NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/204,027, entitled PRINTED BOARD COIL, HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSFORMER AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION HEATER. Claims 1-6 are pending in this application. Claims 1-6 are rejected. I. PRIORITY Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-126152, filed August 8, 2022. Examiners do note the WIPO cover sheet for the Certificate of Availability of a Certified Patent Document in a Digital Library has a different filing date for this Japanese application (09 August 2022). II. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Examiner finds the claims recite “coil,” “winding pattern,” “layers” and “coils” interchangeably and thus Examines find the claims unclear as to which features are being recited. Furthermore, the preamble states “[a] printed coil” for “forming a coil.” Examiner cannot determine whether these are the same coil. Finally, the body of the claim recites “the coils” and features related thereto, however, only “a coil” has any antecedent basis. Examiner is thus unable to specifically determine the scope of the claim and thus conclude the claims are indefinite. Furthermore, c laim 5, which depends from claim 1, further recites the “coils” are primary and secondary coils in a transformer, whereas claim 1 recites the “coils” are connected in parallel. Coils in a transformer are only connected magnetically, not in parallel (or in series) and thus the claim does not make sense, i.e., they cannot be both a primary coil and a secondary coil and be connected in parallel. Examiner finds this issue appears to be a continuation of the indefiniteness of the prior paragraph. III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner conclude s that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Examiner further find s that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner conclude s that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki , 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)( precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims). Because of the Examiner’ s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al. , 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II). The Examiner further find s that because claims 1-6 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112( b ) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC , 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claim s are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections. Thus, the following rejections are thus being provided as a guide and to put Applicant on notice of the scope of the prior art until the indefiniteness rejection above is overcome. IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. IV.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Yorukoglu Claim s 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0257576 to Ahmet Yorukoglu et al. (hereinafter “ Yorukoglu ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Yorukoglu discloses: 1. A printed board coil for forming a coil with a plurality of turns, each formed by stacking a first layer having a first winding pattern and a second layer having a second winding pattern, an insulation layer intervening between the first and the second layers, wherein: See Yorukoglu FIGS. 2 and 5, reprinted below. Yorukoglu FIG. 2 Yorukoglu FIG. 5 As shown in FIGS. 2 and 5 above, Yorukoglu discloses a printed coil 4 as shown comprising a first layer, i.e., top layer 5 with winding pattern 7 on both sides thereof, a second layer, i.e., the bottom layer 5 with winding pattern 7 on both sides thereof, and a middle insulation layer 5 there between. the first layer and the second layer are used for forming each of the coils; the coils are stacked having each of the insulation layers intervening between the coils by arranging the first layer and the second layer alternately in a direction of stacking the first and the second layers; and See Yorokoglu FIGS. 2 and 5 above, stacked layers of insulators 5 with winding patterns 7 on each side thereof. the coils are connected in parallel to one another. See ¶0047 wherein the receiver coils can be connected in either parallel or series connection. Regarding claim 6, Yorukoglu discloses: 6. An electromagnetic induction heater including a top plate on which a pan is placed, and a coil disposed below the top plate for heating the pan placed on the top plate, wherein the printed board coil according to claim 1 is in the form of the coil. See Yorukoglu FIG. 1, reprinted below: Yorukoglu FIG. 1 As shown, Yorukoglu discloses an induction heater shown in FIG. 1 comprising a top plate 2 on which a pan 1 is placed, and a coil 4 disposed below the top plate for heating the pan placed on the top plate, wherein the printed board coil according to claim 1 is in the form of the coil . IV. B . Anticipation Rejections Applying Komachi Claim s 1 -4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0358174 to Toshifumi Komachi et al. (hereinafter “ Komachi ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Komachi discloses: 1. A printed board coil for forming a coil with a plurality of turns, each formed by stacking a first layer having a first winding pattern and a second layer having a second winding pattern, an insulation layer intervening between the first and the second layers, wherein: See Komachi FIGS. 8-10 , reprinted below: Komachi FIG. 8 Komachi FIG S. 9 and 10 As shown above, Komachi FIGS. 8-10 illustrates a multi-layer wiring pattern on circuit board comprising a first layer A having a wiring board 14A and wiring patterns on each side thereof, and a second layer B having a wiring board 14B and wiring patterns on each side thereof, and an insulation layer 5 between the layers. the first layer and the second layer are used for forming each of the coils; the coils are stacked having each of the insulation layers intervening between the coils by arranging the first layer and the second layer alternately in a direction of stacking the first and the second layers; and See Komachi FIGS. 8-10 above, note stack of layers A and B, which form stacked layers of insulation layers 14A and 14B and 5 and wiring layers 100 and 200 thereon . the coils are connected in parallel to one another. See Komachi FIG. 9 wherein coil s 100 and 200 are connected in parallel. Regarding claim 2 , Komachi discloses the board of claim 1 as evidence d above and further: 2. The printed board coil according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first winding pattern and the second winding pattern includes a plurality of conductor patterns, each of which is curved and moves distant from a center axis while turning around the center axis; and the second winding pattern is in a position turned at 180° with respect to the first winding pattern in the stacking direction. See Komachi FIG. 8 above, for each of the first layer A and second layer B, each wiring pattern 200 curves inward in a counter clockwise direction and each pattern 100 curves outward in a clockwise direction. Regarding claim 3 , Komachi discloses the board of claim 2 as evidence d above and further: 3. The printed board coil according to claim 2, wherein the conductor pattern includes a plurality of radially divided planar patterns. See Komachi FIG. 8 above, note each winding pattern 100/200 of the first and second layers A and B include pairs of radially divided patterns, i.e., a pair of parallel wound coils. Regarding claim 4 , Komachi discloses the board of claim 1 as evidence d above and further: 4. The printed board coil according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first winding pattern and the second winding pattern includes a plurality of coil turns each of which moves distant from a center axis while turning around the center axis; the coil turns include a plurality of conductor patterns divided in a radial direction of the coil; and the conductor patterns make transitions toward an outer circumferential side at every predetermined central angle θ. See Komachi FIG. 8 above, note each winding pattern 100/200 of the first and second layers A and B makes an outward transition every 360 degrees. IV. C . Anticipation Rejections Applying Ogasawara Claim s 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication No. WO2021/024608 to Satoshi Ogasawara et al. (hereinafter “ Ogasawara ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Ogasawara discloses: 1. A printed board coil for forming a coil with a plurality of turns, each formed by stacking a first layer having a first winding pattern and a second layer having a second winding pattern, an insulation layer intervening between the first and the second layers, wherein: See Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 1 8, reprinted below: Ogasawara FIG. 1 8 Ogasawara FIG . 3 As shown above, Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 18 illustrates a multi-layer wiring pattern comprising a top first layer 20 (FIG. 18) having a wiring board 21 with wiring patterns L on each side thereof as shown in FIG. 3 , and a bottom second layer 20 (FIG. 18) having a wiring board 21 wiring patterns L on each side thereof as shown I FIG. 3 , and an insulation layer 10 between the first and second layers. the first layer and the second layer are used for forming each of the coils; the coils are stacked having each of the insulation layers intervening between the coils by arranging the first layer and the second layer alternately in a direction of stacking the first and the second layers; and See Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 18 above, note stack of layers 20 , which form stacked layers of insulation layers shown in FIG. 18 . the coils are connected in parallel to one another. See Ogasawara FIG. 18 wherein winding pattern/ coils L1 and L2 in each layer are connected in parallel. Regarding claim 2 , Ogasawara discloses the board of claim 1 as evidence d above and further: 2. The printed board coil according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first winding pattern and the second winding pattern includes a plurality of conductor patterns, each of which is curved and moves distant from a center axis while turning around the center axis; and the second winding pattern is in a position turned at 180° with respect to the first winding pattern in the stacking direction. See Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 18 above, for each of the top first layer 20 and the bottom second layer 20, each wiring pattern on one surface curves inward in a counter clockwise direction and each pattern on a bottom surface curves outward in a clockwise direction as shown specifically in FIG. 3. Regarding claim 3 , Ogasawara discloses the board of claim 2 as evidence d above and further: 3. The printed board coil according to claim 2, wherein the conductor pattern includes a plurality of radially divided planar patterns. See Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 18 above, note each winding pattern of the top first and bottom second layers 20 include pairs of radially divided patterns, i.e., a pair of parallel wound coils. Regarding claim 4 , Ogasawara discloses the board of claim 1 as evidence d above and further: 4. The printed board coil according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first winding pattern and the second winding pattern includes a plurality of coil turns each of which moves distant from a center axis while turning around the center axis; the coil turns include a plurality of conductor patterns divided in a radial direction of the coil; and the conductor patterns make transitions toward an outer circumferential side at every predetermined central angle θ. See Ogasawara FIGS. 3 and 8 above, note each winding pattern on each of the surface of the top first and bottom second layers makes an outward transition every 180 degrees. Regarding claim 5 , Ogasawara discloses: 5. A high frequency transformer including a magnetic core, a primary coil, and a secondary coil, wherein the printed board coil according to claim 1 is in the form of the primary coil and/or the secondary coil. See Ogasawara FIG. 18 and ¶¶0-170-0172 disclosure wherein a transformer is shown with the top first layer 20 being the primary and the bottom second layer 20 being the secondary. V. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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. V .A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Komachi and Loef Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Komachi in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,932,801 to Christoph Loef. Examiners note that the recitation of “printed” in claim 1 is a product-by-process limitation, i.e., a structure of the coil being defined by how it is made. Thus, Examiners find since Komachi discloses the coil structures required in claims 1-4, the coil of Komachi reads on “printed” aspect of these claims. However, to the extent that printed implies a specific structure, Examiners find that Loef teaches print ing circuits to form coils onto boards. See Loef col. 3, lines 41-46. It would have been obvious at the time the inventio n was filed to make the coils of Komachi by a printing method onto board . One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as stated in Loef, such a technique is “well known” for providing circuit coils on boards. See Loef col. 3, lines 41-46 V . B . Obviousness Rejections Applying Ogasawara and Loef Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Loef. Examiners note that the recitation of “printed” in claim 1 is a product-by-process limitation, i.e., a structure of the coil being defined by how it is made. Thus, Examiners find since Ogasawara discloses the coil structures required in claims 1-5, the coil of Ogasawara reads on “printed” aspect of these claims. However, to the extent that printed implies a specific structure, Examiners find that Loef teaches printed circuits to form coils onto boards. See Loef col. 3, lines 41-46. It would have been obvious at the time the inventio n was filed to make the coils of Ogasawara by a printing method onto board. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as stated in Loef, such a technique is “well known” for providing circuit on boards. See Loef col. 3, lines 41-46 V I. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application. VII . CONCLUSION Claims 1-6 are rejected. The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264 . The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday . If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-9900. 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. /KENNETH WHITTINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992