DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. While claims are directed at a cooking appliance generally, more specificity in describing the invention is kindly requested.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation is seemingly attempting to claim a 1 to 1 heating area to working coil correspondence, but it does not require that each heating area corresponds to a distinct WC.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation regarding “an outer diameter of the two adjacent working coils,” is confusing because it is not entirely clear whether it is the combined diameter, or not. This limitation seems to be directed at having overlapping WC in a single heating area.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “controlled differently,” is vague because it does not specify the difference in control. This limitation seems to mean that they have different phase characteristics for magnetic or non-magnetic bodies, but it could also mean there are 2 different controllers used to control phase depending on the object type.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Claims 7 and 19 claim a switch configured to be opened/closed (turned off and on) based on whether a heated object is magnetic or not, but from the Specification it is evident that “[t] he controller 170 can control all switches to be turned on when HO is a non-magnetic material.” [Specification, para. 245]. Under MPEP 2163-I-A, “[a]n invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. In this case, as claimed there is insufficient structure to carry out this function as it is the controller (170) that is configured to detect whether the heated object is magnetic (or not) and control the switch. Accordingly, claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 112(a) for lacking written description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo (JP 2008293888).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuo discloses A cooking appliance [Fig. 1 (1)] comprising:
a top plate portion configured to support an object to be heated [Fig. 1 (3), para. 11];
an intermediate heating body configured to transfer heat to the object [Annotated Fig. 3 (21), para. 15] (Examiner Note: Matsuo discloses an inductive heating element (21) that provides indirect inductive heating of the heated object from conduction through the top plate, and thus discloses this limitation.); and
a plurality of working coils [Annotated Fig. 3 (6, 8)] configured to generate a magnetic field to heat at least a portion of the object and the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 3 (6,8), Fig. 4 (6-9), para. 11] (Examiner Note: Matsuo describes a cooking appliance with 2 heating devices (19), each comprising a pair of working coils (6,8 and 7,9 respectively)),
wherein the intermediate heating body includes one or more heating areas corresponding to one or more working coils among the plurality of working coils. [Annotated Fig. 3 (21c, 21d), para. 15] (Examiner Note: Matsuo is understood to disclose an induction heating element (21) with 2 heating areas (21c, 21d) that are symmetric halves of the induction heating element (21).)
PNG
media_image1.png
959
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, Matsuo further discloses wherein each of the one or more heating areas of the intermediate heating body corresponds to one working coil among the plurality of working coils. [Annotated Fig. 3 (21), para. 15] (Examiner Note: Claims do not require each heating area corresponds to a distinct working coil, and thus multiple heating areas can correspond to the same working coil and anticipate this limitation. Matsuo discloses that “[t]he induction heating element 21 (22) is provided so as to cover the entire top surface of the heating coil 8 (9),” and thus provides 2 heating areas corresponding to working coil 8. Alternatively, Matsuo could be understood to disclose each heating area corresponding to each coil as they are all “correlated” as elements of the heating device (19). Under either interpretation, Matsuo anticipates this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, Matsuo further discloses wherein the one or more heating areas include at least two heating areas [Annotated Fig. 3 (21c, 21d)], and wherein the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 3 (21)] includes an intersection region [Annotated Fig. 3 (21b)] between the at least two heating areas. [para. 16] (Examiner Note: As the intersection region is understood to mean a region where the intermediate heating body is intersected, the slit (21b) of Matsuo anticipates this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 5, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4, Matsuo further discloses at least one switch [Fig. 5 (30)] configured to block current from flowing in the intersection region. [Fig. 4 (30s), 5 & 6 (21), paras. 22, 25-26] (Examiner Note: Matsuo discloses that when the switch (30s) is in the “a” position, induced current does not flow intersection region of the IM (21), and thus, discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5, Matsuo further discloses wherein the switch is configured to be turned on or off based on a type of the object to be heated. [para. 22] (Examiner Note: Matsuo discloses a switch (30s) is configured to switch between direct inductive heating (WC 6) and indirect conductive heating (WC 8, Inductive heating element 21). The switch (30s) allows current through the heating areas of the induction heating element (21) when the cooking body is non-magnetic, and blocks this path when the body is magnetic. As switch (30s) is understood to be “on” when the body is non-magnetic, Matsuo discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6, Matsuo further discloses wherein the switch is configured to be turned off to block current from flowing in the intersection region when the object to be heated is a magnetic body, and turned on to allow current to flow in the intersection region when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic body. [Fig. 4 (30s), paras. 22, 45-48] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112 rejection above, Matsuo discloses a switch selectively switched between positions a and b, that blocks current across the intersection region in the “a” position when the cooking body is magnetic and allows current in the “b” position when it is a non-magnetic body to perform indirect conductive heating.)
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6, Matsuo further discloses wherein phases of the plurality of working coils are controlled differently based on the type of the object to be heated. [Para. 22] (Examiner Note: Matsuo discloses this limitation as WC 6 is used for heating of magnetic objects and WC 8 is used for heating non-magnetic objects, and thus, the phase of each of the working coils differ from a phase-on and phase-off depending on the material.)
Regarding Claim 13, Matsuo further discloses A cooking appliance [Fig. 1 (1)] comprising:
at least one working coil configured to generate a magnetic field to heat an object placed on the cooking appliance [Annotated Fig. 3 (6)]; and
an intermediate heating body overlapping with at least a portion of the at least one working coil and configured to generate heat based on the magnetic field and transfer the heat to the object. [Annotated Fig. 3 (8), paras. 22] (Examiner Note: The WC (8) of Matsuo is understood to read onto this limitation as it is intermediate to the WC (6) and the heated object (Fig. 2 (10)), overlaps with the WC (6) and will generate and transfer heat based on the magnetic field created by WC (6). The claim does not recite, nor require, that the intermediate heating body is the primary heating source of the object, just that it generates heat based on the magnetic field.)
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13, Matsuo further discloses a switch [Annotated Fig. 4 (30s)] connected between two portions of the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 4 (8)] (Examiner Note: As the intermediate heating body is understood to be the 2nd WC (8), Matsuo discloses the IM (WC 8) is connected to the inverter through the switch (30s) where each portion of the IM (WC 8) are on opposing sides of the switch.), the switch being configured to:
in response to being opened, disconnect the two portions of the intermediate heating body from each other, [Annotated Fig. 4, para. 22] (Examiner Note: When the switch (30s) is in the “a” position, the loop is opened and disconnects the IM (WC 8) to power.) and
in response to being closed, connect the two portions of the intermediate heating body to form a closed loop shape. [Annotated Fig. 4 para. 22] (Examiner Note: Similar to above, when the switch (30s) is in the “b” position, it creates a closed loop shape that connects both portions of the IM (WC 8) to power and allows it to generate heat. As the IM (WC 8) is an annular disc, it necessarily forms a closed loop, and thus the switch will open and close this loop by changing positions.)
PNG
media_image2.png
440
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Matsuo further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 3 (8)] is equal to an outer diameter of the at least one working coil [Annotated Fig. 3 (6)]. (Examiner Note: The working coils 6 and 8 are wound differently but have the same outside diameters.)
Regarding Claim 19, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13. Matsuo further discloses a switch connected between two portions of the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 4 (8)], the switch being configured to:
in response to the object being a magnetic object, disconnect the two portions of the intermediate heating body from each other [Annotated Fig. 4, para. 22] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112 rejection above, Matsuo discloses that the switch moves to position “a” when the heated object is magnetic to perform direct induction heating through WC (6), and thus breaks the closed loop of the IM (Annotated Fig. 4 (8))] , and
in response to the object being a non-magnetic material, connect the two portions of the intermediate heating body to form a closed loop shape. [Annotated Fig. 4, para. 22] (Examiner Note: Conversely, when a non-magnetic object is detected, Matsuo discloses that the switch moves to position “b” to perform indirect inductive heating through IM (8) and thus closes the loop of the IM (Annotated Fig. 4 (8))]
Regarding Claim 20, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13. Matsuo further discloses wherein the intermediate heating body includes two heating areas [Annotated Figs. 3, 4 (8a, 8b)], the two heating areas being connected to each other at an intersection region [Annotated Fig. 4 (30) (below)], and wherein the switch is located at the intersection region [Annotated Fig. 4 (30s), paras. 17, 23]. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, where the 2nd WC (8) is construed as the intermediate heating, it can be understood to be made up of 2 heating areas as the 2nd WC (8) is made up of a winding part 21c and a winding part 21d on the coil plate (15), and connected in series through the inverter (27) and a common connection point opposite to the switch (30s). (Para. 23) As the switch (30s) intersects this connection, each heating area (21c, 21d) can be understood to be disposed on opposite ends of the intersection region (green line) and connected through the switch (30s) and thus disclose this limitation.)
PNG
media_image3.png
355
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwack et al. (WO 2021201477).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, Matsuo further discloses wherein each heating area among the one or more heating areas corresponds to two adjacent working coils among the plurality of working coils, [Annotated Fig. 3, paras. 11-15] (Examiner Note: The first and second working coils (6,8) can be construed as adjacent working coils. As discussed above, Matsuo discloses the 2 heating areas (21c, 21d) corresponds to the WCs 6 and 8 as corresponding elements of the heating device (19), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Matsuo does not disclose wherein an outer diameter of the two adjacent working coils is larger than an inner diameter of each heating area among the one or more heating areas and smaller than an outer diameter of each heating area among the one or more heating areas. (Examiner Note: The WC of Matsuo have a larger combined outer diameter than the inside diameter of the inner C-shape of each heating area, but has a larger outside diameter than each of the heating areas. (Annotated Fig. 3, paras. 15-16))
However, Kwack discloses wherein an outer diameter of the two adjacent working coils is larger than an inner diameter of each heating area among the one or more heating areas and smaller than an outer diameter of each heating area among the one or more heating areas. [Fig. 8, paras. 118, 121, 123] (Examiner Note: Kwack teaches a thin film (TL) made of conductive material that vertically overlaps with a first and second WC, where the inner diameter of the heating area is smaller than the WCs (TL-I < WC). Furthermore, Kwack specifies that the outer regions of the WC overlaps (at least partially) with the thin film, and thus, must necessarily have a larger outside diameter than the WCs. Accordingly, Kwack is understood to disclose the 2 WCs overlap in the heating area, and thus teach this limitation.)
Kwack is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to hybrid induction stoves and the control thereof, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kwack with Matsuo in order to increase the heating area of the stove. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kwack could be combined with Matsuo with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to intermediate heating bodies for induction stoves for induction stoves. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kwack in order to provide a larger heating area. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo in further view of Kwack.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Satoshi (JP 2010257996)
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8. Matsuo does not disclose wherein the plurality of working coils are configured to operate with opposite phases when the object to be heated is the magnetic body.
However, Satoshi teaches wherein the plurality of working coils are configured to operate with opposite phases when the object to be heated is the magnetic body. [Para. 16] (Examiner Note: Satoshi teaches a driving circuit wherein, “when the heated pan 7 is a high-resistance pan such as an iron pan or a magnetic SUS pan, the high-frequency output control means 3 drives the inner heating coil 4 and the outer heating coil 5 in the opposite phase.”)
Satoshi is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to induction stoves and the control thereof, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Satoshi with Matsuo in order to increase the thermal power provided by the stove. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Satoshi could be combined with Matsuo with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to control systems for induction stoves. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Satoshi because it would increase thermal power absorbed by the heated object, reducing cook time and increasing thermal efficiency of the system. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo in further view of Satoshi.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR 20210078142)
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Matsuo does not disclose wherein the intermediate heating body includes a plurality of heating elements, and wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements has a closed loop shape that is larger than an outer diameter of one or more working coils among the plurality of working coils.
However, Jeon teaches wherein the intermediate heating body includes a plurality of heating elements [Fig. 1 (TL1)] (Examiner Note: Jeon is interpreted such that each ring of the conductive thin film is considered a heating element.) , and wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements has a closed loop shape [Fig. 1, paras. 61-63] (Examiner Note: Jeon teaches a thin film made of conductive material that can be places on the upper or lower surface of the top plate (15), and overlaps with the working coils that provides conductive heat to non-magnetic bodies, and thus understood to teach a heating element. Jeon further discloses that the thin film is applied to the top plate (15) “in a shape which multiple rings of different diameters are repeated.”)
Jeon is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to induction stoves and the control thereof, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
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, Matsuo teaches an inductive heating element (21) that differs from the claimed blade because the inductive heating element does not have multiple heating elements in a closed loop shape. The inductive heating element of Matsuo and the thin film conductor of Jeon both perform the function of providing indirect inductive heating. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the inductive heating element of Matsuo with the thin film conductor of Jeon to achieve predictable results because both references deal with indirect inductive heating that function in the same manner in the environment of an induction stove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the induction stove of Matsuo by replacing the inductive heating element with the thin film conductor because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Jeon does not disclose that is larger than an outer diameter of one or more working coils among the plurality of working coils.
Under MPEP 2144-IV-A, changes in size/proportion are within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent a novel or unexpected advantage, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious. It would have been obvious to modify the heating element of Matsuo in view of Jeon such that the heating element has a larger outside diameter than the working coils because changes in proportion/size are an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a smaller heating element would function the same as a larger heating element for providing indirect inductive heating. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of heating elements are common in the art to accommodate different sized pots/pans, and that increasing the size of the heating element would provide the predictable result of a larger heating area. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a larger heating element to work equally as well as the smaller heating element disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 10 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo in view of Jeon.
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Matsuo does not disclose wherein the intermediate heating body includes a plurality of heating elements, and wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements has a closed loop shape that is smaller than an outer diameter of one or more working coils.
However, Jeon teaches wherein the intermediate heating body includes a plurality of heating elements [Fig. 1 (TL1)] (Examiner Note: Jeon is interpreted such that each ring of the conductive thin film is considered a heating element.) , and wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements has a closed loop shape [Fig. 1, paras. 61-63] (Examiner Note: Jeon clearly illustrates some of the heating elements of the TL1 are smaller in diameter than the WC.)
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, Matsuo teaches an inductive heating element (21) that differs from the claimed intermediate heating body because the inductive heating element does not have multiple heating elements in a closed loop shape. The inductive heating element of Matsuo and the thin film conductor of Jeon both perform the function of providing indirect inductive heating. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the inductive heating element of Matsuo with the thin film conductor of Jeon to achieve predictable results because both references deal with indirect inductive heating that function in the same manner in the environment of an induction stove.
Jeon does not disclose that is smaller than an outer diameter of one or more working coils among the plurality of working coils.
Under MPEP 2144-IV-A, changes in size/proportion are within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent a novel or unexpected advantage, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious. It would have been obvious to modify the heating element of Matsuo in view of Jeon such that the heating element has a smaller outside diameter than the working coils because changes in proportion/size are an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a larger heating element would function the same as a smaller heating element for generating heat. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of heating elements are common in the art to accommodate different sized pots/pans, and that decreasing the size of the heating element would provide the predictable result of a smaller heating area. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a smaller heating element to work equally as well as the larger heating element disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 10 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo in view of Jeon.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Jeon et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yavuz et al. (WO 2018028999)
Regarding Claim 11, Matsuo in view of Jeon discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10, Matsuo in view of Jeon does not disclose further comprising a switch configured to open or disconnect the closed loop shape of the at least one of the plurality of heating elements. (Examiner Note: While Matsuo in view of Jeon disclosed a plurality of closed loop heating elements, it does not disclose the switch that disconnects the shape.)
However, Yavuz teaches a switch configured to open or disconnect the closed loop shape of the at least one of the plurality of heating. [Figs. 3, 4b, para. 28] (Examiner Note: Yavuz discloses a C-type thin film heating element (4) with a busbar (5) that connects a switch (15) to the free ends of the heating element so they can be selectively switched based on the desired load resistance. As the C shape forms a closed loop when the switch is closed, it is understood to open this closed loop when the switch is opened.)
Yavuz is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to intermediate heating bodies for induction stoves, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yavuz with Matsuo in view of Jeon in order to increase the thermal efficiency of the system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Yavuz could be combined with Matsuo as they both relate to intermediate heating bodies for induction stoves. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate these teachings in order to improve thermal efficiency as it provides selective control of heat output by the heating elements. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo in view of Jeon and further in view of Yavuz.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 15, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Matsuo further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body is smaller than the outer diameter of the at least one working coil. [Annotated Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: As the intermediate heating body is understood to be the 2nd WC (8), the outer diameter of the first WC is necessarily larger than the inner diameter of the second WC as the WCs are the same outer diameter.)
Matsuo does not disclose wherein an outer diameter of the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body is larger than an outer diameter of the at least one working coil.
Under MPEP 2144-IV-A, changes in size/proportion are within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent a novel or unexpected advantage, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious. It would have been obvious to modify the intermediate heating body of Matsuo such that it has a larger outside diameter than the working coils because changes in proportion/size are an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144-IV-A] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a smaller heating body would function the same as a larger heating body for generating heat. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of heating bodies are common in the art to accommodate different sized pots/pans, and that increasing the size of the heating body would provide the predictable result of a larger heating area. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a larger heating body to work equally as well as the smaller heating body disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 15 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo.
Regarding Claim 16, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Matsuo further discloses an inner diameter of the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body [Annotated Fig. 3 (8)] are smaller than an outer diameter of the at least one working coil [Annotated Fig. 3 (6)] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the IM and WC are of the same outer diameter, so the inner diameter of the IM (8) will necessarily be smaller than the outer diameter of the WC (6).
Matsuo does not disclose wherein both of an outer diameter of the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body… is smaller than an outer diameter of the at least one working coil.
Under MPEP 2144-IV-A, changes in size/proportion are within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent a novel or unexpected advantage, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious. It would have been obvious to modify the intermediate heating body of Matsuo such that it has a smaller outside diameter than the working coils because changes in proportion/size are an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144-IV-A] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a larger heating body would function the same as a smaller heating body for generating heat. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of heating bodies are common in the art to accommodate different sized pots/pans, and that decreasing the size of the heating body would provide the predictable result of a smaller heating area. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a smaller heating body to work equally as well as the larger heating body disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 15 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo.
Regarding Claim 18, Matsuo discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Matsuo further discloses the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body overlaps [Annotated Fig. 3, paras. 11-15]
Matsuo does not disclose wherein the at least one working coil includes two adjacent working coils, and wherein the closed loop shape of the intermediate heating body overlaps with both of the two adjacent working coils. (Examiner Note: While Matsuo teaches the intermediate heating body (WC 8) is a closed loop that overlaps the first WC (6), and teaches multiple working coils, but it does not explicitly teach the WC 8 overlapping with more than 1 WC.)
Under MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, the duplication of parts is within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent new or unexpected results, and therefore, the claimed limitation is obvious. It would have been obvious to modify the induction stove in Matsuo such that the intermediate heating body (WC 8) overlaps with an additional working coil because duplication of parts is obvious absent new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-B] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 2 working coils would function the same as 1 working coil for generating heat. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that various working coils arrangements are common in the art, and that an additional working coil would have the predictable results of faster heat generation. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect 2 working coils to work equally as well as the single working coil disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 18 is rejected as obvious over Matsuo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kallgren (US 6225608 B1) discloses a thin film heating element for an induction stove that functions very similarly to the inventive concept disclosed herein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights