second main switch (18), closes the second resonant circuit (66) in such a way 25 that the at least resonant capacitor assembly (61; 62) is connected to the second induction heater (4) by means of the second auxiliary switch (40) and a damped oscillation occurs between them; preferably said first and/or second induction heater (3, 4) is not fed by the switching converter (16) by closing the respective first auxiliary switch (30) and/or the second auxiliary switch (40) and analyzing the electric parameter of said damped oscillation. Furthermore, there is no motivation found to modify the prior art to obtain the claimed limitations.
As such, claim 14 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action shown above. With respect to Claim 15; their dependency on Claim 14 makes them allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights