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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on April 24th 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden among the invention groups. This is not found persuasive because:
It is expressed that each invention group required different structural limitation; each different structural limitation required different search queries that not every invention group required to search, such that constituted search burden.
Furthermore, Invention group of system and Invention group of method even with similar cited limitation would still require different interpretation and patentable weight on cited limitation, therefore different search queries and different field of search is needed, such that would constitute search burden, and the different interpretation would also constitute examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-12, 15-27 and 30-33 are pending.
Claims 13-14 and 28-29 are cancelled.
Claims 15-27 and 30-33 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-12 are examined as follow:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
In claim 7, the limitation “…the magnetic field reduction comprises a design of a pair of induction heating circuits twisted around a central axis, wherein the pair of induction heating circuits have opposite current directions, and wherein a first induction heating circuit of the pair of induction heating circuits comprises the conductor and the susceptor…”, there is no drawing discloses that a magnetic field reduction has a pair of induction heating circuits, opposite current direction, and conductor or susceptor.
The cited limitation(s) above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “magnetic field reduction” in claims 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it does not use any placeholder and only with functional language “configured to reduce …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, there is not any structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is unclear the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “magnetic field reduction" has been described in Paragraph 0047 cited: “…magnetic field reduction 218 comprises shielding 228 surrounding susceptor 216 …”, as some kind of layered shielding material.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 7, the limitation of “…the magnetic field reduction comprises a design of a pair of induction heating circuits twisted around a central axis, wherein the pair of induction heating circuits have opposite current directions, and wherein a first induction heating circuit of the pair of induction heating circuits comprises the conductor and the susceptor…” is not described in the specification at all.
Claim 8-9 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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 7-9 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 7 is indefinite, the limitation “magnetic field reduction” invokes 112f in claim 1 as a layer of shielding material, but in claim 7 is cited as something that is has circuits, conductor, susceptor and even electrical current flowing different direction in it such as “…the magnetic field reduction comprises a design of a pair of induction heating circuits twisted around a central axis, wherein the pair of induction heating circuits have opposite current directions, and wherein a first induction heating circuit of the pair of induction heating circuits comprises the conductor and the susceptor…”, furthermore there is lack of disclosure of cited structure in the specification for “magnetic field reduction”, it is unclear how to interpretate this claim limitation. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, with the best understand of specification and drawing, as a person skilled in the art, Examiner assumed that such limitation is merely intended to be what the magnetic field reduction “a shielding layered material” is surrounding.
Claims 8-9 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazemi et al (US2018/0270909A1) herein set forth as Kazemi.
Regarding claim 1, Kazemi discloses an induction heating system (conductor #1 and #2, core #3 and #4, web/spacer #5 and wire #60 in fig.7A and B) comprising:
a conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A);
a susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) surrounding the conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A), the susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) having a Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited: “…The cores 3 and 4 may be made from a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) conductive polymer material…”, Examiner note: Curie temperature is a primary defining feature of PTC material); and
magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) configured to reduce magnetic fields escaping the induction heating system (heater cable #50, fig.7A and B) when the susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) is at the Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited above) independent of a layout of the induction heating system (heater cable #50, fig.7A and B) within an induction heating device (heater cable #50 fig.7A and B).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kazemi further discloses wherein the magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) is shielding surrounding (refer to wire #60 surrounding core #3 in fig.7A) the susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A).
Regarding claim 3, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a spiral (refer to the one or more wire #60 spiral setting on heater cable #50 in fig.7B) of conductive metal (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “The wire 60, for example, may be formed from electrically conductive metal”).
Regarding claim 4, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a braid (refer to the terms of “one or more” in one or more wire #60 on heater cable #50 in fig.7B) of conductive metal (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “The wire 60, for example, may be formed from electrically conductive metal”).
Regarding claim 5, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a foil (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “…may include one or more wires 60 wrapped on cores 3 and 4 instead of other conductive material options (e.g., conductive foil or conductive ink)…”) of conductive metal (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “The wire 60, for example, may be formed from electrically conductive metal”).
Regarding claim 6, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 2, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises copper or aluminum (refer to paragraph 0043 cited: “The conductive material 6 may, for example, be a conductive wire (e.g., copper wire, nickel coated copper wire, or any other applicable conductive wire), conductive foil (e.g., aluminum foil or any other applicable conductive, metal foil), or patterned conductive ink (e.g., which may be film-forming)”).
Regarding claim 10, Kazemi discloses an induction heating circuit (conductor #1 and #2, core #3 and #4, web/spacer #5 and wire #60 in fig.7A and B) comprising:
a conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A);
a susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) having a Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited: “…The cores 3 and 4 may be made from a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) conductive polymer material…”, Examiner note: Curie temperature is the primary defining feature of PTC material) surrounding the conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A); and
a shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) of conductive metal surrounding the susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) and the conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A) configured to reduce magnetic fields escaping the induction heating circuit (conductor #1 and #2, core #3 and #4, web/spacer #5 and wire #60 in fig.7A and B) when the susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) is at the Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited: “…The cores 3 and 4 may be made from a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) conductive polymer material…”, Examiner note: Curie temperature is the primary defining feature of PTC material).
Regarding claim 11, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 10, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a spiral (refer to the one or more wire #60 spiral setting on heater cable #50 in fig.7B) of conductive metal (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “The wire 60, for example, may be formed from electrically conductive metal”).
Regarding claim 12, Kazemi discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 10, Kazemi further discloses wherein the shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a braid (refer to the terms of “one or more” in one or more wire #60 on heater cable #50 in fig.7B) of conductive metal (refer to Paragraph 0059 cited: “The wire 60, for example, may be formed from electrically conductive metal”).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazemi et al (US2018/0270909A1) herein set forth as Kazemi.
Regarding claim 7, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Kazemi further discloses wherein the magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) comprises a design of a pair of induction heating circuits (referring to #1-5 in fig. 7A) twisted around a central axis (refer to the axis where #5 located), wherein the pair of induction heating circuits (referring to #1-5 in fig. 7A) have voltage potential (refer to paragraph 0003 cited:” … The bus wires are coupled to differing voltage supply levels to create a voltage potential between the bus wires…”), and wherein a first induction heating circuit (refer to #1 and #3 in fig. 7A) of the pair of induction heating circuits (referring to #1-5 in fig. 7A) comprises the conductor (conductor #1, fig.7A) and the susceptor (core #3, fig. 7A).
Kazemi does not specifically discloses the opposite current direction.
However, since Kazemi teaches the bus wires are coupled to differing voltage supply levels to create a voltage potential between the bus wires.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have try one of the voltage supply level that is having current that are different direction, because the possible combination of creating a voltage difference between two bus wire. In order to generate the desired voltage level that meet the requirement.
Regarding claim 8, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, Kazemi further discloses wherein the induction heating system (conductor #1 and #2, core #3 and #4, web/spacer #5 and wire #60 in fig.7A and B) comprises a bend (web #5, fig.7A) such that the pair of induction heating circuits (refer to conductor #1 and core #3 in fig.7A) is formed of the conductor (conductor #1, fig.7A) and the susceptor (core #3, fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 9, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, Kazemi further discloses wherein the pair of induction heating circuits (conductor #1 and #2, core #3 and #4, in fig.7A) further comprises a second induction heating circuit (refer to conductor #2 and core #4 in fig. 7A) comprising a second conductor (conductor #2, fig. 7A) and a second susceptor (core #4, fig. 7A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jenkins et al (US11956865B2) discloses a heating cable may teach all the limitation cited in the independent claims.
Jenkins (US2020/0187308A1) discloses another heating cable that may teach all the limitation cited in the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 22th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights