Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/211,332

INDUCTION HEATING DEVICE, INDUCTION HEATING EQUIPMENT, INDUCTION HEATING METHOD, AND HEAT TREATMENT METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 19, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, HUNG D
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Neturen Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
732 granted / 1025 resolved
+1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1062
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1025 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority The claim to priority as a DIV of 17/134,665, filed on December 28, 2020, now USPN 11,729,868, which is a CON of 16/037,761, filed on July 17, 2018,, now USPN 10,952,288, which is a DIV of 14/110,410, filed on January 13, 2014, which filed as a PCT/JP2012/059607, filed on April 6, 2012, now USPN 10.057,945, which claims benefit to JP 2011-085129 filed on April 7, 2011, JP 2011-085130 filed on April 7, 2011, JP 2011-085131 file on April 7, 2011, JP 2011-0851 32 filed on April 7, 2011 and JP 2011-122977 filed on May 31, 2011 is acknowledged in the instant application. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 19, 2023 and March 28, 2024 have been considered by the Examiner 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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss et al. (US Pub. 2008/0035633) (cited by Applicant). Regarding claim 1, Weiss et al. discloses an induction heat treatment of workpieces, comprising the step of: varying the frequency of induction current to be fed to the workpiece (14) depending on the heating temperature or heating time of the workpiece when a workpiece is induction-heated while being moved (Par. 9-11, 50 and 59); and changing the combinations of matching units (40) and transformers in accordance with the change in frequency (Par. 30) (Fig. 1). Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Furuya et al. (JP 63-238212) (cited by Applicant). Regarding claim 3, Furuya et al. discloses a method for quenching and tempering partial surface of cylindrical member having different thickness having a heat treatment method for providing a plurality of ring-shaped area (A, B, C) to be heated along a ring-shaped workpiece (W) and performing heat treatment sequentially for each of the areas (A, B, C) to be heated, comprising: a first heating process for heating a first area (A) to be heated (Fig. 2b); a first cooling process for rapidly cooling the heated first area (A) to be heated (Fig. 2c); a tempering process for heating and cooling the first area (A) to be heated after the first cooling process is completed (Fig. 2d); and a second heating process for heating the second area (CB) to be heated after the tempering process is completed (Fig. 2e) (Page 5, Line 2 to Page 8, Line 1). Regarding claim 4, Furuya et al. discloses the deformation amount that appears on the edge of the area (A) to be heated when the areas to be heated are heated is different from that on the other (CB) (Fig. 1-2). (Note: the thickness portion of the area A is thicker than the area of the CB). Regarding claim 5, Furuya et al. discloses the first area to be heated (A) is induction-heated by using the same heating coils (1) in the first heating process and the tempering process (Fig. 2a-2d). Regarding claim 6, Furuya et al. discloses the first area to be heated (A) and the second area (CB) to be heated are induction-heated by using the same heating coils (1) in the first heating process and the second heating process (FIG. 2a-2e). Regarding claim 7, Furuya et al. discloses the first area to be heated (A) and the second area (CB) to be heated are in the plane-symmetrical shape, and the workpiece (W) is inverted after the tempering process (Fig. 1-2). 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Claim 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. (US Pub. 2008/0035633) in view of Minoue (US Pub. 2020/0163551) (cited by Applicant). Regarding claim 2, Weiss et al. discloses an induction heat treatment of workpieces, comprising the step of: disposing a heating coil (12) along the workpiece (14); varying the frequency of induction current to be fed to the workpiece (14) depending on the heating temperature or heating time of the workpiece when a workpiece is induction-heated while being moved (Par. 9-11, 50 and 59); and changing the combinations of matching units (40) and transformers in accordance with the change in frequency (Par. 30) (Fig. 1). Weiss et al. does not disclose the step of disposing a plurality of heating coils along the workpiece. Minoue et al. discloses the step of disposing a plurality of heating coils (1, 2) along the workpiece (9) (Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Weiss et al., the step of disposing a plurality of heating coils along the workpiece, as taught by Minoue et al., for the purpose of heating the gear portion and the stepped shaft portion by the first heating coil and second heat coil. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM. 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, Edward 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. /HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/22/2025 HUNG D. NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604375
COOKING APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593940
A TOASTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590024
METHOD FOR SEPARATING SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588114
COOKING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588111
HEATER FOR AN ELECTRICALLY HEATED AEROSOL GENERATING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1025 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month