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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “cores arranged by a set for each coil” is unclear regarding the intended meaning as the language is grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the body portion is extended”; however, it is unclear which body portion is being referenced as the claim recites: “the non-edge core has a body portion” and “each of the edge cores arranged on both sides of the non-edge core in the width direction has a body portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the coil”; however, the claim recites “a pair of coils”, it is unclear whether the claimed “the coil” is “one of said pair of coils” or another coil. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their direct and/or indirect dependency from independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the non-edge core does not have the upstream-side leg portion and the downstream-side leg portion” is indefinite as claim 3 deletes structure that is required by claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetsu (US 10880958).
With regard to claim 1, Umetsu teaches transverse flux induction heating device (FIG. 1), comprising: a pair of coils (110/120) having at least one coil arranged on a front side and at least one coil (110/120) arranged on a rear side of a planned conveyance plane (plane direction along arrow pointing to right direction of FIG. 3) of a conductor sheet (S) to make alternating magnetic fields generated through energization of alternating currents in mutually the same direction intersect the planned conveyance plane (plane direction along arrow pointing to right direction of FIG. 3) of the conductor sheet (FIG. 3); and cores (130/140) arranged by a set for each coil (110/120; FIG. 3) forming the pair of coils (110/120; FIG. 3), wherein: the set of cores (130/140) arranged for each coil (110/120; FIG. 3) has a non-edge core (see annotated FIG. 3) arranged at a position including a center in a width direction (see annotated FIG. 3), and edge cores (see annotated FIG. 3) arranged on both sides of the non-edge core in the width direction; the width direction is a direction perpendicular to a conveyance direction (arrow pointing to right direction of FIG. 3) of the conductor sheet (S) and a facing direction of the coils (110/120); the non-edge core (see annotated FIG. 3) has a body portion and a center leg portion (see annotated FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Umetsu teaches each of the edge cores arranged on both sides of the non-edge core in the width direction has a body portion (see annotated FIG. 3), a center leg portion (see annotated FIG. 3), an upstream-side leg portion (see annotated FIG. 3), and a downstream-side leg portion (see annotated FIG. 3); the body portion is extended in the conveyance direction from a region on an upstream side in the conveyance direction of the coil to a region on a downstream side in the conveyance direction of the coil, on a back side of the coil; the back side is an opposite side to a side where the planned conveyance plane exists; the center leg portion is extended in a direction of the planned conveyance plane from the body portion to pass through a hollow portion of the coil; the upstream-side leg portion is extended in a direction of the planned conveyance plane from the body portion, on the upstream side of the coil; the downstream-side leg portion is extended in a direction of the planned conveyance plane from the body portion, on the downstream side of the coil; and an interval between the upstream-side leg portion and the downstream-side leg portion provided to the edge core and the planned conveyance plane, is shorter than an interval between a part of the non-edge core except for the center leg portion thereof and the planned conveyance plane.
With regard to claim 2, with regard to the limitation of an interval between the center leg portion provided to the non-edge core and the planned conveyance plane, is shorter than the interval between the part of the non-edge core except for the center leg portion thereof and the planned conveyance plane, it is submitted that the aforementioned limitation is not critical to the instant invention as claim 5 recites that the claimed interval is the same, and as such, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious change in size as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 4, Umetsu teaches the non-edge core has the upstream-side leg portion and the downstream-side leg portion (see annotated FIG. 3 above).
With regard to claim 5, with regard to the limitation of an interval between the center leg portion provided to the edge core and the planned conveyance plane, and the interval between the upstream-side leg portion and the downstream-side leg portion provided to the edge core and the planned conveyance plane, are the same, it is submitted that the aforementioned limitation is not critical to the instant invention as claim 2 recites that the claimed interval is the “shorter than” as claimed, and as such, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious change in size as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 6, Umetsu teaches the interval between the center leg portion provided to the edge core and the planned conveyance plane, and the interval between the center leg portion provided to the non-edge core and the planned conveyance plane, are the same (see annotated FIG. 3 above).
With regard to claim 7, Umetsu teaches in the set of cores, the non-edge core and two edge cores arranged on both sides of the non-edge core are an integrated core (see annotated FIG. 3 above in which the claimed cores are integral).
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
Prosecution Insights