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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “these groups are not distinct, nor are they mutually exclusive because both groups of claims describe essential aspects of the control logic for the same induction heating apparatus described in Group I” and “the Examiner has not demonstrated that a “serious search burden exists to justify the restriction”. This is not found persuasive because Examiner detailed explained why these three groups are independent and distinct based on MPEP 806.05(e) and 806.05(j). In addition, these groups would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the invention require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resource, or employing different search strategies or search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the invention are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anton Falcon (US 2016/0323937).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
568
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Anton Falcon teaches an induction heating apparatus (hob 44 a) comprising:
a plate (hob plate 46a) including a plurality of cooking areas;
a plurality of working coils (heating elements 26 a, 26 b, 28 a, 28 b) arranged below the plate to correspond to the plurality of cooking areas, respectively (See fig.2);
a plurality of coil switches (switches 40b, 42b) connected to the plurality of working coils (heating elements 26 a, 26 b, 28 a, 28 b), respectively (See fig.2);
a first inverter circuit (inverter 18b) connected to one end of a first coil switch (1st switch; see the annotation of fig.2) and one end of a second coil switch (2nd switch; see the annotation of fig.2 ) among the plurality of coil switches;
a second inverter circuit (inverter 20a) connected to one end of a third coil switch (3rd switch; see the annotation of fig.2 )and one end of a fourth coil switch (4th switch; see the annotation of fig.2) among the plurality of coil switches; and
a branch switch (configuration unit 12 a) connected to an other end of the second coil switch (2nd switch) and to an other end of the third coil switch (3rd switch).
Regarding claim 2, Anton Falcon teaches the plurality of working coils (heating elements 26 a, 26 b, 28 a, 28 b) includes a first working coil (1st coil; see the annotation of fig.2) connected to an other end of the first coil switch (1st switch), a second working coil (2nd coil; see the annotation of fig.2) connected to the other end of the second coil switch (2nd switch), a third working coil (3rd coil; see the annotation of fig.2) connected to the other end of the third coil switch (3rd switch) and a fourth working coil (4th coil; see the annotation of fig.2) connected to an other end of the fourth coil switch (4th coil),
wherein the second working coil (2nd coil) and the third working coil (3rd coil) are disposed adjacent to each other (see fig.2), and
wherein the branch switch (configuration unit 12 a) connects or separates the second working coil and the third working coil to or from each other (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Anton Falcon teaches one end of the branch switch (configuration unit 12 a) is connected to a connection node (input connection 56 a) to which the second working coil (2nd coil) and the second coil switch (2nd switch) are connected to, and
an other end of the branch switch is connected to a connection node (input connection 58 a), to which the third working coil (3rd coil) and the third coil switch (3rd switch) are connected.
Regarding claim 4, Anton Falcon teaches one of the second coil switch and the third coil switch is opened and the other of the second coil switch and the third coil switch is closed in a state in which the branch switch is closed (See fig.2, the apparatus is capable to set 2nd switch open and 3rd switch and switch 30a of configuration unit 12a close.)
Regarding claim 5, Anton Falcon teaches a controller (control unit 50a) configured to control the plurality of coil switches, the branch switch, the first inverter circuit, and the second inverter circuit (see para.[0014] and [0032] “Furthermore it is proposed that the hob apparatus comprises a switching unit which is switched between the at least one configuration unit and the at least two heating elements. A “switching unit” should be understood in particular to mean an electronic unit which is intended to establish and/or break an electrically conductive connection at least between two contact points. The switching unit preferably has at least one control contact, via which the switching unit advantageously can be switched in at least one operating state and via which the switching unit receives in particular in at least one operating state at least one control signal, which advantageously is generated by a control unit…The hob apparatus 10 a comprises a control unit 50 a, which as a function of operating parameters input by means of the operating unit 48 a performs actions and/or changes settings. In one operating state the control unit 50 a operates the heating elements 26 a, 28 a as a function of operating parameters input by means of the operating unit 48 a.”),
wherein the controller is configured to close the branch switch and open one of the second coil switch and the third coil switch in response to a request to close the first coil switch or the fourth coil switch in a state in which the second coil switch and the third coil switch are closed and the branch switch is open (control unit 50 a is capable to close switch 30a of configuration unit 12a and open second coil switch and the third coil switch in response to a request to close the first coil switch or the fourth coil switch in a state in which the second coil switch and the third coil switch are closed and the branch switch is open.)
Regarding claim 10, Anton Falcon teaches the first inverter circuit (inverter 18a) and the second inverter circuit (inverter 20a) are connected in parallel with each other (see fig.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 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton Falcon in view of OK (US 2021/0127459).
Regarding claim 9, Anton Falcon does not explicitly teach an input interface configured to obtain a user input, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a first output of the first inverter circuit and a second output of the second inverter circuit independently of each other based on the user input.
However, OK teaches in the same field of endeavor of a induction heating apparatus (induction heating device 1), comprising an input interface (input interface 350) configured to obtain a user input (See para.[0110] “The input interface 350 may receive an input from a user and may supply the input to the controller 250.”), wherein the controller is configured to adjust a first output of the first inverter circuit and a second output of the second inverter circuit independently of each other based on the user input (see para.[0113] and [0116] “The input interface 350 may supply received input information to the controller 250, and the controller 250 may drive the induction heating device 1 in various ways on the basis of the input information received from the input interface 350.. When the user touches the power level adjustment button (+, −) in a state in which power is input, a current power level of the induction heating device 1 may be displayed on the input interface 350 as numbers. With a touch of the power level adjustment button (+, −), the controller 250 may confirm that driving mode of the induction heating device 1 is induction heating mode. Further, the controller 250 may adjust frequencies for switching operation of the first and second inverters (IV1 and IV2) to correspond to an input power level.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the induction heating apparatus of Anton Falcon by adding an input interface associated with an controller to control the operation of the apparatus as taught by OK, in order to provide user desired operation of the apparatus for cooking food (See para.[0110]-[0114])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights