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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “a container” should be changed to “[[a]]the container”
Claim 10, “a container” should be changed to “[[a]]the container”
Claim 16, “a container” should be changed to “[[a]]the container”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 recites the first step of determining whether or not to perform a temperature correction operation based on a difference between a current driving start time point of a working coil and a previous driving end time point of the working coil, as drafted, in the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, a person using a clock can time how long it has been since the induction heater has been turned off then turned back on. The second step of obtaining an equivalent resistance value of the working coil and a container placed on the working coil by driving the working coil at a reference frequency, as drafted, in the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, a person can use a look up table or a database to find an equivalent resistance value corresponding to a driving frequency. The third step of obtaining a temperature correction value based on the equivalent resistance value, as drafted, in the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, a person can again use a look up table or a database to find a temperature that corresponds to a specific equivalent resistance value.
The judicial except is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements, but they are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using a temperature sensor to obtain a temperature value. The temperature sensor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic temperature sensor. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the claim recites another additional step of correcting the temperature value based on the temperature correction value, which is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. to correct the temperature value obtained by the sensor. This step does not instruct a person how to correct the temperature, for example, to reduce or increase the power to the induction heating apparatus to raise or lower the temperature to match the correct temperature. The step simply states to correct it, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a temperature sensor to obtain a temperature value amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor, thus cannot provide an inventive concept. The other additional step of correcting the temperature value based on the temperature correction value does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7
Claim 7 recites the steps similarly to claim1, with a further element of a non-transitory controller readable medium which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-transitory controller readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as a generic computer component, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim then recites two additional elements being a working coil and a power supply circuit, which are simply linking the abstract idea of determining, obtaining, and correcting the temperature value to a particular technological environment, in this case an induction heating apparatus such as a stovetop. These additional elements are simply a means to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case an induction heating apparatus such as a stovetop. Therefore, these additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13
Claim 13 recites the steps similarly to claim1, with a further element of a non-transitory controller readable medium which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The non-transitory controller readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as a generic computer component, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are italicized as follows:
correcting the temperature value based on the temperature correction value by subtracting the temperature correction value from the temperature value obtained by the temperature sensor, and
performing an overheat protection operation based on the corrected temperature value.
The last step of claims 1, 7, and 13 recites “correcting the temperature value based on the temperature correction value” which is indefinite since it is unclear how the temperature value is being corrected. There is no mention of modifying, comparing, or adjusting anything, such as a power level, so as to change the temperature value in order to correct it, as well as why correcting the temperature value is necessary. However, in the instant specification [0110], the controller is correcting the temperature value obtained by the temperature sensor 134 by subtracting the temperature correction value from the temperature value obtained by the temperature sensor 134 in Fig. 1. This first additional step of “subtracting the temperature correction value from the temperature value obtained by the temperature sensor” is essential because it describes a threshold or reference value to measure how many degrees are required to correct the temperature value.
Furthermore in [0111], the control performs an overheat protection operation based on the corrected temperature value, for example when an actual temperature value of the container or a rate of change of the actual temperature value is equal to or greater than a preset reference value, the controller 2 may perform the overheat protection operation of reducing an output power value of the working coil 132 or stopping the driving of the working coil 132. This second additional step is essential because it explains how to proceed with correcting the temperature value, by reducing an output power value of the working coil or stopping the working coil, as well as why correcting the temperature value is important, by providing overheat protection. These two additional steps describe how to practice the invention.
Therefore, the step of “correcting the temperature value based on the temperature correction value” is incomplete because this step fails to include two more essential steps of by subtracting the temperature correction value from the temperature value obtained by the temperature sensor and performing an overheat protection operation based on the corrected temperature value. As explained above, these omitted steps are essential because they describe how the invention is “correcting the temperature value” and why, which in this case, are both necessary in order to practice the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawahara (US 20240291402 A1) teaches that a temperature estimation unit 7 calculates an equivalent resistance value from the voltage value and the current value after a time period t3 to t4 (Figs 12 and 14, [0113, 0116, 0119]), but is silent on to determine whether or not to perform a temperature correction operation based on a difference between a driving start and previous end time points of a working coil.
Beverly (US 20120132647 A1) teaches an induction cooking system having a temperature sensor and a coil, where the resonant frequency of the RLC circuit can be measured and then used to determine the capacitance of the circuit, where the capacitance can be used for the indirect temperature measurement (Fig 1, [0040]), but is silent on obtaining a temperature correction value based on an equivalent resistance value.
Norman (US 20170067648 A1) teaches a method of detecting a rate of temperature change of a cooking element (Fig 5), but is silent on obtaining an equivalent resistance value of the working coil and a container placed on the working coil by driving the working coil at a reference frequency.
Salsich (US 20090159572 A1) teaches in Fig 6, to determine a temperature based on an equivalence thermal resistance for an induction heating system ([0048], [0064]), but is silent on to determine whether or not to perform a temperature correction operation based on a difference between a driving start and previous end time points of a working coil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F. 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 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights