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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first cathode, first anode, second cathode, second anode of Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0091, line 4, “firs” should be corrected to “first”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: "negative is applied" should read "negative voltage is applied". 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.
The “controller” in line 1 of Claim 5 is deemed to invoke analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under Prong A, the language of the claim does not explicitly use the term “means” or “step” as an explicit invocation of 112(f) analysis, but the claim provides the nonce term “controller” that triggers analysis under 112(f). “Controller” is deemed a nonce term due to the phrase “to control” which renders the phrase “controller” meaningless in terms of imparting a specific independent functionality.
Moving to Prong B, the controller is linked by the following functional language “configured to control the first switching element and the second switching element” in Claim 5, “configured to perform a first operation of turning off the first switching element and turning on the second switching element; a second operation of turning off the first switching element and the second switching element; and a third operation of turning on the first switching element and turning off the second switching element” in Claim 6, “configured to repeatedly perform a sequence” in Claim 7, as well as “configured to, based on a start of a heating operation” in Claim 9, that would further invoke 112(f) analysis for the controller of Claim 5.
Concluding under Prong C, the specification provides in Paragraph [0082] and in the drawings (Figure 4), that the controller is provided with the additional structure of having at least one memory (152) and at least one processor (151). The Specification provides in Paragraphs [0141]-[0143] that the controller performs operation by outputting a switching signal to either turn on or off the first and second switching element. The Specification also provides in Paragraphs [0141] through [0146], that the controller has a first, second, and third operation for the switching elements. The first operation includes turning the first switching element off and the second switching element on, the second operation includes turning off both the first and second switching elements, and the third operation includes turning on the first switching element and turning off the second switching element. Paragraph [0145] also provides that the controller can repeatedly perform the functions. Additionally, the Specification provides in Paragraphs [0198] and [0199], that the controller, based on the start of a heating operation by a user input, controls the power supply module to supply the circuit with power.
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 9 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "second diode sequentially to the second diode". The claim is indefinite as it is unclear what the claim limitation is trying to say sequentially connects to the second diode, Examiner will interpret the claim to mean that the input current flows through the first terminal, the inductor, the first reverse-parallel diode, the third capacitor, and the second diode before returning to the second terminal to complete the circuit loop.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "resonant current flows through the third node, the heating coil and the first switching element sequentially to the second node" (Fig 17). The claim is indefinite as the second operation switches off the first switching element, meaning current will not flow through the switching element. Examiner will interpret the claim, according to Fig 17, to mean that the resonant current flows through the third node, the heating coil, the first reverse-parallel diode and then the second node.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP-2020053137-A) in view of Schilling (CN-101326856-B).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses an electromagnetic induction heating device (100) (Figures 1-7) that includes a circuit with multiple nodes through which the parts of the circuit intersect and connect. The induction heating device is power by an AC power supply (1), having a first and second terminal (Fig 1) ([0012]). Hiroyuki further teaches (Figure 2) that the AC power supply of the electromagnetic induction heating device provides both positive and negative voltages (v(1)) and input current (i(1)) ([0017]). Hiroyuki also teaches the inclusion of anti-parallel diodes (6a and 6b), where a diode inherently comprises a cathode side and an anode side (Figure 7). Hiroyuki further teaches a switching element (5c and 5d) connected to antiparallel diodes (6c and 6d) ([0031] and [0033]). Additionally, Hiroyuki discloses resonance capacitors (12a, 12b, and 13) to allow the induction heating device to heat magnetic or non-magnetic material requiring different frequency loads, as well as a smoothing capacitor (44) connected to the upper and lower portion of the switching elements ([0013]). Hiroyuki further discloses that the heating coil (11), heats the object to be heated ([0008]). Examiner takes notice that when a circuit is complete, every individual component of a circuit is connected to all the other parts of a circuit via a continuous and unbroken path.
Regarding Claim 4, Hiroyuki discloses the induction heating device is power by an AC power supply (1), connected to a rectifier circuit (2) that includes diodes (2a-2d), an inductor (8), and a capacitor (9) to form a filter for the noise coming from the AC power supply (Fig 1) ([0012])
Hiroyuki does not disclose the inclusion of a ground node.
Schilling teaches an induction heating device (Figure 1), with the inclusion of a ground node (GND) (Figure 1) that is used to determine a voltage difference between potential in the circuit, and a ground voltage ([0032]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (A). the MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Hiroyuki teaches the induction heating apparatus with a power supply with a noise filter, an inductor, first and second switching element and accompanying anti-parallel diode, additional first and second diodes, and multiple capacitors all connected by a series of nodes that complete the circuit. Where Schilling teaches the ground node to ground the circuit. Additionally, both references teach circuits for use in induction heating cookers. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would be able to implement the ground node taught by Schilling into the circuit taught by Hiroyuki, to provide a circuit where individual elements can be grounded by being connected to the ground node. As a ground node is known in the art, the artisan of ordinary skill would expect the ground node to retain its function when implemented into a circuit, including the one taught by Hiroyuki, to yield an induction heating device that operates in a predictable manner with the inclusion of a ground node.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic induction heating device as taught by Hiroyuki to incorporate a ground node as taught by Schilling, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change to their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki and Schilling, in further view of Seungbok (US-2020005996-A1), hereinafter Seungbok ‘996.
Claims 2 and 3
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Hiroyuki in view Schilling teaches everything as mentioned above, but does not teach the inclusion of a current sensor between the first and third node or a resistor between the first and third node.
With regards to Claim 2, Seungbok ‘996 teaches an induction heating cooking apparatus (Figures 1-4), with the inclusion of a sensor (120) that measures voltages and electric currents, and provides the data to the control unit (130) ([0037]). Seungbok ‘996 also teaches that the control unit can use the sensor data to have the control unit calculate the output of the heating coil (Coil).
With regards to Claim 3, Seungbok ‘996 teaches a first sensing resistance (R1) as part of the driving unit (115) (Figure 2). Seungbok ‘996 further teaches that the sensing resistance is added to the heating coils, where the electric current flowing through the circuit is measured ([0016]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Hiroyuki and Schilling in view of Seungbok ‘996, all teach devices that use induction as a heating source. Seungbok ‘996 teaches the inclusion of a current sensor and a resistance element as part of the induction heating circuit. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the induction heating device taught by Hiroyuki in view of Schilling, with the current sensor and resistance element taught by the induction heating cooking apparatus taught by Seungbok ‘996, to provide an induction heating and cooking device where the artisan would recognize that the known respective elements, when combined, would retain their original function and would yield a predictable result as the functions of the known circuit components would remain when combined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic induction heating device as taught by Hiroyuki in view of Schilling, to incorporate the current sensor and resistance element, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5
With regards to Claim 5, Hirouyki in view of Schilling, teaches all of the elements for the induction heating device as previously mentioned, but does not disclose a controller configured to control the first and second switching elements.
Seungbok ‘996 teaches the induction heating cooking device as previously mentioned, and further teaches (Figure 2) the inclusion of a control unit (130). Seungbok ‘996 also teaches that the switch driving unit (140) controls the operation of the first and second switching devices (S1 and S2) based on control signals sent by the control unit ([0039] and [0040]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Seungbok ‘996 and Hiroyuki in view of Schilling all teach devices that use induction heating in a cooking device. Seungbok ‘996 teaches the use of a controller and switch driving unit to control the switching elements of the induction heating device. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the induction heater as taught by Hiroyuki in view of Schilling with the induction heater taught by Seungbok ‘996, to provide an induction heater where a controller operates a switch driving unit to control the switching elements. As the induction heater and controller and switch driving unit are known in the art, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements, and expected the combination of the known elements to yield a predictable result where the elements retain their original function when combined into a single induction heating apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heating device as taught by Hiroyuki in view of Schilling to incorporate a controller to control the switching elements of the cooking apparatus, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki, Schilling, and Seungbok ‘996, in further view of Seungbok (US-20200367323-A1), hereinafter Seungbok ‘323.
Claims 6, 7, and 8
Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 8, Hirouyki in view of Schilling and Seungbok ‘996 teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but do not disclose the following elements:
According to Claim 6, the controller being configured to perform a series of operations, including a first operation where the first switching element is turned off and the second switching element is turned on, a second operation where both switching elements are turned off, and a third operation where the first switching element is turned on and the second switching element is turned off,
According to Claim 7, the controller being configured to repeatedly perform a sequence of the first, second, and third operation,
And according to Claim 8, the first and third operation are longer in time than the second operation.
Seungbok ‘323 teaches (Figures 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9) an induction heating and wireless power transmitting apparatus where a controller (250) controls the switching operation of a first and second inverter (IV1 and IV2), which are alternately turned on and off by switching signals received from the controller ([0064] and [0067]). Seungbok ‘323 provides that the first inverter is may include switching elements SV 1 and SV 1’, and the second inverter may include switching elements SV 2 and SV 2’ ([0139]). Seungbok ‘323 further teaches that the controller is capable of being configured to provide a plurality of pulses to both the first and second inverters corresponding to different time intervals, as well as detect and measure current generated to determine if a load is placed on the coil ([0029]-[0032]). Seungbok ‘323 also teaches that the controller is able to measure times and provide delays before turning on or off pulses provided to the inverters, where the controller can be configured to continuously repeat a process ([0168]-[0171]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Seungbok ‘323 teaches a controller configurable to alternately turn on and off a switching elements as decided upon by the controller, additionally Seungbok ‘323 provides that the controller can repeat the sequence or operation continuously, and can implement predetermined time intervals as well as delays into the operation of the switching elements as controlled by the controller.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would be able take the configurable controller that is known in the art, and configure the controller to have a first operation where it turns off the first switching element and turns on the second switching element, a second operation where both the first and second switching element are switched off, and a third operation where the first switching element is turned on while the second switching element is turned off. Additionally, the ordinarily skilled artisan could configure the controller to control the switching operation, as well as repeat the sequence continuously, until a predetermined time interval has been reached. The ordinarily skilled artisan would also be able to configure the duration of each operation, including making the second operation of a shorter duration than that of the first and third operation. An ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that applying the known technique of configuring the controller to control the switching elements would yield a predictable result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heating device taught by Hirouyki in view of Schilling and Seungbok ‘996 to incorporate the various sequences and operations provided by the controller as taught by Seungbok ‘323 to provide an induction heating device that can alternatively turn on and off different switching elements as needed and determined by the controller, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-10
With regards to Claims 9 and 10, Hiroyuki in view of Schilling, Seungbok ‘996 and Seungbok ‘323 teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but do not include the controller being started by a heating operation:
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Seungbok ‘323 teaches (Figures 8 and 9) that the induction heating and wireless power transmitting apparatus has an input interface (350), where the input interface receives input from a user and then supplies the controller (250) with input information to change the mode of operation and drive the induction heating apparatus ([0123] & [0109]-[0112]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known techniques to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10 in this case, Hiroyuki in view of Schilling and Seungbok ‘996 teaches induction heating device with a controller that can be configured to perform a set of operations, with a pair of switching elements that are controlled during each operation to either turn the first and second switching elements on or off. Seungbok ‘323 teaches that the user can interact with the input interface of the device to start and control the operation of the induction heating device.
The remaining claim limitations of Claims 9 and 10 are the inherent result of the controller turning both switching elements to the off state and applying either a positive or negative voltage from the AC power supply. This results in a closed-circuit loop, where the voltage coming from either the positive or negative terminal of the power supply only has one path to flow through when the relevant voltage is applied. The closed-circuit loop formed by controlling the switching elements means that the current flowing through loop will pass through all components on the loop back to the power supply.
An artisan of ordinary skill could have combined the teachings of Hiroyuki with Schilling, Seungbok ‘996, and Seungbok ‘323 into an induction heating device where the user controls the heating device via inputs to the control interface which gives commands to the controller to perform a set of operations that either turns on and off the switching elements of the induction heating and cooking device at predetermined times, as well as providing power from the AC power supply.
When the teachings of Hiroyuki with Schilling, Seungbok ‘996, and Seungbok ‘323 are combined into an induction heating device, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the known respective elements, including the user interface and controller, when combined, would retain their original function and would yield a predictable result that provides an induction heating and cooking device, where controlled by inputs from the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heating device taught by Hirouyki in view of Schilling, Seungbok ‘996, to incorporate a user interface that controls the controller as taught by Seungbok ‘323 to provide the induction heating device that can be controlled by the user through an input interface, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more that predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11-20
Regarding Claims 11 through 20, the claim limitations of Claims 11 through 20 are the inherent result of the controller performing one of the first, second, or third operations, and applying either a positive or negative voltage from the AC power supply onto the circuit of claim 6. Once the first, second, or third operation has been performed, a closed-circuit loop is formed, where the voltage and current coming from either the positive or negative terminal of the power supply only has one path to flow through when the relevant voltage is applied. The closed-circuit loop formed by controlling the switching elements means that the current flowing through loop will pass through all components that form the closed-loop as the current makes a complete loop back to the power supply.
Using Claim 12 as an example, when the power supply provides a positive voltage to the first terminal and the second operation of switching both the first and second switching elements off is performed; the resulting closed-loop circuit would result in input current flowing through the first terminal, the inductor, the first reverse-parallel diode, third capacitor, second diode, and then then second terminal, with the resonant current flowing through the third node, the heating coil, the first reverser-parallel diode, and then the second node.
Using Claim 19 as an example, when a third operation is performed that switches on the first switching element and switches off the second switching element, and a negative voltage is applied to the first terminal from the AC power supply; the resulting closed-loop circuit would result in current passing through the second terminal of the power supply, the first diode, the first switching element, and the inductor before returning to the first terminal of the power supply, and the resonant current would flow between the second node, the first switching element, the heating coil, and the third node.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (US-20200323048-A1) teaches an induction heating apparatus with a plurality of inverters and switching units on a printed circuit board.
Kopiness (US-20200281048-A1) teaches an induction cooking system with a current sensor to measure current across the inductor coils.
Suga (EP-3927114-A1) teaches an induction heating cooker that supplies current to heating coils that contain an inner and outer coil, with a controller to determine if a coil is present.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights