DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden of search. For example applicant argues that because the claim groups are similar that a search for one group would encompass a search for the other group. This is not found persuasive because a burden of search is established when each of the two inventions require a separate field of search (MPEP 808.02). Separate fields of search were identified in the restriction requirement of 07/18/2015 on pages 2 and 3.
It is additionally pointed out that, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. Applicant argues that restriction results in unnecessary expense and duplicative examination. In response it was pointed out that the restriction requirement mailed 02/03/2026 on pages 4-5 that the withdrawn claims are eligible for rejoinder and thus a duplicative application is not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 15 accordingly: “based on a current value”
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 1-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driving circuit" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution claim 1 line 9 “drive circuit” and the instant driving circuit are considered the same.
Claim 1 recites “calculate an output power value of the working coil based on current value measured through the shunt resistor, calculate a final output power value of the working coil based on the output power value of the working coil”. It appears there may be an unreasonable degree of uncertainty regarding the instant phrase relating to correspondence between the specification and the claims (MPEP 2173.03). For example it is thought one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the phrase to such that a single value is calculated regarding output power and the final output power value is calculated based on the instant output power value. However the only embodiment of calculating the final output power value found in applicant disclosure is such that the final output power value is based on averaging of a plurality of output power values (see par. 92). The claim is interpreted such that the calculation of final output power can be based on one or more power output values.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “output power values”. It is unclear if the claim 3 output power values refer to (1) the claim 1 line 14 calculated output power value or (2) are different output power values. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted regarding the former.
Claim 7 line 2 recites “an output power value”. It is unclear if the claim 7 output power value refer to (1) the claim 1 line 14 calculated output power value or (2) is a different output power value. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted regarding the former.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2015/0351163 A1 (Kim ‘163) in view of International Publication WO 2020/046052 A1 (Kim ‘052).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘163 discloses (see fig. 6) an induction heating device comprising: a rectifying circuit RC to rectify an alternating current (AC) voltage (see “AC” power supply in fig. 6) supplied from a power supply AC (see par. 119); a smoothing circuit SC to smooth a voltage output (see par. 119) from the rectifier circuit RC; an inverter (the switches Q1,Q2 of circuit 111 convert DC to AC; see pars. 118-119 and pars. 123-125) comprising a plurality of switches Q1,Q2 to convert (see pars. 118-119) the smoothed voltage output of the smoothing circuit SC into alternating current and supply the alternating current to a working coil L (each working coil L1,L2,L3,L4 corresponds with a respective location M1,M2,M3,M4; see fig. 1 and par. 89; thus one or ordinary skill in the art would understand that just one of the working coils L is shown in fig. 6; also see 110,L in fig. 45 wherein coil driving unit 110 includes the circuit 111 inverter as discussed in par. 116; as general information a current sensor 113 detects the current supplied to each heating coil “L”, see par. 126); a shunt resistor 113 (see par. 128) coupled between the smoothing circuit SC and the inverter (see par. 128: “The shunt resistor [113] may be disposed between the smoothing circuit SC and the … circuit 111 [that includes the inverter]”); a drive circuit (the portion of circuit 111 that is not the inverter switches Q1,Q2; i.e., the Kim ‘163 circuit 111 includes the switches that form applicant claimed inverter; thus the claimed driving circuit includes the line supplying control signals from controller 115 of Kim ‘163 fig. 6 to the inverter switches Q1,Q2) to supply (see par. 130) switching signals to the plurality of switches Q1,Q2 provided in the inverter, respectively; and a controller 100,115 (see figs. 6 and 45 wherein the controller portion 115 is a part of coil driving unit 110 as discussed in par. 116) configured to determine (see par. 361) a driving frequency of the inverter and drive the working coil L by supplying a control signal based on the driving frequency (see pars. 131, 357 and 361; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that controller 100 determines the driving frequency for example based on the user input from the user interface 120 such that the user determines how much heating power to supply to a cooking vessel C; see figs. 1 and 45) to the driving circuit (the portion of circuit 111 that is not the inverter switches Q1,Q2; i.e., the Kim ‘163 circuit 111 includes the switches Q1,Q2 that form the claimed inverter; thus the claimed driving circuit includes the line supplying control signals from controller 115 of Kim ‘163 fig. 6 to the inverter switches Q1,Q2). Kim ‘163 does not disclose wherein the controller 100,115 is configured to calculate an output power value of the working coil based on a current value measured through the shunt resistor, calculate a final output power value of the working coil based on the output power value of the working coil, and determine whether eccentricity occurs between the working coil and a container based on the final output power value.
Kim ‘052 teaches an induction heating device 2 (see fig. 7) and further teaches (see fig. 7) (a controller 20 is configured) to calculate (see pars. 72-73) an output power value (at time DA e.g. in fig. 8 and pars. 22 and 84; see par. 118 wherein the eccentricity determination at time DA is determined based on an output power value, see pars. 72-73) of a working coil (WC1 or WC2) based on a current value (see pars. 72-74) measured, calculate a final output power (at time 2DA, see par. 118 wherein the eccentricity determination at time 2DA is determined based on an output power value, see pars. 72-73; figs. 8-20 show different embodiments regarding timing DA and 2DA; final can refer to a final calculation regarding a time span that includes DA and 2DA or in other words during two consecutive driving periods T and 2T, for example see the time span shown in fig. 8 regarding WC1) value of the working coil based on (the calculation of the final output power is the same calculation as the output power and is thus based on thereof) the output power value of the working coil WC1, and determine whether eccentricity occurs between the working coil (WC1 at location 12 in fig. 1) and a container 11 (see fig. 1) based on the final output power value (see pars. 72,73 and 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Kim ‘163 with the controller 100,115 is configured to calculate an output power value of the working coil based on a current value measured through the shunt resistor, calculate a final output power value of the working coil based on the output power value of the working coil, and determine whether eccentricity occurs between the working coil and a container based on the final output power value as taught by Kim ‘052 in order to facilitate preventing damage to internal circuitry and/or malfunction of the heating device (see Kim ‘052 par. 10). This results in measuring power at each driving period.
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Kim ‘052 applied above include (see fig. 7) (a controller 20 of Kim ‘052) is configured to calculate (power is calculated based on current and voltage, see pars. 72-73) the final output power value (at time 2DA) based on an output power value of a working coil WC1 measured in an on-period (on at 1000W, see fig. 8) of the working coil.
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Kim ‘163 does not disclose when a required power value of the working coil exceeds a preset first reference value, the Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 controller is configured to drive the working coil in a linear driving scheme, and when the required value of the working coil is equal to or less than the preset first reference value, the controller is configured to drive the working coil in an on-off driving scheme
Kim ‘052 teaches when a required power value of the working coil exceeds a preset first reference value, (a controller of Kim ‘052) is configured to drive the working coil in a linear driving scheme, and when the required value of the working coil is equal to or less than the preset first reference value, the controller is configured to drive the working coil in an on-off driving scheme (see pars. 7-8 or pars. 69-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 with when a required power value of the working coil exceeds a preset first reference value, the Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 controller is configured to drive the working coil in a linear driving scheme, and when the required value of the working coil is equal to or less than the preset first reference value, the controller is configured to drive the working coil in an on-off driving scheme as taught by Kim ‘052 in order to facilitate saving power and not overcooking food with a working coil current greater than demanded by user input to cook the food.
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including controller 100,115 of Kim ‘163. The teachings of Kim ‘052 applied above include (see fig. 7) periodically determine whether eccentricity occurs between a working coil and a container at preset time intervals (Kim ‘052 teaches computing output values of power of designated time periods during which the working coil is driven with current; for example “eccentricity determination times DA and 2DA” in pars. 15 or 85 and shown in fig. 8; thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that eccentricity or in other words whether a cooking container is centered over the coil is determined at regular intervals in case the container is moved during the heating process; as general information in the examples shown in figs. 8-20 for each driving period T there are gaps wherein there is zero power during the gaps referring to an on-off driving scheme wherein the power demand does not require the coil to be constantly on).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including controller 100,115 of Kim ‘163. The teachings of Kim ‘052 applied above include (see par. 73) to determine that no eccentricity occurs between the working coil and the container when the final output power value (i.e., that power calculated at time 2DA in fig. 8 for example at a second driving period of Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052) exceeds a preset second reference value, and the controller is configured to determine that eccentricity occurs between the working coil and the container when the final output power value is equal to or less than the preset second reference value.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2016/0095168 A1 (Shan) as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2012/0248096 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including controller 100,115 of Kim ‘163. The teachings of Kim ‘052 in the claim 1 analysis above include calculate output power values of the working coil (see Kim ‘052 par. 72: “The control circuit 20 may calculate the magnitude of power supplied to the working coils WC1 and WC2, i.e., input power values of the working coils WC 1 and WC2, based on the obtained input voltage and input current.”). Kim ‘163 does not disclose a moving average of an average value of integrated values of (of the Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 output power values) which is calculated for every preset driving time period as the final output power value.
Shan teaches (see figs. 4-5) an induction heating device 400,500 (Shan teaches measuring a current value using a shunt resistor (Shunt 1) of a working coil 518 to determine whether eccentricity occurs between the working coil 518 and a container shown atop the working coil in fig. 5). Shan further teaches (see pars. 31 and 35) a moving average of multiple integer driving periods two of which are shown in fig. 6 wherein fig. 6 represents no eccentricity and wherein fig. 7 represents eccentricity or in other words the cooking container is not aligned with the coil. Using such moving average makes to determine eccentricity the differentiation between fig. 6 and fig. 7 more accurate as pointed out in par. 35 (Shan is silent regarding the averaging of integrated values of current of just one integer driving period regarding the moving averaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 with a moving average as taught by Shan in order to facilitate computing a more accurate value of current regarding presence detection of a cooking container (see Shan par. 10). This results in the current detection of the shunt of Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 and Shan being a moving average.
As pointed out of above Shan’s moving average algorithm is silent regarding the portion the current profile of just one of the driving periods shown in fig. 6. However Lee is evidence that when sampling current within one section of a driving period that either (1) a single representative value of current is used or (2) an average of integrated values is used (i.e., Lee states in par. 86 “the current value of each heating coil L may be the maximum value or average value of the current values detected for time T2 or all current values included in a predetermined section of time T2”, wherein the instant section of time is that of a driving period as shown in figs. 4A or 4B and wherein such current averaging is for eccentricity determination as shown at step 450 in fig. 5; also see par. 79 and 83 pointing out such averaging is related to eccentricity determination). The term integrated is interpreted as “to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole” (Merriam-Webster online).
It would have been obvious to try an average value of integrated values regarding a portion of a driving period of Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 and Shan (i.e. the portion that Shan is silent of and that evidenced by Lee scenario (2) above) because one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known options withing his or her technical grasp.
Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 and Shan results in wherein the controller is configured to calculate a moving average of an average value of integrated values of current values of the working coil which is calculated for every preset driving time period as a final current value. In claim 1 the purpose for calculating the final output power is to determine eccentricity. Applicant disclosure states that the claimed averaged output power values are based on average current (see par. 90 equation 1: “P = VDC Iavg”). Thus whether a final output power is calculated or whether a final output current is calculated appears to be a design choice given equation 1 and applicant fig. 5 correlating power and current. For example, par. 100 states “FIG. 5 is a graph showing a change in an output current value of a working coil” wherein fig. 5 is labeled as “Power” versus Time.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art whether to use applicant Final Output Power value or Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 and Shan’s Final Output Current value because Applicant has not disclosed that using Final Output Power is used for any particular purpose, or solves any stated problem as compared for example to using the instant Final Output Current for eccentricity determination. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected applicant's invention to perform equally well using Final Output Current because applicant disclosure eccentricity determination can be based on current (see par. 24) and because Kim ‘052 uses either power output or current for eccentricity determination reasons (see pars. 73-74).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. US 2019/0045586 A1 (Son).
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including controller 100,115 of Kim ‘163. Kim ‘163 does not disclose the Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 controller configured to control an output power value of the working coil to be changed into a preset limit value when the controller determines that eccentricity occurs between the working coil and the container.
Son teaches an induction heating device (see fig. 2) (in which current is measured and compared 170 with a reference value S17 to determine eccentricity S19; see figs. 2 and 4) and further teaches (see figs. 1, 2 and 4) configured to control (with controller 180) an output power value of a working coil 150 to be changed into a preset limit value (zero power; see par. 98) when the controller determines S19 that eccentricity occurs between the working coil and the container 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 with the Kim ‘163 in view of Kim ‘052 controller configured to control an output power value of the working coil to be changed into a preset limit value when the controller determines that eccentricity occurs between the working coil and the container as taught by Son in order to facilitate preventing malfunction of the induction heat cooking apparatus (see Son par. 100) and prevent the heating apparatus from being damaged (see Son par. 120).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090120928: inverter similar to Kim ‘163;
US 20110303653: eccentricity determination can be based on a variety of sensors (par. 36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights