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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taplan (DE 10127051) in view of Sasagawa (US 20210298134).
Regarding claim 1, Taplan discloses A cooking appliance comprising:
an upper plate (Figure 1, item 1) configured to support an object to be heated (6);
an intermediate heating element located at the upper plate (4, described as a susceptor in pg. 2, lines 58-60 and pg. 3, lines 1-4);
a working coil configured to generate a first magnetic field passing through at least one of the object to be heated and the intermediate heating element (Fig. 1, item 3, described as the inductor coil on pg. 2, lines 53-60);
an inverter configured to control a current applied to the working coil (Pg. 1, lines 33-39 describe a converter that converts the main current into a high-frequency induction current, which serves as an inverter). However, Taplan does not explicitly disclose a magnetic field control module configured to selectively generate a second magnetic field canceling out at least a portion of the first magnetic field.
Taplan and Sasagawa are analogous prior art because both describe induction cooktops. Sasagawa teaches a secondary coil (Either item 31 or 32 could be configured as the secondary coil, as they both are capable of generating heat) to generate a second magnetic field canceling out at least a portion of the first magnetic field (Par. 0070). As described in Sasagawa, the inclusion of the two separate coils allows for the flux generated to selectively cancel each other out to prevent a reduction in heating efficiency (Par. 0070) and the switching system of Sasagawa allows for selective modification of the circuitry to provide the ideal heating for the impedance of different container materials (Par. 0011) along with automatically adjusting to the container type (Par. 0064). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the double coil design and switching circuit of Sasagawa in the induction heater of Taplan because the double coil allows for the flux generated to selectively cancel each other out to prevent a reduction in heating efficiency (Par. 0070) and the switching system allows for selective modification of the circuitry to provide the ideal heating for the impedance of different container materials (Par. 0011) along with automatically adjusting to the container type (Par. 0064).
Regarding claim 2, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the magnetic field control module is located between the intermediate heating element and the working coil. Taplan shows the intermediate heating element being located at the plate and as described in the rejection above, either coil of Sasagawa can serve as the magnetic field control module as they cancel out the flux of the other. As seen in Sasagawa Figure 2, the coil 31 is located above the coil 32 so when the coil 31 is considered the magnetic field control module, it is located below the intermediate heating element and above the working coil 32.
Regarding claim 3, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the magnetic field control module is configured to generate the second magnetic field when the object to be heated is a magnetic substance, and wherein the magnetic field control module is configured to not generate the second magnetic field when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic substance. Sasagawa paragraph 0070 describes that for heating an aluminum container the two coils cancel based on the field and paragraph 0078 describes that the currents combine to heat stainless steel. As the second magnetic field is provided during the use of aluminum, which is not magnetic and the field is not provided during the use of stainless steel, which is magnetic, the limitations are met.
Regarding claim 4, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the magnetic field control module includes a canceling coil configured to selectively generate the second magnetic field based on a type of object to be heated (Sasagawa paragraph 0070 describes that for heating an aluminum container the two coils cancel based on the field and paragraph 0078 describes that the currents combine to heat stainless steel).
Regarding claim 5, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the canceling coil has a pair of spaced apart ends (Sasagawa Figure 2 shows that both 31 and 32 have spaced apart ends P1-P3).
Regarding claim 6, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the magnetic field control module further includes a switch configured to selectively connect and disconnect the pair of spaced apart ends of the canceling coil (Sasagawa Figures 3A-3C show multiple switches 21-23 that can open and close to selectively connect and disconnect the ends of each of the coils through the points P1-P3).
Regarding claim 7, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the canceling coil is located between the intermediate heating element and the working coil. Taplan shows the intermediate heating element being located at the plate and as described in the rejection above, either coil of Sasagawa can serve as the magnetic field control module as they cancel out the flux of the other. As seen in Sasagawa Figure 2, the coil 31 is located above the coil 32 so when the coil 31 is considered the magnetic field control module, it is located below the intermediate heating element and above the working coil 32.
Regarding claim 8, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the switch is configured to turn on to connect the pair of spaced apart ends of the canceling coil when the object to be heated is a magnetic substance, and wherein the switch is configured to turn off to disconnect the pair of spaced apart ends when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic substance. Sasagawa paragraph 0070 describes that for heating an aluminum container the two coils cancel based on the field and paragraph 0078 describes that the currents combine to heat stainless steel. As the second magnetic field is provided during the use of aluminum, which is not magnetic and the field is not provided during the use of stainless steel, which is magnetic, the limitations are met.
Regarding claim 13, Taplan discloses A cooking appliance comprising:
an upper plate (Figure 1, item 1) configured to support an object to be heated (6);
an intermediate heating element located at the upper plate (4, described as a susceptor in pg. 2, lines 58-60 and pg. 3, lines 1-4);
a working coil configured to generate a first magnetic field passing through at least one of the object to be heated and the intermediate heating element (Fig. 1, item 3, described as the inductor coil on pg. 2, lines 53-60);
an inverter configured to control a current applied to the working coil (Pg. 1, lines 33-39 describe a converter that converts the main current into a high-frequency induction current, which serves as an inverter). However, Taplan does not explicitly disclose a canceling coil configured to selectively generate a second magnetic field based on a type of the object to be heated, the canceling coil having a pair of spaced apart ends; and a switch configured to selectively connect and disconnect the pair of spaced apart ends of the canceling coil.
Taplan and Sasagawa are analogous prior art because both describe induction cooktops. Sasagawa teaches a secondary coil (Either item 31 or 32 could be configured as the secondary coil, as they both are capable of generating heat) to generate a second magnetic field canceling out at least a portion of the first magnetic field (Par. 0070), the coil having spaced apart ends (Figure 2 shows that both 31 and 32 have spaced apart ends P1-P3), and a switch configured to selectively connect and disconnect the pair of spaced apart ends of the canceling coil (Sasagawa Figures 3A-3C show multiple switches 21-23 that can open and close to selectively connect and disconnect the ends of each of the coils through the points P1-P3). As described in Sasagawa, the inclusion of the two separate coils allows for the flux generated to selectively cancel each other out to prevent a reduction in heating efficiency (Par. 0070) and the switching system of Sasagawa allows for selective modification of the circuitry to provide the ideal heating for the impedance of different container materials (Par. 0011) along with automatically adjusting to the container type (Par. 0064). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the double coil design and switching circuit of Sasagawa in the induction heater of Taplan because the double coil allows for the flux generated to selectively cancel each other out to prevent a reduction in heating efficiency (Par. 0070) and the switching system allows for selective modification of the circuitry to provide the ideal heating for the impedance of different container materials (Par. 0011) along with automatically adjusting to the container type (Par. 0064).
Regarding claim 14, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the canceling coil is located between the intermediate heating element and the working coil. Taplan shows the intermediate heating element being located at the plate and as described in the rejection above, either coil of Sasagawa can serve as the magnetic field control module as they cancel out the flux of the other. As seen in Sasagawa Figure 2, the coil 31 is located above the coil 32 so when the coil 31 is considered the magnetic field control module, it is located below the intermediate heating element and above the working coil 32.
Regarding claim 15, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the canceling coil is configured to generate the second magnetic field when the object to be heated is a magnetic substance, and wherein the canceling coil is configured to not generate the second magnetic field when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic substance. Sasagawa paragraph 0070 describes that for heating an aluminum container the two coils cancel based on the field and paragraph 0078 describes that the currents combine to heat stainless steel. As the second magnetic field is provided during the use of aluminum, which is not magnetic and the field is not provided during the use of stainless steel, which is magnetic, the limitations are met.
Regarding claim 16, Taplan in view of Sasagawa teaches that the switch is configured to turn on to connect the pair of spaced apart ends of the canceling coil when the object to be heated is a magnetic substance, and wherein the switch is configured to turn off to disconnect the pair of spaced apart ends when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic substance. Sasagawa paragraph 0070 describes that for heating an aluminum container the two coils cancel based on the field and paragraph 0078 describes that the currents combine to heat stainless steel. As the second magnetic field is provided during the use of aluminum, which is not magnetic and the field is not provided during the use of stainless steel, which is magnetic, the limitations are met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art provided does not disclose or teach the size relationships required by each of claims 9-12 and 17-20. Specifically, Taplan does not show a hole in the intermediate heating element nor provide any reason why one might add one and does not show the working coil having a greater diameter than the intermediate heating element. No other prior art was found that taught or disclosed such a relationship in a compatible structure. Further, paragraphs 25 and 87 of the specification of the instant application describes the criticality of these specific size relationships, meaning that any design choice rejection would be improper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745