DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 34-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 26 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of copending Application No. 18288898 (reference application). Each of the limitations of the pending case either is identical in language to or is anticipated by corresponding limitations in the reference case. This is because the limitations which differ in the reference case lie entirely within the scope of the pending claim. The noticeable differences between the limitation of the cases are as follows:
Claim 26 of the reference case states an intermediate heating element overlapping with the upper plate. This lies entirely within the scope of pending claim 1 which states an intermediate heating element installed on the upper plate, as the intermediate heating element must at least partially overlap with the upper plate to be installed on it.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pending claims
Reference claims
Claim 26: An induction heating type cooktop comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated;
an intermediate heating element overlapping with the upper plate;
a plurality of working coils including at least a first working coil and a second working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object or heating the intermediate heating element; and
an inverter configured to apply current to change a direction of current in at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil.
Claim 1: An induction heating type cooktop comprising:
an upper plate on which an object to be heated is placed;
an intermediate heating element installed on the upper plate;
a first working coil and a second working coil configured to generate magnetic fields passing through at least the object to be heated or the intermediate heating element; and
an inverter configured to control a first direction of first current flowing through the first working coil and a second direction of second current flowing through the second working coil,
wherein an area of a loop generated by current induced by the intermediate heating element varies according to types of the object to be heated.
Claim 32: The induction heating type cooktop according to claim 26, wherein, in a first operation mode, currents applied to the first working coil and the second working coil flow in a same direction, and wherein, in a second operation mode, the currents applied to the first working coil and the second working coil flow in different directions.
Claim 3: The induction heating type cooktop according to claim 1, wherein the inverter is configured to control the first direction and the second direction so that the loop is changed in size.
Claim 4: The induction heating type cooktop according to claim 3, wherein a first size of the loop generated in the intermediate heating element when the first direction and the second direction are different from each other is less than a second size of the loop generated in the intermediate heating element when the first direction and the second direction are the same.
Claim 5: The induction heating type cooktop according to claim 4, wherein the inverter is driven:
so that the first direction and the second direction are different from each other when the object to be heated is a magnetic body; and
so that the first direction and the second direction are the same when the object to be heated is a non-magnetic body.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) in view of KWACK (US 20190357320 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) an induction heating type cooktop (Figure 3, induction heating section 42) comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Figure 3 Paragraph 97, object 29 to be heated is placed on the plate 28);
an intermediate heating element overlapping with the upper plate (Figure 3 Paragraph 101, electrical conductor 27 is bounded to the bottom face of the plate 28);
working coil (heating coil 21) configured to generate magnetic fields that pass through at least one of the object (Paragraph 108, induction current is induced in the object 29 at least partially by heating coil 21) or the intermediate heating element (Paragraph 53, currents are induced in the electrical conductor);
a resonance capacitor (Paragraph 48, resonance capacitor component);
an inverter configured to apply current to at least one of the plurality of working coils (Paragraph 27, an inverter for generating a high-frequency current to drive the heating coil); and
a switch (Paragraph 27, high frequency components include a switching device).
Hirota fails to explicitly teach:
a plurality of working coils
a resonance capacitor configured to resonate with one or more of the plurality of working coils;
a switch configured to selectively connect at least one of the plurality of working coils to the inverter.
KWACK (US 20190357320 A1) teaches an induction heating device having improved control algorithm, comprising:
a plurality of working coils configured to generate magnetic fields that pass through at least one of the object (Paragraph 7, plurality of working coil regions such as to inductively heat an object) or the intermediate heating element
a resonance capacitor configured to resonate with one or more of the plurality of working coils (Paragraph 63, each working coil is connected to at least one resonant capacitor; Paragraph 71, resonant capacitor set resonate such that the current flowing through the working coil increases);
a switch (relays) configured to selectively connect at least one of the plurality of working coils to the inverter (Figure 4 Paragraph 96, relay to connect one end of the second working coil to the second current transformer; Figure 4, current transformer is connected to the inverter IV)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KWACK and have induction heating device comprise a plurality of working coils. This would have been done to allow an object to be inductively heated regardless of the size and position of the objection (KWACK Paragraph 7).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having induction heating element comprise a plurality of working coils instead of one has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KWACK and have the resonance capacitor resonate with the working coil. This would have been done to cause the current flowing through the working coil to increase (KWACK Paragraph 64).
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KWACK and a switch selectively connect the working coil to the inverter. This would have been done allow the direction of the currents to be reversed which allows heating to be concentrated in specific regions (KWACK Paragraphs 98 and 104).
Regarding claim 19, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 18.
KWACK further teaches:
the plurality of working coils include:
a first working coil having one end connected to the inverter and another end connected to the switch (Figure 4, WC1 wherein the relay R1 end is connected to one end of WC1 and the other end is connected to IV1 through CT1); and
a second working coil configured to be selectively connected to the first working coil according to a state of the switch (Figure 4 Paragraph 68, R1 selectively connects WC2 to the second current transformer CT2 or one end of the first working coil WC1).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 19.
KWACK further teaches:
the switch includes a first switch and a second switch (R1 and R2),
wherein the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil and the second working coil with each other and to disconnect the second working coil from the first working coil (Figure 4 Paragraph 68, R1 selectively connects WC2 to the second current transformer CT2 or one end of the first working coil WC1), and
wherein the second switch is configured to connect the second working coil and the resonance capacitor with each other and to disconnect the second working coil from the resonance capacitor (Paragraph 71, second relay R2 selectively connects the second working coil WC2 to the other end of the first working coil WC1 which connects it to resonant capacitor C1 by connecting it in parallel with WC1).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 18.
Regarding claim 26, Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) teaches an induction heating type cooktop (Figure 3, induction heating section 42) comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Figure 3 Paragraph 97, object 29 to be heated is placed on the plate 28);
an intermediate heating element overlapping with the upper plate (Figure 3 Paragraph 101, electrical conductor 27 is bounded to the bottom face of the plate 28);
working coil (heating coil 21) configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object (Paragraph 108, induction current is induced in the object 29 at least partially by heating coil 21) or heating the intermediate heating element (Paragraph 53, currents are induced in the electrical conductor); and
an inverter configured to apply current to at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil (Paragraph 27, an inverter for generating a high-frequency current to drive the heating coil).
Hirota fails to explicitly teach:
a plurality of working coils including at least a first working coil and a second working coil
an inverter configured to apply current to change a direction of current in at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil
KWACK (US 20190357320 A1) teaches an induction heating device having improved control algorithm, comprising:
a plurality of working coils including at least a first working coil and a second working coil (Paragraph 7, plurality of working coil regions such as to inductively heat an object)
an inverter configured to apply current to change a direction of current in at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil (Paragraphs 98-104, direction of current through the working coils can be inverted).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KWACK and have induction heating device comprise a plurality of working coils. This would have been done to allow an object to be inductively heated regardless of the size and position of the objection (KWACK Paragraph 7).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having induction heating element comprise a plurality of working coils instead of one has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KWACK and have the inverter change the direction of current of at least one of the first and second working coils. This would have been done selectively change heating concentration position of the working coils (KWACK Paragraphs 98-104).
Regarding claim 27, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 26.
KWACK further teaches:
a direction of current flowing through one of the first working coil and the second working coil remains constant, and wherein the direction of current in the at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil is variable (Figures 4-7 Paragraphs 98-105, direction of current flowing through WC1 is constant but the relays R1 and R2 adjust the direction of current through WC2).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 27.
KWACK further teaches:
a switch configured to change the direction of the current flowing in the at least one of the first working coil and the second working coil (Paragraphs 98-104, direction of current through the working coils can be inverted by means of first and second relays R1 and R2).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 29, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 27.
KWACK further teaches:
the inverter is configured to be driven at a constant operation frequency (Paragraphs 98-104, first and second working coils are driven at a constant frequency; Paragraphs 55-57, frequency is applied from the first inverter to the first working coil; inverter is capable of being driven at a constant operation frequency) while an output is changed based on whether the second working coil is activated or deactivated (Paragraphs 98-104, heating region changes based on the phase difference of the current flowing through the WC2; Paragraph 83, control unit determines whether or not to individually operate the first working coil wherein deactivating the second working coil would adjust the output heating profile).
It would be obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 30, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 29.
KWACK further teaches:
when a direction of current flowing through the second working coil is different from a direction of current flowing through the first working coil, the object is heated at a first power output level (Paragraph 104, the first working coil WC1 is driven out-of-phase by 180 degrees from a phase of the second working coil such that the heat-concentrated region of the object may correspond to the region between the working coils)
Hirota as modified does not explicitly state “when the second working coil is deactivated, the object is heated at a second power output level that is less than the first power output level, and wherein, when the direction of the current flowing through the second working coil is the same as the direction of the current flowing through the first working coil, the object is heated at a third power output level that is less than the second power output level.” However, MPEP 1211.04.II notes that the “ the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met… The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur”. KWACK teaches of a first control unit which controls operations of various components including a first inverter and a second control unit which controls operations of various components including a second inverter (KWACK Paragraph 39). The control units allow a user to input a target heating intensity as well as whether the coils are operating individually or concurrently, wherein the control units control the inverters and relays based on said inputs (KWACK Paragraphs 75, 77-78, and 82). Thus, Hirota as modified provides sufficient structure for varying the heat output to the object based on user input and for adjusting individually/concurrent operation for the coils, and therefore also provides sufficient structure for the contingent limitation “when the second working coil is deactivated, the object is heated at a second power output level that is less than the first power output level, and wherein, when the direction of the current flowing through the second working coil is the same as the direction of the current flowing through the first working coil, the object is heated at a third power output level that is less than the second power output level.”
It would be obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 31, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 27.
KWACK further teaches:
a composite inductance of the plurality of working coils varies based on a state of the second working coil (Figure 7, composite inductance of the plurality of working coils varies based on whether the coils are positioned in parallel with each other as the formula for parallel coils is 1/Lt = 1/L1 + 1/L2; when the coils are positioned in parallel, the composite inductance of WC1 and WC2 decrease compared to when current is only flowing through WC1).
It would be obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 32, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 26.
KWACK further teaches:
in a first operation mode, currents applied to the first working coil and the second working coil flow in a same direction (Paragraph 98, the directions of the currents to and from the first and second working coils WC1 and WC2 are the same under a first operation mode), and wherein,
in a second operation mode, the currents applied to the first working coil and the second working coil flow in different directions (Paragraph 104, the directions of the currents to and from the first and second working coils WC1 and WC2 are the out of phase by 180 degrees under a second operation mode; Paragraph 104, directions of the current to/from the first and second working coils may be switched).
It would be obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
Regarding claim 33, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 32.
KWACK further teaches:
in a third operation mode, only the first working coil is activated and the second working coil is deactivated (Paragraph 83, second control unit 320 may determine whether to operate the second working coil WC2 individually based on individual coil-based object detection result; Paragraph 85,when no object is detected on the second working coil the second working coil is not driven).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 26.
The Office further notes that the use of bypass relays to selectively bypass coils is known in the art to be beneficial for controlling the amount of current output for magnetic compared with nonmagnetic containers as evidenced by KWON (KR 0176838 B1).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) in view of KWACK (US 20190357320 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bassill (US 20190357321 A1) and SON (US 20190327794 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 20.
Hirota as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil to a first point between the second working coil and the second switch or to a second point between the second working coil and the first switch, and wherein
the second switch is configured to connect the resonance capacitor to the first point or the second point.
Bassill (US 20190357321 A1) teaches a multicoil induction warming system for cooking, wherein:
two coils placed in parallel with one another can be placed in series with another set of coils (Figure 10)
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with Bassill and have additional coils be placed in series with the ones in parallel as seen in Figure 11 of KWACK. This would have been done as the number and combination of working coils is not limited and can be adjusted based on the number, type, or configuration of cooking vessels (Bassill Paragraph 50).
Hirota modified with Bassill fails to explicitly teach:
the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil to a first point between the second working coil and the second switch or to a second point between the second working coil and the first switch, and wherein
the second switch is configured to connect the resonance capacitor to the first point or the second point.
SON (US 20190327794 A1) teaches an induction heating device, wherein:
the plurality of working coils (Figure 10, WC2 and a coil positioned in series with WC2 and WC1) include:
a first working coil (Figure 10, an additional coil positioned in series between current transformer CT and the parallel circuit formed by WC1 and WC2; Bassill teaches of choosing to have coils in series with parallel coils based on configuration of cooking vessels and thus adding an additional coil in series would be obvious; for clarity of reference the new coil will be referred to as CoilCT as said coil would be positioned where the current transformer is located in Figure 10 of Son currently; the Office notes that CoilCT does not replace current transformer CT but would merely be positioned in series with the left end connected to current transformer CT and the right end connected to the node of R3/WC1/R1) having one end connected to the inverter and another end connected to the switch (Figure 10, one end of CoilCT would be connected to current transformer CT/inverter IV and the other end would be connected to node connecting R3/R1 and WC1); and
a second working coil configured to be selectively connected to the first working coil according to a state of the switch (Figure 11 Paragraph 77, first relay R1 may selectively connect one end of WC2 to CoilCT)
the switch includes a first switch (relays R1 and R3) and a second switch (relays R4 and R2),
wherein the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil and the second working coil with each other and to disconnect the second working coil from the first working coil (Figure 11-12 Paragraph 77, relays R1 and R3 is configured to determine which end of the first working coil CoilCT and second working coil WC2 are connected to each other, if any, and thus determines whether WC1 and Wc2 are connected to one another), and
wherein the second switch is configured to connect the second working coil and the resonance capacitor with each other and to disconnect the second working coil from the resonance capacitor (Figures 11-12 Paragraph 146, relay R4 selectively connects one end of the second working coil WC2 to the second resonant capacitor set; relays R4 and R2 determine which end of the second working coil WC2 is connected to resonant capacitor C2, if any)
the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil to a first point between the second working coil and the second switch (Figure 12, R3 is configured to connect the CoilCT to a point between WC2 and R2 located at the right end of WC2) or to a second point between the second working coil and the first switch (Figure 11, R1 is configured to connect the CoilCT to a point between WC2 and R3 located at the left end of WC2), and wherein
the second switch is configured to connect the resonance capacitor to the first point or the second point (Figure 11-12, R4 and R2 are configured to selectively connect C2 to either end of WC2).
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with SON and have the circuit be arranged in such a manner. This would have been done as the said circuit arrangement is an analogous arrangement which also allows the current flowing through WC1 and WC2 to be inverted and to facilitate heating a desired target area (SON Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding claim 22, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 21.
SON further teaches:
in a first operation mode, the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil to the second point, and the second switch is configured to connect the resonance capacitor to the first point (Figure 11, relay R1 connects the right end of CoilCT to the left end of WC2 and relay R2 connects capacitor C2 with the right end of WC2), and wherein,
in a second operation mode, the first switch is configured to connect the first working coil to the first point, and the second switch is configured to connect the resonance capacitor to the second point (Figure 12, relay R3 connects the right end of CoilCT to the right end of WC2 and relay R4 connects capacitor C2 with the left end of WC2).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 22.
SON further teaches:
in a third operation mode, the first switch and the second switch are configured to connect both of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor to the first point at a same time or connect both of the first working coil and the resonance capacitor to the second point at the same time (Paragraph 148, control unit may operate the coils concurrently or individually by controlling the operations of inverter and the first to fourth relays based on user input; having either the relays R3 and R2, or the relays R4 and R1, be connected to the first or second point at the same time would allow the CoilCT to operate individually without WC1 or WC2 activating; one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have automatically controlled said relays to allow CoilCT to operate individually to facilitate the functionally taught by Son).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 21.
The Office further notes that the use of bypass relays to selectively bypass coils is known in the art to be beneficial for controlling the amount of current output for magnetic compared with nonmagnetic containers as evidenced by KWON (KR 0176838 B1).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) in view of KWACK (US 20190357320 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of KIM (KR 102057515 B1).
Regarding claim 24, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 19.
Hirota fails to teach:
the first working coil is disposed inside the second working coil, and wherein a number of turns of the second working coil is less than a number of turns of the first working coil.
KIM (KR 102057515 B1) teaches an induction heating cooker, wherein:
the first working coil is disposed inside the second working coil (Figures 5-6 Paragraph 19, first induction coil 111 is disposed inside second induction coil 112; Figure 7, said coils are connected in parallel), and
wherein a number of turns of the second working coil is less than a number of turns of the first working coil (Figures 5-6, internal coils have six turns while outer coils have five turns).
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with KIM and have the first working coil be disposed inside a second working coil wherein the number of outer working coils is less than the number of inner coils. This would have been done to facilitate having repulse force act on the ends of a cooking vessel such as to force to position the cooking vessel in the center of the induction heating cooker (KIM Paragraph 34).
The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that the inductance of each working coil is determined by the number of windings and thus adjusting the number of windings for each coil based on desired heating patterns is known to be beneficial for achieving said different heating patterns or temperatures as evidenced by Paragraph 54 of Bassill (US 20190357321 A1).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (US 20040245244 A1) in view of KWACK (US 20190357320 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Bassill (US 20190357321 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Hirota as modified teaches the induction heating type cooktop according to claim 19.
KWACK further teaches:
the first working coil and the second working coil are disposed side by side and spaced apart from each other (Figure 8, WC1 and WC2 are disposed side by side)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Hirota as modified fails to explicitly teach:
wherein a number of turns of the first working coil is equal to a number of turns of the second working coil.
Bassill (US 20190357321 A1) teaches a multicoil induction warming system for cooking, wherein:
wherein a number of turns of the first working coil is equal to a number of turns of the second working coil (Paragraph 54, inductance of each working coil is the same; Paragraph 54, the inductance of each working coil is primarily determined by the number of windings of the working coil; thus the number of windings of each working coil would be the same to achieve the inductance of each working coil being the same)
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirota with Bassill and have the number of windings or turns for each of the working coils to be same. This would be done such that the inductance of each working coil is the same (Bassill Paragraph 54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights