DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of Species 2 (Fig. 2B) directed to claims 1-4 and 15 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner to search and examine together. This is not found persuasive. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: (1) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, (2) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, or (3) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In this case, the mutually exclusive structures of Species 4 and 11-16 or 7-8 require formulation of different rejections, therefore, this is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species.
The Applicant is also noted that, if the Applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, the Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Hence, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 5-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/27/2023, 10/19/2023, 12/12/2024, 05/01/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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 an 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, each of claims 1 and 15 includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a wireless power transmitting unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, the limitation “wireless power transmitting unit” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0043 “[…] a wireless power transmitting unit 2010 including a working coil (or a transmitting coil) […]”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 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.
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 15 is 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. In this case, line 2 recites the term “a wireless power transmitting unit”. It is unclear if line of claim 15 is intended to introduce another wireless power transmitting unit which is different from a wireless power transmitting unit previously claimed in lines 4-5 of claim 1, or “a wireless power transmitting unit” in line 2 of claim 15 is the same as a wireless power transmitting unit of claim 1. For the examination purposes, “a wireless power transmitting unit” is suggested to amend as “[[a]] the wireless power transmitting unit” which is construed as the same with “a wireless power transmitting unit” in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Loeber (DE 102017220824 A and see the PDF attached).
Regarding independent claim 1, Loeber discloses, a cooking apparatus (see inductive cooking appliance 11 in Figs. 1 and 2) driven by wireless power (see Figs. 1-2 and disclosed in the specification “the transmission coasters are coupled to each other electrically or control technology, for example wirelessly via radio”), the cooking apparatus (11) comprising:
a wireless power receiving unit (see transmission coaster 21 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) configured to wirelessly receive power (see Figs. 1-2 and disclosed in the specification “the transmission coasters are coupled to each other electrically or control technology, for example wirelessly via radio”) from a wireless power transmitting unit (see primary induction coil L2 in Figs. 1-2), the wireless power receiving unit (21) including:
a first receiving coil (see resonant circuit coil L3 in Figs. 1-2); and
a second receiving coil (see resonant circuit coil L4 in Fig. 2) having a shared center (see annotated Fig. 2) with the first receiving coil (L3) whereby the second receiving coil (L4) shares at least a part of a center of the first receiving coil (see annotated Fig. 2), the first receiving coil (L3) and the second receiving coil (L4) being arranged on different layers (see annotated Fig. 2) along a longitudinal direction of the shared center (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a processor (see controller 27 in Fig. 1) configured to control the wireless power receiving unit (disclosed in the specification “the controller 27 and the position sensors 30a-d, possibly also the position lights 25a-d , too high temperature, which is a heavily heated pot 36 can give down or radiate down”).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
1364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Loeber discloses, the cooking apparatus of claim 1, and further Loeber discloses comprising a station (see cover 12 in Fig. 1) comprising a wireless power transmitting unit (L2) configured to wirelessly supply power to the first receiving coil (L3) and the second receiving coil (L4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeber in view of JP 3363239 B2 (see the PDF attached)
Regarding claim 2, Loeber discloses, the cooking apparatus of claim 1.
However, Loeber does not explicitly disclose wherein the first receiving coil has a first heating level that is different from a second heating level of the second receiving coil.
Nonetheless, JP 3363239 teaches, wherein the first receiving coil (see coil 2 with could 2a and coil 2b in Fig. 13) has a first heating level (see heating coil 2a is energized to heat food 16 in Fig. 13) that is different from a second heating level (see heater portion 11 in Fig. 13) of the second receiving coil (see coil 9 in Fig. 13, wherein the heating level of heater portion 11 of coil 9 is off/decreasing when contact 32 is opened while heating level of heating coil 2a of the coil 2 is on/increasing when contact 32b is closed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the first receiving coil and the second receiving coil of Loeber wherein the first receiving coil has a first heating level that is different from a second heating level of the second receiving coil as taught/suggested by JP 3363239 in order to independently control different heating levels of different heating elements in different locations. It is known that independent heaters work together to provide different types of heat for different cooking needs and control the heaters independently is important because each serves a distinct purpose and can be adjusted for the best results.
Regarding claim 3, Loeber discloses, the cooking apparatus of claim 2, Loeber further discloses the first receiving coil (L3) is arranged on the second receiving coil (L4, wherein L3 is arranged on the bottom of L4) along the longitudinal direction of the shared center (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
However, Loeber does not explicitly disclose wherein a heating output of the first heating level is higher than a heating output of the second heating level.
Nonetheless, JP 3363239 teaches, a heating output of the first heating level (see heating coil 2a is energized to heat food 16 in Fig. 13) is higher than a heating output of the second heating level (see coil 9 in Fig. 13, wherein the heating level of heater portion 11 of coil 9 is off/decreasing when contact 32 is opened while heating level of heating coil 2a of the coil 2 is on/increasing when contact 32b is closed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the first receiving coil and the second receiving coil of Loeber wherein a heating output of the first heating level is higher than a heating output of the second heating level as taught/suggested by JP 3363239 in order to independently control different heating levels of different heating elements in different locations. It is known that independent heaters work together to provide different types of heat for different cooking needs and control the heaters independently is important because each serves a distinct purpose and can be adjusted for the best results.
Regarding claim 4, Loeber discloses, the cooking apparatus of claim 2, Loeber further discloses the first receiving coil (L3) is arranged under the second receiving coil (L4, wherein L3 is arranged on the bottom of L4) along the longitudinal direction of the shared center (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
However, Loeber does not explicitly disclose wherein a heating output of the first heating level is higher than a heating output of the second heating level.
Nonetheless, JP 3363239 teaches, a heating output of the first heating level (see heating coil 2a is energized to heat food 16 in Fig. 13) is higher than a heating output of the second heating level (see coil 9 in Fig. 13, wherein the heating level of heater portion 11 of coil 9 is off/decreasing when contact 32 is opened while heating level of heating coil 2a of the coil 2 is on/increasing when contact 32b is closed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date (post AIA ) to modify the first receiving coil and the second receiving coil of Loeber wherein a heating output of the first heating level is higher than a heating output of the second heating level as taught/suggested by JP 3363239 in order to independently control different heating levels of different heating elements in different locations. It is known that independent heaters work together to provide different types of heat for different cooking needs and control the heaters independently is important because each serves a distinct purpose and can be adjusted for the best results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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 on (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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights