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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 03/23/2026. Claims 1-6 and 10-19 are currently pending with claims 1, 4-5, 13 and 16 amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e. that The cited references address entirely different technical objectives), 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). While applicant argues that “Park does not disclose controlling a plurality of working coils such that at least one working coil does not operate during a portion of a cycle” and that “Tamura does not disclose or suggest an intermediate heating body, nor does Tamura disclose controlling coils to reduce heating of such an intermediate heating body,” it is contended that the combination of the prior art teaches each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Applicant is reminded that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each of the references of Park, Tamura and Garcia are analogous to the claimed invention.
In response to arguments to the prior art Park, on page 9 of the response, examiner contends that prior art teaches simultaneously controlling the induction coil and the radiant heating element (see ¶ [0047] for instance). Therefore, it is shown that the heating of the intermediate heating body (i.e. radiant heating element) may be controlled in reducing heating or increasing heating (per ¶ [0047] of Park). Furthermore, examiner contends that with the prior art Tamura, which is analogous to the claimed invention, teaching that coils of a induction coil system may be selectively controlled, it would therefore selectively reduce the heat induced into the intermediate heating body of Park as modified. Examiner also contends that the prior art Garcia is cited to rely on teaching cooking appliance with a plurality of working coils located at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of heating zones.
Lastly, examiner notes, it has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. It is contended that the functional limitation of “so as to reduce heating of the first intermediate heating body” is taught by the combination of the prior art Park and Tamura in the disposition of the working coils and intermediate heating body of Park and the selective control of the working coils as taught by Tamura.
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) 1-6, 10-11, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0223263 to Park et al. (Park) in view of JP 2012028349 to Tamura et al. (Tamura, and based on English Machine Translation).
In Reference to Claim 1
Park discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 2, 20 for instance) comprising:
upper plate (15 for instance) configured to support an object to be heated (Fig. 3, HO for instance);
a first intermediate heating body (Fig. 2, HE1 or HE2 for instance) located at the upper plate (15);
a plurality of working coils (WC1 or WC2 for instance) configured to generate magnetic fields (¶ [0014]), the magnetic fields being coupled to at least one of the object to be heated and the first intermediate heating body (coupled to the object to be heated for instance, see ¶ [0016]);
an inverter configured to apply current to the plurality of working coils (¶ [0035]); and
a controller configured to control the inverter so that some of the working coils are operated (¶ [0085]),
wherein the controller is configured to control the plurality of working coils to operate in the first heating mode (¶ [0015], control of the working coils when the object to be heated is a magnetic body for instance) and a second heating mode (¶ [0041], control of the working coils when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic material for instance),
wherein, in the first heating mode corresponding to heating of a magnetic container (¶ [0015]), the controller is configured to control the plurality of working coils (¶ [0047], [0085] and claim 8, the control of the working coils in all modes and control of the intensity of the working coils for instance) so as to control the heating of the first intermediate heating body (control of heating intensity for instance, ¶ [0047]), and
wherein, in the second heating mode corresponding to heating of a non-magnetic container (¶ [0041]), the controller is configured to control the plurality of working coils to operate simultaneously (the control of all the working coils in any heating mode for instance, see also claim 8, ¶ [0047] and [0085]).
Park does not explicitly teach “... such that at least one working coil does not operate during a portion of a cycle so as to reduce heating of the first intermediate heating body ....”
Tamura is related to a cooking appliance (abstract) with a plurality of working coils (Fig. 1: 7-9 for instance) configured to generate magnetic fields (¶ [0004]) within a heating zone (2 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein at least one working coil does not operate during a portion of a cycle in a heating mode (¶ [0016] and Fig. 9, at least one coil stopped for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park, in the modification of each heating zone to have a plurality of working coils for instance, such that at least one working coil does not operate during a portion of a cycle (as taught by Tamura) so as to reduce heating (i.e. the stopping of a coil not actively heating the intermediate heating body in Park) of the first intermediate heating body (of Park), so as to use an art known technique (of the operation of various working coils within a heating zone as taught by Tamura) into the system of Park, in having a plurality of working coils within a heating zone, and predictably control the operation of the coils in the system.
In Reference to Claim 2
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the plurality of working coils includes: a first working coil; and a second working coil (7 and 8 as taught by Tamura for instance, figure 1), and wherein the controller is configured to control the inverter so that: the first working coil is operated for a first half of the cycle; and the second working coil is operated for a second half of the cycle (such as in figure 7 as taught by Tamura, half cycle of left portion and of middle portion for instance).
In Reference to Claim 3
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the plurality of working coils includes: a first working coil (Fig. 8, 7 as taught by Tamura for instance); and a second working coil (9 as taught by Taura for instance), wherein the cycle is divided into a first section, a second section, and a third section (see annotated figure 9 of Tamura), and wherein the controller is configured to control the inverter so that: only the first working coil (7 as taught by Tamura for instance) is operated during the first section (see annotated figure of Tamura); the first working coil and the second working coil (7 and 9 as taught by Tamura for instance) are operated together during the second section (see annotated figure of Tamura); and only the second working coil (9 as taught by Tamura for instance) is operated during the third section (see annotated figure of Tamura), this so as to use an art known technique (of the operation of various working coils in a heating zone as taught by Tamura) into the system of Park and predictably control the operation of the coils in the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 4
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to control the inverter so that the first section, the second section, and the third section are sequentially performed (as operated one after another for instance from left to right as taught by Tamura).
In Reference to Claim 5
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 4, wherein a time interval for each of the first section, the second section, and the third section is the same (half period as taught by Tamura, see also ¶ [0016]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to adjust an operating frequency of the inverter so that the plurality of working coils generates maximum output in the first heating mode (various frequency adjustment of the coils as taught by Tamura and so as to maintain uniform temperature for instance, see ¶ [0014] and [0016]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the first intermediate heating body (Park, HE1 for instance) overlaps in a vertical direction with at least two working coils among the plurality of working coils (WC1 of Park for instance within a heating zone and a plurality of coils, 7, 8, 9, within a heating zone 2 as further taught by Tamura for instance), so as to use an art known technique (of the operation of various working coils in a heating zone as taught by Tamura) into the system of Park and predictably control the magnetic flux in the system.
In Reference to Claim 11
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein the plurality of working coils (Park Fig. 2, WC1 and WC2 for instance) are arranged into a plurality of heating zones (Park, 17a and 17b for instance), and wherein the first intermediate heating body (Park, HE1 and HE2 for instance) is located at a position corresponding to one of the plurality of heating zones (Park, see figure 2 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the first intermediate heating body (Park Fig. 3, HE1 for instance) is located on an upper surface of the upper plate or a lower surface of the upper plate (Park, on a lower surface of 15 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 16
Park discloses a cooking appliance (Fig. 2, 20 for instance) comprising:
an upper plate (15 for instance) configured to support an object to be heated (Fig. 3, HO for instance);
a first intermediate heating body (Fig. 2, HE1 or HE2 for instance) located at the upper plate (15);
a plurality of working coils (WC1 or WC2 for instance) configured to generate magnetic fields (¶ [0014]), the magnetic fields being coupled to at least one of the object to be heated and the first intermediate heating body (coupled to the object to be heated for instance, see ¶ [0016]);
an inverter configured to apply current to the plurality of working coils (¶ [0035]); and
a controller configured to control the inverter so that: some of the working coils are operated when the object to be heated is a magnetic material (see ¶ [0085] and claim 8, the diving of some of the working coils during all modes for instance, including when an object to be heated is magnetic) so as to control the heating of the first intermediate heating body (control of heating intensity for instance, ¶ [0047]); and
all of the plurality of working coils operate during a cycle in a second heating mode when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic material (¶ [0085] and claim 8, the driving of all of the working coils during all modes for instance, including when an object to be heated is non-magnetic).
Park does not explicitly teach “... at least one of the plurality of working coils does not operate in a portion of a cycle in a first heating ... so as to reduce heating of the first intermediate heating body ....”
Tamura is related to a cooking appliance (abstract) with a plurality of working coils (Fig. 1: 7-9 for instance) configured to generate magnetic fields (¶ [0004]) within a heating zone (2 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of working coils does not operate in a portion of a cycle in a first heating mode (¶ [0016] and Fig. 9, at least one coil stopped for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park, in the modification of each heating zone to have a plurality of working coils, wherein at least one of the plurality of working coils does not operate in a portion of a cycle (as taught by Tamura) in a first heating mode (of Park) when the object to be heated is a magnetic material (of Park) so as to reduce heating (i.e. the stopping of a coil not actively heating the intermediate heating body in Park) of the first intermediate heating body (of Park), so as to use an art known technique (of the operation of various working coils within a heating zone as taught by Tamura) into the system of Park, in having a plurality of working coils within a heating zone, and predictably control the operation of the coils in the system.
In Reference to Claim 17
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 16, wherein the plurality of working coils includes: a first working coil; and a second working coil (7 and 8 as taught by Tamura for instance, figure 1), and wherein the controller is configured to control the inverter so that: the first working coil is operated for a first half of the cycle; and the second working coil is operated for a second half of the cycle (such as in figure 7 as taught by Tamura, half cycle of left portion and of middle portion for instance).
In Reference to Claim 18
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 16, wherein the plurality of working coils includes: a first working coil (Fig. 8, 7 as taught by Tamura for instance); and a second working coil (9 as taught by Taura for instance), wherein the cycle is divided into a first section, a second section, and a third section (see annotated figure 9 of Tamura), and wherein the controller is configured to control the inverter so that: only the first working coil (7 as taught by Tamura for instance) is operated during the first section (see annotated figure of Tamura); the first working coil and the second working coil (7 and 9 as taught by Tamura for instance) are operated together during the second section (see annotated figure of Tamura); and only the second working coil (9 as taught by Tamura for instance) is operated during the third section (see annotated figure of Tamura), this so as to use an art known technique (of the operation of various working coils in a heating zone as taught by Tamura) into the system of Park and predictably control the operation of the coils in the system.
In Reference to Claim 19
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 18, wherein the first intermediate heating body (Park Fig. 3, HE1 for instance) is located on an upper surface of the upper plate or a lower surface of the upper plate (Park, on a lower surface of 15 for instance).
Claim(s) 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0223263 to Park et al. (Park) in view of JP 2012028349 to Tamura et al. (Tamura, and based on English Machine Translation) as applied to claim(s) 10 or 1 above, and further in view of ES2340900 to Garcia et al. (Garcia, and based on English Machine Translation).
In Reference to Claim 12
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, except, “... wherein the first intermediate heating body is located at a position corresponding to a center of the plurality of working coils ....”
Garcia is related to a cooking appliance with a plurality of working coils (Fig. 1: 12a-d for instance) located at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of heating zones (zones 10 as seen in figure 1 for instance, only one labeled), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a heating zone (10 for instance, see also figure 2) is located at a position corresponding to a center of the plurality of working coils (12a-d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein the first intermediate heating body (of Park and as located in the middle of a heating zone) is located at a position corresponding to a center of the plurality of working coils (as taught by Garcia as also located in the middle of a heating zone), so as to use an art known technique (of the positioning of a heating zone, including the positioning of components to a heating zone, as taught by Garcia) into the system of Park and predictably provide control of the components within the heating zone in the system.
In Reference to Claim 13
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 10, wherein a portion of the first intermediate heating body (Park, HE1 for instance) is located at a position overlapping with a working coil among the plurality of working coils (Park, WC1 for instance and within an heating zone 17a for instance), except, “... located closest to an edge of the upper plate ....”
Garcia is related to a cooking appliance with a plurality of working coils (Fig. 1: 12a-d for instance) located at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of heating zones (zones 10 as seen in figure 1 for instance, only one labeled), as the claimed invention for instance, and teaches a heating zone (including a plurality of coils) is located closest to an edge of an upper plate (top right heating zone located close to edge for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein a portion of the first intermediate heating body (of Park and relative to a heating zone) is located at a position overlapping with a working coil among the plurality working coils (of Park) located closest to an edge (as taught by Garcia within a heating zone located at an edge for instance) of the upper plate (of Park), so as to use an art known technique (of the positioning of a heating zone, including components to a heating zone, as taught by Garcia) into the system of Park and predictably provide a suitable cooking area within the system.
In Reference to Claim 15
Park, as modified by Tamura, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 1, further comprising a second intermediate heating body (Park Fig. 2, HE2 for instance) located at the upper plate (Park, 15 for instance), except, “... wherein the first intermediate heating body overlaps in a vertical direction with at least two working coils among the plurality of working coils, and wherein the second intermediate heating body overlaps in a vertical direction with at least another two working coils among the plurality of working coils ....”
It should be noted that Tamura teaches a plurality of heating coils (Fig. 1, 7-9 for instance) located within a heating zone (2 for instance) as outlined in claim 1 above.
Garcia is related to a cooking appliance with a plurality of working coils (Fig. 1: 12a-d for instance) located at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of heating zones (zones 10 as seen in figure 1 for instance, only one labeled), as the claimed invention for instance, and teaches a heating zone (10) overlaps in a vertical direction with at least two working coils among the plurality of working coils (12a-d for instance), and wherein a second heating zone (another of 10 at top right for instance) overlaps in a vertical direction with at least another two working coils among the plurality of working coils (coils within second heating zone for instance, not labeled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Park wherein the first intermediate heating body (of Park and relative to a heating zone) overlaps in a vertical direction with at least two working coils among the plurality of working coils (as taught by Garcia and within a heating zone), and wherein the second intermediate heating body (of Park and relative to another heating zone) overlaps in a vertical direction with at least another two working coils among the plurality of working coils, so as to use an art known technique (of the positioning of a heating zone, including components to a heating zone (as taught by Garcia and within another heating zone), so as to use an art known technique (of the use a plurality of working coils within a heating zone, as taught by Garcia) into the system of Park and predictably provide a suitable cooking area within the system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show induction heating systems with multiple working coils, and the control of working coils within a system.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights