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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-12 of the reply applicant argues Jeong teaches away from the coil driver operating as the detection circuit for detecting a container. It should be noted Applicant increasingly misrepresents the Jeong reference throughout the arguments.
It is agreed, and disclosed in the Non-Final Office action, Jeong teaches a working coil and a sensing coil. Applicant states, on page 9 of the reply “Jeong consistently uses two entirely separate components to provide the combined detection and heating functionality of the present claims. Specifically, Jeong uses working coils (e.g., first working coil 202 and second working coil 204) to provide heating functionality and separately uses "vessel detecting sensor 20" to provide sensing functionality. Most notably, Jeong actively teaches away from the claimed limitations by explicitly discouraging the combined detecting/heating approach of the present claims. For example, Jeong states that it is difficult to precisely sense the vessel when the vessel is sensed using the working coil because noise occurs in the driving signal as temperature of the vessel increases. (Jeong at para. [0008]). Jeong further teaches away by stating "since the working coil for sensing a vessel is driven using high voltage and high power, there are problems in that great noise occurs and a lot of power is consumed when the vessel is sensed." (Jeong at para. [0008]). These passages of Jeong directly discourage using the working coil for sensing and sets forth the very problems (e.g., noise and power consumption) that the present application addresses.”
Jeong does not explicitly discourage using the working coil for sensing. Jeong merely states “since the working coil for sensing a vessel…there are problems…since noise occurs in the driving signal as the temperature of the vessel, it is difficult to precisely sense the vessel. This would not be taken as explicitly teaching away as Jeong acknowledges using the working coil for sensing a vessel is done in the art. Applicant states “it is difficult”, which is not directly discouraging as the specification never says to not do it.
“Jeong consistently, and only, provides for a heating and sensing using distinct and
separate components. For example, FIG. 2 explicitly shows the heating coils (e.g., first working coil 202 and second working coil 204) distinct and separate from the vessel detecting sensor 20. FIG. 9 similarly shows the working coil 204 as a separate component from the sensing circuit 520.”
While Jeong does use different components, it does not consistently teach away. The difficultly with combining the components is addressed once and admits the components are combined in prior art.
On page 11 of the reply applicant argues “Unlike the present application where a single "coil driver" performs both roles, Jeong utilizes physically and functionally distinct components for each task.
Furthermore, Jeong explicitly teaches away from the core configuration of the
present application (i.e., using the working coil for vessel detection). “
However, the combination and reasons for combination are disclose in Kwack.
Applicant further states “Paragraph [0008] of Jeong criticizes the conventional technology by stating: "According to the prior art, the working coil must be driven at high voltage and high power for vessel detection, which causes significant noise and high power consumption... noise occurs in the driving signal as the vessel temperature rises, making accurate detection difficult." Since Jeong explicitly points out the disadvantages of using a working coil for detection, a person skilled in the art would not easily combine or arrive at the configuration of the present application.”
This is a misrepresentation of Jeong. The reference does not state “significant”. Applicant has added the word “significant” and misquoted the prior art. Jeong states “noise occurs in the driving signal as the temperature of the vessel increases, it is difficult to precisely sense the vessel. Applicant is intentionally misquoting the prior art in an attempt to strengthen their argument.
“In other words, Jeong's explicit criticism of using the working coil for sensing (Jeong at para. [0008]) and its consistent disclosure of separate sensing and heating components (Jeong FIGS. 2 and 9) teach away from the Examiner's modification to have the working coil function as the sensing coil. The express teaching away in Jeong undermines any articulated motivation to combine Jeong with Kwack to arrive at the claimed configuration. Accordingly, the proposed combination lacks a sufficient rationale under KSR and does not render the claims obvious.”
Jeong does not expressly teach away. Jeong merely states using the working coil to sense the vessel is difficult. The paragraph quoted by applicant also describes a working coil for sensing a vessel in related art. Specifically in a reference from 2006.
On page 12 applicant states “because Jeong so strongly and expressly criticizes using the working coil for sensing.” However, it is not clear where the strong and express criticism is found in Jeong. Jeong merely states using the working coil to sense the vessel is difficult. It does not state is can not or should not be done.
Applicant argues, on page 12, the combination would change the principle operation of the prior art…” However, this is not accurate. Jeong discloses that related art using the working coil to sense the vessel and merely states it is difficult to do this when high voltage is involved. It may be done and would not change the principle operation as the vessel would still be detected if combined with Kwack.
Kwack even addresses the issues with vessel detection due to noise and minimizing the effects of the noise. (See Paragraphs [0012]-[0013]) Kwack addresses the deficiencies of Jeong by using a multi-phase power supply and a process for allowing the sensing to be performed in the working coil. (See Abstract and Paragraphs [0162]-[0184])
It should also be noted the obviousness statement in the office action reads “minimizing noise and increasing the accuracy of the
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., : “integrated dual mode driver structure [page 13 of the reply]; ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants statements on the amended portion of the claim and new claims, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2020/0163169) in view of Kwack et al (US 2020/0158905).
Regarding claim 1, 3, Jeong discloses, an induction heating apparatus (See Fig 1 and Paragraph [0009]) comprising:
a working coil (204, See Figs 2 and 9, Paragraphs [0041];
a coil driver configured to supply the working coil with main power for heating; and (See Fig. 3, elements power source 502, rectifier 504, Filter circuit 506, inverter 508 and paragraphs [0076], [0083])
at least one processor configured to control the coil driver, (See Fig 9, Element 512 and Paragraph [0098])
wherein the coil driver (502, 504, 506, 508) includes: a direct current (DC) power supply circuit (DC voltage is generated by the driving circuit, See Paragraph [0077]) configured to supply the working coil with auxiliary power for container detection; (V1 is considered the aux power source and provides power to the sensing coil 44 for detection, See Figs 9 and 10, and Paragraphs [0089], [0091])
a resonance capacitor connected to the working coil; and (C1 is connected to the working coil and sensing coil 44. See Figs 9 and 10 and Paragraphs [0089], [0109])
a container detection switch connected to the working coil, configured to be turned on and off (Sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, while the coil driver operates as a container detection circuit for detecting a container on the working coil, identify whether a container is present on the working coil based on a resonance signal generated by on/off operation of the container detection switch. (Sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]);
Jeong also discloses, sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, (See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]). This operation is controlled by processor 510 and sensing circuit 520) As the switching is performed, performing the switching operation with the combined elements would still be seen as obvious based on Kwack as discussed below.
However, Jeong does not disclose the working coil is used as the sensing coil.
Kwack discloses an induction heating device with a power supply, resonant capacitor Vdc and a working coil WC configured to heat an object and detect an object. (See Figs 4-6 and (Paragraphs [0138]-[0141], The controller determines whether or not the object is present, using a signal sent through the working coil WC. Also see Fig 8)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Jeong in view of Kwack to provide the working coil being used at the sensing coil for minimizing noise and increasing the accuracy of the detection operation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3, Jeong discloses, sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, (See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]). This operation is controlled by processor 510 and sensing circuit 520) Regarding claim 4, processor is configured to, in order to operate the coil driver as the heating circuit, control the changeover switch such that one end of the working coil is connected to a main power supply circuit. (The controller 510 operates the switching device S1 to operate the coil 204 as the heating circuit and connect the coil to the main power supply via switches S1 and S2, See Paragraph [0090] and Fig 9) Regarding claim 5, The switches SE1 and SE2 are controlled by controller or processor 510. They are turned on and off based on whether or not the circuit is heating or detecting. (See Paragraph [0080]-[0084]) Kwack discloses an induction heating device with a power supply, resonant capacitor Vdc and a working coil WC configured to heat an object and detect an object. (See Figs 4-6 and (Paragraphs [0138]-[0141], The controller determines whether or not the object is present, using a signal sent through the working coil WC. Also see Fig 8)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Jeong in view of Kwack to provide the working coil being used at the sensing coil for minimizing noise and increasing the accuracy of the detection operation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Jeong discloses, regarding claim 6, current sensor D measure the current flowing through the working coil 204. The controller 510 determines whether a vessel is present in the heating region by performing the first vessel sensing on the basis of a resonance current value obtained by the current sensor D (804). (See Paragraph [0082], [0127])
Regarding claims 7-9, The controller 510 determines whether a vessel is present in the heating region by performing the first vessel sensing on the basis of a resonance current value obtained by the current sensor D (804). In one embodiment of the present disclosure, operation 804 of determining whether a vessel is present in the heating region by performing the first vessel sensing may include determining that a vessel is present in the heating region when a resonance current value obtained while the working coil operates according to a predetermined sensing frequency is less than a predetermined first reference value and determining that a vessel is not present in the heating region when the resonance current value obtained while the working coil operates according to the predetermined sensing frequency is greater than or equal to the predetermined first reference value. (See Paragraph [0127])
Kwack discloses, regarding claims 7-9, The detection operation may further include: measuring, by the sensor, a resonant current in the working coil based on the resonance of the current in the working coil; converting a second current value of the resonant current in the working coil into a second voltage value; comparing the second voltage value to a predetermined reference count value to generate an output pulse; comparing at least one of (i) a count of the output pulse to a predetermined reference count, or (ii) an on-duty time of the output pulse to a predetermined reference time; and determining whether an object is present on the working coil based on a result of the comparison. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the container based on a detect current or a voltage pulse as these are obvious variants for detecting a container in an induction device.
Kwack discloses, regarding claim 10, an induction heating device with a power supply, resonant capacitor Vdc and a working coil WC configured to heat an object and detect an object. (See Figs 4-6 and (Paragraphs [0138]-[0141], The controller determines whether or not the object is present, using a signal sent through the working coil WC. Also see Fig 8)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Jeong in view of Kwack to provide the working coil being used at the sensing coil for minimizing noise and increasing the accuracy of the detection operation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong discloses the capacitor C1 is connected to ground and to the coil via the sensing circuit (See Paragraph [0089]). Regarding claim 12, Jeong discloses, the working coil (See Fig 2) comprises two coils 202 and 204. It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of coil drivers for independently controlling each coil.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong discloses, a method of controlling an induction heating apparatus(See Fig 1 and Paragraph [0009]) including a working coil (204, See Figs 2 and 9, Paragraphs [0041]) and a coil driver configured to supply the working coil with main power for heating, (See Fig. 3, elements power source 502, rectifier 504, Filter circuit 506, inverter 508 and paragraphs [0076], [0083]) the method comprising:
in response to the induction heating apparatus being powered on, converting the coil driver to operate as a container detection circuit; (V1 is considered the aux power source and provides power to the sensing coil 44 for detection, See Figs 9 and 10, and Paragraphs [0089], [0091] Sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]);
identifying whether a container is present on the working coil using the container detection circuit; and in response to a heating command being input while the container is located on the working coil, converting the coil driver to operate as a heating circuit. (the containers presence is identified in 1010 and the coil driver operates the heating circuit to heat in 1022, See Fig 20)
However, Jeong does not disclose the working coil is used as the sensing coil.
Kwack discloses an induction heating device with a power supply, resonant capacitor Vdc and a working coil WC configured to heat an object and detect an object. (See Figs 4-6 and (Paragraphs [0138]-[0141], The controller determines whether or not the object is present, using a signal sent through the working coil WC. Also see Fig 8)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Jeong in view of Kwack to provide the working coil being used at the sensing coil for minimizing noise and increasing the accuracy of the detection operation. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong discloses, the coil driver (502, 504, 506, 508) includes: a direct current (DC) power supply circuit (DC voltage is generated by the driving circuit, See Paragraph [0077]) configured to supply the working coil with auxiliary power for container detection; (V1 is considered the aux power source and provides power to the sensing coil 44 for detection, See Figs 9 and 10, and Paragraphs [0089], [0091]) a resonance capacitor connected to the working coil; and (C1 is connected to the working coil and sensing coil 44. See Figs 9 and 10 and Paragraphs [0089], [0109]) a container detection switch connected to the working coil, configured to be turned on and off (Sensing button changes the device, via switch S1, into an automatic sensing mode for detecting the presence of a vessel, See Paragraphs [0097], [0116]);
Regarding claim 16, Jeong discloses, monitoring the presence of the container, via the multiple sensing signals and maintaining the heating operation. (See Figs 17-20)
Claim(s) 13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2020/0163169) in view of Kwack et al (US 2020/0158905) and Heo (US 2020/0022228).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on a resonance signal generated by on/off operation of a container detection switch included in each of the plurality of coil drivers, independently identify whether a container is present on the plurality of working coils. However, it would have been obvious to detect a second container or a larger container to operate the heating elements based on where the container is placed, or how larger the container is.
Heo discloses a plurality of heating drivers 300, 330, 360, with each coil having a sensing coil. (See Abstract and Paragraph [0157]) A second version with a plurality of coil drivers 403 and 404, with sensing coils 405 and 406. (See Figs 6-8 an Paragraphs [0173]-[0175]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Jeong in view of Heo to provide based on a resonance signal generated by on/off operation of a container detection switch included in each of the plurality of coil drivers, independently identify whether a container is present on the plurality of working coils for detecting which part(s) of the heating regions the container is placed, and controlling the heating elements accordingly.
Regading claims 17 and 18, it is not clear if Jeong discloses, in response to detecting the container is not located on the working coil, stopping heating by the working coil, or in response to detecting the container is not located on the working coil, generating an output notification.
Heo discloses sensing if the container is not on the coil, stopping the heating and displaying a warning. (See Fig 5.) It would have been obvious to adapt Jeong in view of Heo to provide in response to detecting the container is not located on the working coil, stopping heating by the working coil, or in response to detecting the container is not located on the working coil, generating an output notification to stop heating or alert the user a heating element is being operated when no container is on the coil, or an incorrect container is being used.
Regarding claim 19, Kwack discloses detecting an object or vessel is not present on the coil when an output pulse is greater than a predetermined reference value. (See Paragraph [0139]) Any desired parameter, such as voltage, current or resistance could be used based on the desired operation of the device, or what would be best for the design. It would have been obvious to adapt Jeong in view of Kwack to provide detecting the container is not on the working surface in response to an output of a sensor being greater than or equal to a reference value in order to reduce the output provided to the coil .
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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights