CTNF 18/277,194 CTNF 88268 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2019/0045586) . With regard to claims 11 and 26, Son teaches an induction heating cooktop (FIG. 1-2) comprising: a working coil (150); an inverter (140) comprising a plurality of switching elements (141/142), the inverter being configured to apply current to the working coil (150); and a controller (180) configured to adjust a duty cycle (FIG. 7 illustrates first and second currents 701/702 for the respective duty cycles) of each of the plurality of switching elements (141/142), wherein a time in which all of the plurality of switching elements (141/142) are turned off is variable (“first and second switching units configured to control switching such that the DC voltage from the rectifier is alternately applied to a working coil, a comparison unit configured to sense current flowing in the working coil and to compare the sensed current with a predetermined reference value to output pulses”, Abstract). Son further teaches an upper plate (upper surface of 10 of FIG. 1) configured to support a cooking vessel (1) (FIG. 1). Although the citation does not utilize the explicit term “dead time”, it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the term “dead time” is a time in which there is no current being applied to a respective switching element as a result-effective variable to control an on-off of a switching element. Furthermore, assuming it was determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to understand the meaning of the term “dead time”, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the limitation of “wherein a dead time in which all of the plurality of switching elements are turned off is variable” is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 12 and 22, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to adjust the dead time based on a driving frequency of the inverter (140) (“The inverter 140 may switch a voltage applied to the working coil 150 such that high-frequency current flows in the working coil 150. Specifically, the inverter 140 may include a first switching unit 141 and a second switching unit 1420, and the first switching unit 141 and the second switching unit 142 may be alternately and repeatedly turned on/off to drive the working coil 150. That is, the first switching unit 141 may be turned on and the second switching unit 142 may be turned off in a first state, the first switching unit 141 may be turned off and the second switching unit 142 may be turned on in a second state, and the inverter 140 may be controlled to alternate between the first state and the second state at a predetermined frequency.”, para. [0042]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claim 13, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to adjust the dead time such that the dead time decreases as the driving frequency of the inverter (140) increases (“the inverter driver 145 may repeat operation for performing control to turn the first switching unit on and to turn the second switching unit 142 off, performing control to turn the first switching unit off and to turn the second switching unit 142 on after a predetermined time, and performing control to turn the first switching unit on and to turn the second switching unit 142 off after a predetermined time. The inverter driver 145 may control the first and second switching units 141 and 142 to apply the high-frequency voltage to the working coil 150.”, para. [0046]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 14 and 21, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to calculate a calculated dead time of the inverter (140) according to the driving frequency (“The controller 180 may determine whether the measured on-time width is equal to or less than a predetermined reference time (S105). The controller 180 may compare an on-time width measured earliest among measured on-time widths with the predetermined reference time. That is, the controller 180 may compare a firstly output pulse among pulses output from the comparison unit 170 with the predetermined reference time….”, para. [0092]-[0093]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 15, 23, and 29, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to calculate the calculated dead time whenever the driving frequency is changed (“The controller 180 may determine whether the measured on-time width is equal to or less than a predetermined reference time (S105). The controller 180 may compare an on-time width measured earliest among measured on-time widths with the predetermined reference time. That is, the controller 180 may compare a firstly output pulse among pulses output from the comparison unit 170 with the predetermined reference time….”, para. [0092]-[0093]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 16 and 24, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to set the dead time as the preset minimum dead time when the calculated dead time is less than or equal to a preset minimum dead time (“The controller 180 may determine whether the measured on-time width is equal to or less than a predetermined reference time (S105). The controller 180 may compare an on-time width measured earliest among measured on-time widths with the predetermined reference time. That is, the controller 180 may compare a firstly output pulse among pulses output from the comparison unit 170 with the predetermined reference time….”, para. [0092]-[0093]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 17, 25, and 30 Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to set the dead time as the calculated dead time when the calculated dead time is greater than a preset minimum dead time (“The controller 180 may determine whether the measured on-time width is equal to or less than a predetermined reference time (S105). The controller 180 may compare an on-time width measured earliest among measured on-time widths with the predetermined reference time. That is, the controller 180 may compare a firstly output pulse among pulses output from the comparison unit 170 with the predetermined reference time….”, para. [0092]-[0093]). Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claim 18, Son teaches an upper plate (upper surface of 10 of FIG. 1) configured to support a cookware (1), wherein the controller (180) is further configured to adjust the dead time according to a type of the cooking container (“the controller 180 may set the on-time width according to the material of the cooking vessel. In this case, the controller 180 may determine the material of the cooking vessel according to the measured on-time width. The controller 180 may determine the material of the cooking vessel and recommend a cooking time, a cooking method and the intensity of a burner suitable for the material of the cooking vessel.”, para. [0102]. Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 19 and 27, Son teaches the controller (180) is further configured to: set the dead time as a first value when the cooking container is a first type of container; and set the dead time as a second value when the cooking container is a second type container different from the first type of container (“the controller 180 may set the on-time width according to the material of the cooking vessel. In this case, the controller 180 may determine the material of the cooking vessel according to the measured on-time width. The controller 180 may determine the material of the cooking vessel and recommend a cooking time, a cooking method and the intensity of a burner suitable for the material of the cooking vessel.”, para. [0102]. Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an induction heating cooktop and as all of the structural limitations are taught in the cited prior art, the aforementioned limitation is a functional limitation and accordingly is provided limited and/or no patentable weight. More specifically, as the aforementioned recitation is an intended us of the claimed structure, it is submitted that the structure must distinguish the prior art by more than mere function (see MPEP 2114 – ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”). With regard to claims 20 and 28, with regard to the limitations of the first type of container is made of a magnetic substance, and the second type of container is made of a non-magnetic substance, the first value is greater than the second value, it is submitted that the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit the apparatus claim (see MPEP 2115). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/277,194 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights