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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyauchi (US 2010/0230401 A1)
Claim 11. Miyauchi discloses an induction heating-type cooktop (Fig. 1) comprising:
a working coil (59, Fig. 1);
an inverter (70, Fig. 1) configured to supply current to the working coil (inverter supplies current to the heating coil, par. 56), the inverter including a plurality of switching elements (switches 74-77, Fig. 1);
a cooking vessel determination part configured to determine a type of cooking vessel placed on the induction heating-type cooktop (load material detector 72 determines the type of the load, par. 61); and
a controller configured to change a driving method of the inverter based on the type of cooking vessel (drive frequency is changed depending on the type of load)
wherein the controller is futher configured to:
when the type of the cooking vessel includes a magnetic substance (iron pan, par. 61), change the driving method of the inverter to operate at an operating frequency that is equal to or greater than a resonant frequency (when the load is made of a magnetic material with a low conductivity the drive frequency is increased to 90 kHz which an integral multiple of the resonance frequency, par. 61); and
when the type of the cooking vessel includes a non-magnetic substance (non-magnetic material with high conductivity, par. 64), change the driving method of the inverter to operate at an operating frequency that is equal to or less than the resonant frequency (the drive frequency is set to a third of the resonance frequency for non-magnetic material with high conductivity, par. 66).
Claim 12. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to change the driving method of the inverter to an operating frequency that is greater than or less than a resonant frequency based on the type of cooking vessel (the drive frequency is set to a third of the resonance frequency for non-magnetic material with high conductivity, par. 66).
Claim 13. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the operating frequency being set to a value that is less than or equal to the resonant frequency (the drive frequency is set to a third of the resonance frequency for non-magnetic material with high conductivity, par. 66), adjust a duty cycle of the plurality of switching elements (the switches’ drive periods are adjusted, par. 65).
Claim 14. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 13, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a first duty cycle of a first switching element among the plurality of switching elements to be less than a second duty cycle of a second switching element among the plurality of switching elements (for a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel, the drive frequency is set to 45 kHz which is approximately half of the resonance frequency, par. 68, and the duty cycle of the first switch is less than the duty cycle of the second switch, Fig. 5).
Claim 15. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 14, wherein the first duty cycle of the first switching element is set to 50% or less (duty cycle for the first switch is less than 50%, Fig. 5).
Claim 16. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 15, wherein the second duty cycle of the second switching element is set to 50% or more (duty cycle for the second switch is greater than 50%, Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Moon (US 2016/0381738 A1).
Claim 17. Miyauchi does not disclose the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 14, further comprising a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the plurality of switching elements,
wherein the second switching element is disposed closer to the heat dissipation fan than the first switching element.
Moon discloses an induction stovetop wherein a fan 295 is used to cool the switching elements 221-224 (Fig. 2) wherein the second switch 222 is placed closer to the fan 295 (par. 49).
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 Miyauchi to incorporate the teachings of Moon and have a fan to cool the switches. Doing so would have the benefit of cooling the switches. Additionally, Moon demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select which switch would be closest to the fan in order to optimize cooling (par. 48-49, Moon).
Claim(s) 18-19 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tamura (JP 2009099324 A).
Claim 18. Miyauchi discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to:
when the operating frequency is set equal to or greater than the resonant frequency, adjust a heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by varying the operating frequency (driving frequency is increased to increase heating output, par. 57; and for magnetic loads, the maximum heating output is at an integral multiple of the resonance frequencies and to operate at a lower heating output, the drive frequency is in proximity to the resonance frequency, par. 62 and 70); and
when the operating frequency is set equal to or less than the resonant frequency, adjust the heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by changing a duty cycle of one or more switching elements among the plurality of switching elements.
Miyauchi does not disclose when the operating frequency is set equal to or less than the resonant frequency, adjust the heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by changing a duty cycle of one or more switching elements among the plurality of switching elements.
Tamura discloses an induction cooker wherein for non-magnetic pans the drive control method uses duty control (par. 37, Fig. 3) wherein the switch 31 has a shorter cycle than switch 32 (Fig. 3).
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 Miyauchi to incorporate the teachings of Tamura and control the duty cycle for non-magnetic pans. Doing so would have the benefit of heating up the non-magnetic pots and reducing switching loss (par. 41 and 46, Tamura).
Claim 19. Miyauchi in view of Tamura the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 18, wherein the controller is further configured to, when the operating frequency is set equal to or less than the resonant frequency, set the operating frequency to a fixed frequency (it is understood by the examiner that in duty control, the operating frequency is fixed, Fig. 4, Tamura).
Claim 22. Miyauchi discloses an induction heating-type cooktop (Fig. 1) comprising:
a working coil (59) configured to heat a cooking vessel (pan, par. 2);
an inverter configured to supply current to the working coil (70, Fig. 1), the inverter including a plurality of switching elements (switches 74-77, Fig. 1); and
a controller configured to:
in response to the cooking vessel being a magnetic type of cooking vessel, set an operating frequency of the inverter to a value that is greater than a first resonate frequency (when the load is made of a magnetic material with a low conductivity the drive frequency is increased to 90 kHz which an integral multiple of the resonance frequency, par. 61); and
in response to the cooking vessel being a non-magnetic type of cooking vessel, set the operating frequency of the inverter to a value that is less than a second resonate frequency (the drive frequency is set to a third of the resonance frequency for non-magnetic material with high conductivity, par. 66) wherein the controller is further configured to:
in response to the cooking vessel being the magnetic type of cooking vessel, adjust a heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by varying the operating frequency (driving frequency is increased to increase heating output, par. 57; and for magnetic loads, the maximum heating output is at an integral multiple of the resonance frequencies and to operate at a lower heating output, the drive frequency is in proximity to the resonance frequency, par. 62 and 70),
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a first duty cycle of a first switching element among the plurality of switching elements to be less than a second duty cycle of a second switching element among the plurality of switching elements (for a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel, the drive frequency is set to 45 kHz which is approximately half of the resonance frequency, par. 68, and the duty cycle of the first switch is less than the duty cycle of the second switch, Fig. 5).
Miyauchi does not disclose in response to the cooking vessel being the non-magnetic type of cooking vessel, adjust the heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by changing a duty cycle of one or more switching elements among the plurality of switching elements.
Tamura discloses an induction cooker wherein for non-magnetic pans the drive control method uses duty control (par. 37, Fig. 3) wherein the switch 31 has a shorter cycle than switch 32 (Fig. 3).
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 Miyauchi to incorporate the teachings of Tamura and control the duty cycle for non-magnetic pans. Doing so would have the benefit of heating up the non-magnetic pots and reducing switching loss (par. 41 and 46, Tamura).
Claim 23. Miyauchi in view of Tamura discloses the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 22, wherein the second resonance frequency based on the non-magnetic type of cooking vessel is greater than the first resonance frequency based on the magnetic type of cooking vessel (resonant frequency with magnetic material is less than 90 kHz, par. 61, and resonant frequency with the non-magnetic material is about 90 kHz, par. 68).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fujita (US 2011/0192838 A1).
Claim 21. Miyauchi does not disclose the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of switching elements includes a silicon carbide (SiC) element.
Fujita discloses an induction stovetop with a plurality of switching elements that includes a silicon carbide element (par. 33).
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 Miyauchi to incorporate the teachings of Fujita and have switches that include silicon carbide. Fujita demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that switches in inverters can be made of silicon carbide.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi in view of Tamura as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Moon (US 2016/0381738 A1).
Claim 26. Tamura in view of Isogai does not disclose the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 2, further comprising a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the plurality of switching elements,
wherein the second switching element is disposed closer to the heat dissipation fan than the first switching element.
Moon discloses an induction stovetop wherein a fan 295 is used to cool the switching elements 221-224 (Fig. 2) wherein the second switch 222 is placed closer to the fan 295 (par. 49).
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 Miyauchi in view of Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Moon and have a fan to cool the switches. Doing so would have the benefit of cooling the switches. Additionally, Moon demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select which switch would be closest to the fan in order to optimize cooling (par. 48-49, Moon).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi in view of Tamura as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Ribarich (US 9578692 B2).
Claim 28. Miyauchi in view of Tamura does not disclose the induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 22, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the operating frequency based on a pulse width modulation (PWM) control method.
Ribarich discloses an induction cooker wherein the switching frequency control scheme is implemented using PWM (col 3, lines 35-50).
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 Miyauchi in view of Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Ribarich and control the frequency using PWM. Ribarich demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to control the frequency of the switches using PWM (col 3, lines 35-50, Ribarich).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi in view of Tamura.
Claim 29. Miyauchi discloses an induction heating-type cooktop (Fig. 1) comprising:
a working coil (59) configured to heat a cooking vessel (pan, par. 2);
an inverter configured to supply current to the working coil (70, Fig. 1), the inverter including a plurality of switching elements (switches 74-77, Fig. 1); and
a controller configured to:
in response to the cooking vessel being the magnetic type of cooking vessel, adjust a heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by varying the operating frequency (driving frequency is increased to increase heating output, par. 57; and for magnetic loads, the maximum heating output is at an integral multiple of the resonance frequencies and to operate at a lower heating output, the drive frequency is in proximity to the resonance frequency, par. 62 and 70),
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a first duty cycle of a first switching element among the plurality of switching elements to be less than a second duty cycle of a second switching element among the plurality of switching elements (for a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel, the drive frequency is set to 45 kHz which is approximately half of the resonance frequency, par. 68, and the duty cycle of the first switch is less than the duty cycle of the second switch, Fig. 5).
Miyauchi does not disclose in response to the cooking vessel being the non-magnetic type of cooking vessel, adjust the heating output of the induction heating-type cooktop by changing a duty cycle of one or more switching elements among the plurality of switching elements.
Tamura discloses an induction cooker wherein for non-magnetic pans the drive control method uses duty control (par. 37, Fig. 3) wherein the switch 31 has a shorter cycle than switch 32 (Fig. 3).
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 Miyauchi to incorporate the teachings of Tamura and control the duty cycle for non-magnetic pans. Doing so would have the benefit of heating up the non-magnetic pots and reducing switching loss (par. 41 and 46, Tamura).
Claim(s) 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi in view of Tamura as applied to claim 22 and 29 above, and further in view of Fujita.
Claim 27. Miyauchi in view of Tamura does not disclose The induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 22, wherein one or more of the plurality of switching elements includes a silicon carbide (SiC) element (par. 33) or a gallium nitride (GaN) element.
Fujita discloses an induction stovetop with a plurality of switching elements that includes a silicon carbide element (par. 33).
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 Miyauchi in view of Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Fujita and have switches that include silicon carbide. Fujita demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that switches in inverters can be made of silicon carbide.
Claim 30. Miyauchi in view of Tamura does not disclose The induction heating-type cooktop according to claim 29, wherein one or more of the plurality of switching elements includes a silicon carbide (SiC) element (par. 33) or a gallium nitride (GaN) element.
Fujita discloses an induction stovetop with a plurality of switching elements that includes a silicon carbide element (par. 63).
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 Miyauchi in view of Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Fujita and have switches that include silicon carbide. Fujita demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that switches in inverters can be made of silicon carbide.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights