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 .
Priority
The claim to priority aa a 371 filing of PCT/EP2022/061406, filed on April 28, 2022, which claims benefit to EP 21173462.9, filed on May 12, 2021 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 13, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” (Fig. 2 and 6) has been used to designate both “induction coil device” (Fig. 2) and “spring assembly” (Fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 16, the term “Induction coil device” recites in line 1 should be changed to “An induction coil device”
In claims 2-5, the term “Induction coil device” recites in line 1 should be changed to “The induction coil device”
In claim 6, the term “Induction cooking hob” recites in line 1 should be changed to “An induction cooking hob”
In claims 7-15, the term “Induction cooking hob” recites in line 1 should be changed to “The induction cooking hob”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP 2012-181959) (Cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Tanaka discloses a heating cooker having an induction coil device (6, Fig. 3; Par. 1) adapted to be interposed between a hob plate (2) and a support structure (Fig. 2; implicitly present on the bottom side of spring 70) of an induction cooking hob; the induction coil device comprising: an induction coil (64, 65, 66, Fig. 3); a support frame (coil base 61, Fig. 3) carrying the induction coil (64, 65, 66); a spring assembly having one or more spring elements (70, Fig. 6) configured to interact with the support structure and the support frame (61) and to force the support frame (61) towards the hob plate (2); and a plurality of spacer elements (67, Fig. 3 and 6) mounted to and protruding from the support frame (61) and adapted to abut against the hob plate (2) (Fig. 2-4 and 6; Par. 10-16 and 18).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses the support frame (61) comprises a plurality of housing seats (68c), each one carrying a respective one of the spacer elements (67) (Fig. 6; Par. 16).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses the housing seats (68c) are peripherally arranged (Fig. 4 and 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Tanaka discloses the spacer elements (67) are force fitted on the support frame (61) (Fig. 6; Par. 17).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses the spring assembly (70) is configured to exert a force on the support frame (61) into a force direction toward the hob plate (2) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses the force direction is normal to the support frame (61) and/or the hob plate (2) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses the support frame (61) comprises a plurality of housing seats (68c), each one carrying a respective spacer element (67) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses the housing seats (68c) are peripherally disposed (Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2012-181959) in view of Shi (CN 207350380) (new cited).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the support frame (61) except the support frame comprises one of more through-hole portions, each one carrying a respective through-hole configured to receive at least a portion of a respective pillar of the structure support, wherein each the spring element is configured to be fitted onto a respective one of the pillars and to abut against the respective through-hole portion and the support structure for exerting the force onto the support frame. Shi discloses the support frame (4) comprises one or more through hole (Fig. 1), each one carrying a respective through-hole configured to receive at least a portion of a respective pillar (502) of the support structure (1), wherein each the spring element (503) is configured to be fitted onto a respective one of the pillars (502) and to abut against the respective through-hole portion and the support structure (1) for exerting the force onto the support frame (4) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tanaka, the support frame comprises one of more through-hole portions, each one carrying a respective through-hole configured to receive at least a portion of a respective pillar of the structure support, wherein each the spring element is configured to be fitted onto a respective one of the pillars and to abut against the respective through-hole portion and the support structure for exerting the force onto the support frame, as taught by Shi, for the purpose of providing a support structure for the spring.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the support frame (61) except the support structure comprises a plurality of pillars and the support frame comprises a plurality of through-hole portions, each one carrying a respective through-hole; wherein a respective one of said pillars extends through a respective one of said through-holes; wherein each said spring element is fitted onto one of said respective pillars and abuts against the support structure and the associated through-hole portion for forcing the support frame towards the hob plate. Shi discloses the support structure (1) comprises a plurality of pillars (502) and the support frame (4) comprises a plurality of through-hole portions (Fig.1; the through-hole that pillar 502 goes through), each one carrying a respective through-hole; wherein a respective one of the pillars (502) extends through a respective one of the through-holes; wherein each said spring element (503) is fitted onto one of the respective pillars (502) and abuts against the support structure (1) and the associated through-hole portion for forcing the support frame (4) towards the hob plate (2) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tanaka, the support structure comprises a plurality of pillars and the support frame comprises a plurality of through-hole portions, each one carrying a respective through-hole; wherein a respective one of said pillars extends through a respective one of said through-holes; wherein each said spring element is fitted onto one of said respective pillars and abuts against the support structure and the associated through-hole portion for forcing the support frame towards the hob plate, as taught by Shi, for the purpose of providing a support structure for the spring.
Regarding claim 13, Shi discloses each the through-hole portion (Fig.1) is slidingly engaged with the respective pillar (502) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Shi discloses each the pillar (502) erects from a base of the support frame (4) and is interposed between the support surface (1) and the respective through-hole portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Shi discloses each the pillar (502) is integral to the base (1) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses Tanaka discloses a heating cooker having an induction coil device (6, Fig. 3; Par. 1) comprising: an induction coil (64, 65, 66); a support frame (coil base 61, Fig. 3) carrying the induction (64, 65, 66), the support frame comprising a plurality of housing seats (68c) disposed circumferentially adjacent to a perimeter of the support frame (61), and a plurality of through-hole portions (Fig. 6) also disposed circumferentially adjacent to the perimeter of the support frame (61), each the through-hole portion being associated in proximity with a respective one of the housing seats (68c) and having a through-hole therein; a plurality of spacers (67) received, respectively, in the housing heats (68c), extending upward therefrom and having respective terminal abutting surfaces facing upward and which together define a common plane (Fig. 6); a support structure (Fig. 2; implicitly present on the bottom side of spring 70) disposed beneath the support frame (61); a plurality of springs (70), thereby exerting a force that urges the support frame (61) away from the support structure (Fig. 2-4 and 6; Par. 10-16 and 18). Tanaka does not disclose the support structure disposed beneath the support frame, the support structure comprising a plurality of pillars extending upward perpendicular to the plane and being received, respectively, through the through holes in the through-hole portions of the support frame; a plurality of springs fitted over the pillars, respectively, whose opposing ends abut against the support structure and an underside of the respective through-hole portion of the support frame, thereby exerting a force that urges the support frame away from the support structure along a path parallel to the respective pillar and perpendicular to the plane. Shi discloses the support structure (1) disposed beneath the support frame (4), the support structure (1) comprising a plurality of pillars (502) extending upward perpendicular to the plane and being received, respectively, through the through holes in the through-hole portions (the through-hole that pillar 502 goes through) of the support frame (4); a plurality of springs (503) fitted over the pillars (502), respectively, whose opposing ends abut against the support structure (1) and an underside of the respective through-hole portion of the support frame (4), thereby exerting a force that urges the support frame (4) away from the support structure (1) along a path parallel to the respective pillar (502) and perpendicular to the plane (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Tanaka, the support structure disposed beneath the support frame, the support structure comprising a plurality of pillars extending upward perpendicular to the plane and being received, respectively, through the through holes in the through-hole portions of the support frame; a plurality of springs fitted over the pillars, respectively, whose opposing ends abut against the support structure and an underside of the respective through-hole portion of the support frame, thereby exerting a force that urges the support frame away from the support structure along a path parallel to the respective pillar and perpendicular to the plane, as taught by Shi, for the purpose of providing a support structure for the spring.
Regarding claim 17, combination of Tanaka/Shi discloses a cooking hob comprising a hob plate (2, Tanaka) and the induction coil device (6, Fig. 3; Tanaka) according to claim 16, wherein the support frame (61, Tanaka) carrying the induction coil (64, 65, 66, Tanaka) is sandwiched within an interspace between the support structure (Fig. 2; implicitly present on the bottom side of spring 70, Tanaka) and an underside surface of the hob plate (2, Tanaka), the pillars (502, Shi) extending perpendicular to the underside surface of the hob plate (2, Shi), the spring (503, Shi) urging the support frame (4) upward toward the underside surface so that all of the abutting surfaces of the plurality of spacers (67, Tanaka) abut against the underside surface such that the plane defined thereby is coplanar with the underside surface such that a gap defined between the induction coil (64, 65, 66, Tanaka) (3, Shi) and the underside surface is uniform (Tanaka, Fig. 2-4 and 6) (Shi, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights