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 .
Interview
The interview conducted on July 16th 2026, and mailed out on July 21th 2026, Although during the interview, agreed that the proposed limitation overcame the rejection; however, further consideration, it is realized that the amended claim filed on July 16th 2026, has raised some new issues such as 112a, 112b, that caused the claim interpretation is changed, such that the art rejection is remained.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-12 and 34-41 are pending.
Claims 34-41 are newly added.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 10 are amended.
Claims 1-12 and 34-41 are examined as follow:
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 36, the preamble “An induction heating circuit …” should be changed to --An induction heating [[circuit]] system…--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 34-41 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 1, 10 and 36, the term “non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature” had raised enablement issue based on the interview discussion of how applicant interpret such limitation. Such term is more implying to what materials is being use to form the susceptor in the claims, therefore implying the use of non-ferromagnetic material, however, non-ferromagnetic material does not have a Curie temperature, because such non-ferromagnetic material does not undergo a ferromagnetic–paramagnetic phase transition. Therefore, raised enablement issue. Further explanation or disclosure is required.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 34-35 and 37- 41 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 1-12 and 34-41 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.
In claim 1, 10 and 36, the claims are indefinite, because of the amended term “non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature”, it is unclear that what actually is “non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature”, does it implying a non-ferromagnetic material having a curie temperature or it merely implying the temperature that would trigger the transition between ferromagnetic and paramagnetic phase transition. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, through best understanding of the specification, and as a person skilled in the art, Examiner assumed that such amendment is actually implying the similar term cited in the specification Paragraph 0045 cited: “…Curie temperature 220 is a temperature at which susceptor 216 becomes non-ferromagnetic …”.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 34-35 and 37- 41 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 previously cited) 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-#5, fig.7A) surrounding the conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A), the susceptor (cores #3-#5, fig.7A) having a non-ferromagnetic 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, when PTC in electrical conductive state, it also generate ferromagnetic field, and when in non-electrical conductive state, it become paramagnetic state and not generating a ferromagnetic field); and
a magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, and conductor #1 and #2 in fig. 7A and B) comprise at least one of a shielding (one or more wires #60 in fig.7A and B) and a pair of induction heating circuits (conductor #1 and #2 in fig.7A) that reduce magnetic fields escaping the induction heating system (heater cable #50, fig.7A and B) when the susceptor (cores #3-#5, fig.7A) is at the non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited above and the examiner note) 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, and conductor #1 and #2 in fig. 7A and B) comprises shielding (one or more wires #60 in fig.7A and B) surrounding (refer to wire #60 surrounding core #3 in fig.7A) the susceptor (cores #3-#5, 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 and #2 fig.7 A);
a susceptor (cores #3, fig.7A) having a non-ferromagnetic 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, when PTC in electrical conductive state, it also generate ferromagnetic field, and when in non-electrical conductive state, it become paramagnetic state and not generating a ferromagnetic field) surrounding the conductor (conductor #1 and #2 fig.7 A); and
a shielding (one or more wires #60, fig. 7A and B) of conductive metal surrounding the susceptor (cores #3-#5, fig.7A) and the conductor (conductor #1 and #2 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-#5, fig.7A) is at the non-ferromagnetic 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, when PTC in electrical conductive state, it also generate ferromagnetic field, and when in non-electrical conductive state, it become paramagnetic state and not generating a ferromagnetic field).
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”).
Regarding claim 34, 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 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 35, 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 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 36, 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-#5, fig.7A) surrounding the conductor (conductor #1 fig.7 A), the susceptor (cores #3-#5, fig.7A) having a non-ferromagnetic 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, when PTC in electrical conductive state, it also generate ferromagnetic field, and when in non-electrical conductive state, it become paramagnetic state and not generating a ferromagnetic field); and
a magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, and conductor #1 and #2 in fig. 7A and B) comprise at least one of a shielding (one or more wires #60 in fig.7A and B) and a pair of induction heating circuits (conductor #1 and #2 in fig.7A) that reduce magnetic fields escaping the induction heating system (heater cable #50, fig.7A and B) when the susceptor (cores #3-#5, fig.7A) is at the non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature (refer as “PTC material” in Paragraph 0042 cited above and the examiner note) 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).
Regarding claim 38, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 36, 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 39, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 38, Kazemi further discloses wherein the conductor (conductor #1, fig.7A) is formed of a single length (refer to the figure 7A, that conductor #1 is in full length in the figure) of conductor (conductor #1, fig.7A).
Regarding claim 40, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 38, Kazemi further discloses wherein susceptor (#3, fig.7A) is formed of a single length (refer to figure 7A, that susceptor #3 is in full length in the figure) of susceptor (#3, fig.7A).
Regarding claim 41, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 38, Kazemi further discloses wherein the pair of induction heating circuits (refer to conductor #1-#2, and susceptor #3-#5 in fig.7A) further comprises a second induction heating circuit (refer to conductor #2 and susceptor #4 in fig.7A) comprising a second conductor (refer to conductor #2 in fig.7A) and a second susceptor (refer to susceptor #4 in fig. 7A).
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.
Claims 7-9 and 37 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, and conductor #1 and #2 in fig. 7A and B) comprises the pair of induction heating circuits (refer to #1, #2, #3, #4 and #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).
Regarding claim 37, Kazemi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 36, Kazemi further discloses wherein the magnetic field reduction (one or more wires #60, and conductor #1 and #2 in fig. 7A and B) comprises the pair of induction heating circuits (refer to #1, #2, #3, #4 and #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 is limited and it would be obvious to try. In order to generate the desired voltage level difference that meet the design requirement.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 16th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 16th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112a: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 16th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112a in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised new 112a issue.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 16th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112b Rejection.
The applicant’s amendment filed on July 16th 2026 has raised new issue of claim objection.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed July 16th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…The Office Action cites the positive temperature coefficient conductive polymer material of Kazemi to show a Curie temperature. However, the claims as amended specify a non- ferromagnetic Curie temperature with regard to the claimed susceptor. Support for this important limitation can be found in the second to last sentence of paragraph [0045] of this application as originally filed. This claimed non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature narrowing means the claimed susceptor is ferromagnetic below its Curie temperature and non-ferromagnetic at (and above) its Curie temperature. In contrast to the claimed susceptor, every embodiment of Kazemi is polymer material (plastic). The positive temperature coefficient conductive polymer material of Kazemi has a phase transition Curie temperature when the polymer of Kazemi softens. A phase transition Curie temperature is not the same as, and does not disclose or suggest, the claimed non- ferromagnetic Curie temperature. In particular, the phase transition Curie temperature of Kazemi does not disclose or suggest the claimed non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature because the polymer material of Kazemi is not ferromagnetic to begin with and therefore cannot become non-ferromagnetic because it is a polymer (plastic) material. The positive temperature coefficient conductive polymer material of Kazemi cannot have a non-ferromagnetic Curie temperature because the polymer material of Kazemi cannot become non-ferromagnetic because it is not ferromagnetic at lower temperatures. Consequently, the Kazemi reference does not disclose every element of the present invention in claim 1 arranged in the manner recited in claim 1 because the positive coefficient conductive polymer material of Kazemi is not ferromagnetic to begin with and, therefore, cannot become non-ferromagnetic. In re Bond.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection(s) be withdrawn…”, Remark Page 5-6.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that the prior art of record clearly discloses a curie temperature, and such curie temperature would dedicate the Kazemi’s polymer material become conductive of electrical current or not, and when there is electrical current conducted, there is ferromagnetic field generated by the electrical current, no matter what material such conductive material is made of. Furthermore, PTC material is generating magnetic field when conducting electrical current, and there is no limitation cited in the claim to specifically restricting the susceptor to make of ferromagnetic material only.
The applicants argue: “…The Office Action rejected claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kazemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0270909). Applicant respectfully traverses the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection(s) in view of the amendments to the claims accompanied by the following observations and remarks…”, Remark Page 6.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above is mooted because the argument is already addressed in above response.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 August 17th 2026
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights