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
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/25/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 2, “with in” requires revision for clarity.
In claim 13, line 5, “with in” requires revision for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 this 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application 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: “power unit” in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “said two power density spectra of said power supply for said two induction heating coils overlap more or that a frequency difference between said two maxima is reduced”. It is not clear to what baseline the power density spectra “overlap more”. Similarly, it is not clear how the difference is relatively “reduced”. The metes and bounds of the claim are not defined.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldo et al. (US2019/0124725).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Baldo teaches a method for operating an induction cooktop, wherein said induction cooktop comprises: a cooktop plate (10), at least two induction heating coils (16) under said cooktop plate, a cooktop controller (20), a power unit (48) for a power supply for said induction heating coils, wherein said power unit: is triggered by said cooktop controller, has a plurality of circuit-breakers (see paragraph [0021]) which can be triggered by way of parameters as switch-on time and/or as switch-off time, is configured to generate from a line voltage a higher frequency triggering for said power supply for said induction heating coils (paragraph [0021]), wherein power density spectra of said power supply of said two induction heating coils are estimated or measured (see Figs. 5-6 showing Power versus frequency graphs, which are considered power density spectra), wherein each said power density spectrum has a maximum at a frequency, in a first operating mode, said switch-on time and/or said switch-off time of at least one of said circuit-breakers is varied in order to actively modify said power density spectrum of said power supply in such a manner that said two power density spectra of said power supply for said two induction heating coils overlap more or that a frequency difference between said two maxima is reduced (see Fig. 6 showing a frequency shift so that the power curves overlap).
The remaining limitations after “and/or” are considered optional.
Regarding claim 2, Baldo teaches said resultant sum of said two power density spectra is used instead of individual power density spectra (the “resultant sum” is from an optional limitation in claim 1, and as such is further considered optional).
Regarding claim 4, Baldo teaches in said first operating mode, said power density spectra of said power supply are actively modified in such a manner that, as a result, no pronounced local minimum is present between said two maxima of said power density spectra (see Fig. 6 showing the common frequency range).
Regarding claim 5, Baldo teaches said two maxima of said power density spectra differ by at most 10% (Fig. 6 shows maximums of about 2000 and about 1800, which are within 10%).
Regarding claim 6, Baldo teaches said two maxima of said power density spectra are of identical size or are smaller than a difference from said local minimum (see Fig. 6 showing nearly identical maximums before frequency shift).
Regarding claim 13, Baldo teaches three induction heating coils (16) which are arranged adjacent one another without further induction heating coils therebetween are operated therewith, wherein said parameters of their circuit-breakers are appropriately varied such that said maxima of said three power density spectra of said power supply of said three induction heating coils are no more than 5 kHz apart (see Fig. 6 showing roughly 25 kHz and less than 30 kHz) with in each case precisely one said local minimum between in each case two said maxima of said three maxima (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Baldo teaches said power density spectra are determined by measuring said voltage of a capacitor connected in parallel to said induction heating coil or by measuring a current through said induction heating coil (see paragraph [0033]).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo.
Regarding claim 3, Baldo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a resultant sum of said two different power density spectra of said power supply is formed with a local minimum of said sum (see Fig. 6), which local minimum is located between said two maxima of said sum.
Baldo fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of said power density spectra of said power supply is actively modified in such a manner that a difference between said local minimum and said maxima amounts to at most 40 dB or less.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having a difference between the minimum and maximum at 40 dB or less solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the control method reduces noise and it appears that the method of Baldo would perform equally well with the difference as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of Baldo by utilizing a 40 dB difference as claimed for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo in view of Hegedis et al. (US2016/0014849).
Regarding claim 12, Baldo teaches said at least two induction heating coils are arranged adjacent one another without a further induction heating coil therebetween (see Fig. 1), but fails to teach said at least two induction heating coils are of rectangular or polygonal configuration and extend with at least one side or longitudinal side adjacent one another and approximately parallel to one another.
In an analogous art, Hegedis teaches a cooking appliance. Hegedis teaches rectangular shaped coils (48) suitable for rectangular cookware (see paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Baldo and change it so that said at least two induction heating coils are of rectangular or polygonal configuration and extend with at least one side or longitudinal side adjacent one another and approximately parallel to one another as taught by Hegedis to accommodate rectangular cookware.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached form PTO-892 for a list of relevant references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights