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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 March 2026.
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 1-11 and 21 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 the limitation "the plurality of induction coils" in lines 7, 9, 11, and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of induction coils" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the coil assembly" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 sets forth “the plurality of coil assemblies” and not an individual assembly which makes the recitation of the coil assembly as a singular unclear and indefinite because it is unclear if it is one of the plurality set forth above.
Claim 3 includes a duplicate recitation of “two coil assemblies” without tying it directly to the plurality of coil assemblies set forth already in claim 1. It should be made clear if these are new assemblies or part of the coil assemblies set forth in claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the plurality of coils" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-11 are rejected due to being dependent from claim 1 and containing the indefinite limitations described above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20180160854) in view of Ortin (US 20120321761) and further in view of. Bassill (US 20190357321).
Regarding claim 1, Jennings discloses An induction heating system for a first food vessel of a first size and a second food vessel of a second size (Figure 2 shows a heating system capable of mounting multiple vessels (62C) with one in each module (36) where each vessel can include an induction heater (Par. 0034)), comprising:
a base defining a well configured to separately receive the first food vessel and the second food vessel (Figure 6 shows a well 74 in each module where Figure 2 shows each heating system containing multiple modules 36 where each can be its own well);
a tray configured to attach within the well (Figure 2, item 62C);
a plurality of coil assemblies mounted to a bottom side of the tray (Figure 6 shows two heating elements on the support surface 72A described in paragraph 0034), and
the plurality of induction coils are electrically coupled with an inverter of the induction heating system (in order for an induction coil to operate, an inverter must be present in the system).
However, Jennings does not explicitly disclose
each of the plurality of induction coils defines an oblong shape having a length and a width;
each of the plurality of induction coils is arranged adjacent to at least one other of the plurality of induction coils along a longest side of the induction coil; and
a sensing system configured to indirectly measure a temperature of the first food vessel when the first food vessel is resting in the well and the second food vessel when the second food vessel is resting in the well; and
a controller communicatively coupled with the sensing system and the inverter, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive the temperature measurement from the sensing system; and
control the inverter according to the measurement.
Jennings and Ortin are analogous prior art because both describe induction cooktops with multiple coils. Ortin teaches a plurality of induction coils defines an oblong shape having a length and a width (Figure 1, items 6A-6D shows multiple induction coils with oval shapes); each of the plurality of induction coils is arranged adjacent to at least one other of the plurality of induction coils along a longest side of the induction coil (Figure 1 shows each coil being oriented adjacent the other such that the longest sides are adjacent each other). Ortin describes that the oval shape and orientation provides regular cover over a large surface and particularly impressive cooking results (Par. 0017) and provides almost complete heating for the entire surface (Par. 0048). As both Jennings and Ortin provide long large flat surfaces for the induction cooktop intended to use multiple coils for a single item, the shapes and orientation of Ortin would provide predictable results as the coils of Jennings. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the oval shaped coils arranged with their longest sides adjacent each other because the orientation provides regular cover over a large surface and particularly impressive cooking results (Par. 0017) and provides almost complete heating for the entire surface (Par. 0048) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
However, Jennings in view of Ortin does not explicitly teach a sensing system configured to indirectly measure a temperature of the first food vessel when the first food vessel is resting in the well and the second food vessel when the second food vessel is resting in the well; and a controller communicatively coupled with the sensing system and the inverter, wherein the controller is configured to: receive the temperature measurement from the sensing system; and control the inverter according to the measurement.
Jennings in view of Ortin and Bassill are analogous prior art because both describe induction cooktops. Bassill teaches a sensing system (Sensors 154 may include one or more sensors to measure operation of the inductive warmer/cooker as described in paragraph 0043) configured to indirectly measure a temperature of the first food vessel when the first food vessel is resting in the well and the second food vessel when the second food vessel is resting in the well (Paragraph 0043 describes that a thermistor may sense the temperature of the food vessels); and a controller communicatively coupled with the sensing system and the inverter (Paragraph 0041 describes a control system that includes the sensors and controls the inverter as described in paragraph 0040), wherein the controller is configured to: receive the temperature measurement from the sensing system (Par. 0041 describes that the controller receives the temperature sensor data); and control the inverter according to the measurement (Paragraphs 0041 and 0047 describes that the system controls the power to the system according to the sensed temperature). The sensing and control system of Bassill allows for the cooktop to more accurately and consistently maintain the desired temperature as it senses the temperature, compares it to the desired set point, and then controls the heaters to achieve the desired temperature as described in paragraphs 0041-0042. As Jennings in view of Ortin uses a multiple coil cooktop and Bassill shows the control system being usable for multiple coil cooktops (Figures 14-17) and describes the system is used with chafing pans (Figure 18), the control system and sensing system of Bassill would provide predictable results if implemented for each module of Jennings in view of Ortin. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control system and sensing system of Bassill in each module of Jennings in view of Ortin because the control and sensing system allows for accurate and precise automatic control of the heating (see above) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, the current embodiment does not explicitly teach the tray being non-ferrous. Bassill teaches that a heating blanket can be added to the system to allow for use with aluminum non-ferrous cooking elements and describes using an aluminum pan (Par. 0038). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heating blanket and aluminum cookware in addition to the inductive heating system because it allows for the use of a larger variety of cooking mechanisms. Further, as both systems use induction systems, the heating blanket and aluminum pan of Bassill would provide predictable results in the system of Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20180160854) in view of Ortin (US 20120321761) and further in view of. Bassill (US 20190357321) with Shubitidze (US 20210251053) provided as evidence.
Regarding claim 3, Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill teaches the claimed invention and the system having two coil assemblies (Jennings Figure 2 shows up to five different modules for the system with them being replaceable with other types. As such, it is possible to have two modules of Figure 6 and as such two coil assemblies) except for the system having three coils for each assembly. Shubitidze shows that for systems that use multiple coils on a flat surface, the number of rows and number of coils can be selected based on the preferred size of the heating surface and the preferred performance considerations (Par. 0019). As Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill already shows a flat cooktop with multiple coil assemblies, this reasoning would also apply. As such, the number of coils for each arrangement and each coil assembly is a result effective variable with the result being a preferred size of the heating surface and the preferred performance considerations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have three coils for each coil assembly, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20180160854) in view of Ortin (US 20120321761) and further in view of Bassill (US 20190357321) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 20220201808).
Regarding claim 4, Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of coil assemblies is electrically coupled with a separate inverter. Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill and Han are analogous prior art because both describe induction systems with multiple coils in an arrangement. Han teaches using a single inverter for each of the heating coil groups (Par. 0040). Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill does not describe the inverters used for the coils so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to select a suitable arrangement for the inverters. As both Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill and Kang describe induction cooking systems with multiple coils and shows multiple working groups for the coils with each of the modules of Jennings being a working group and a coil assembly, the inverter arrangement providing a single inverter for each working group and coil arrangement would provide predictable results in the system of Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single inverter for each coil assembly as described in Han in the system of Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20180160854) in view of Ortin (US 20120321761) and further in view of. Bassill (US 20190357321) with Alfredeen (US 20060124631) provided as evidence.
Regarding claim 21, Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill teaches the claimed invention except for the width of each coil being at or less than 3.5 inches and each coil having 20 or fewer turns. Jennings in view of Ortin and further in view of Bassill and Alfredeen because both describe the use of induction heating coils. Alfredeen describes that the number of turns in the coil and the diameter of the coil wire are important for determining the accurate heating effectiveness of the coils (Pars. 0051-0052). As such, the diameter (and thereby width) of each coil and the number of turns are both result effective variables for an induction coil with the result being the heating intensity and effectiveness of the coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width of each coil being at or less than 3.5 inches and each coil having 20 or fewer turns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 requires a specific distribution of the ferrite density in each coil assembly that was not found or disclosed in any prior art found. Ablah (US 5954984) describes that ferrite powder increases magnetic fluid density but does not describe varying the ferrite density or the specific arrangement required in claim 2.
Claim 5 requires the two trays having two separate food vessel depths for the system which is not shown in the prior art. Jennings shows a module with a single depth and does not show the use of multiple different types of trays or systems with different tray depths. As induction coils are very dependent on the distance from the surface to be heated, it is unclear if the system of Jennings would be capable of operating with different trays of different depths. Further, no other prior art was found that provided that capability or suggested the use of multiple depth systems. A majority of the other prior art cited used cooking implements that are set directly on the induction surface so there is no variation of the depth of the cooking implement in a similar way to the trays of Jennings.
Claim 8 requires a controller that determines a location of the two food vessels, select which food vessel is present under which sensor and coil assembly and control the coils specifically based on which vessel is located under which coil assembly. Bassill uses temperature sensors as described above to determine the temperature of the vessel but does not provide any capability to determine what vessel or size is present from such measurements. Yun (US 20180168005) describes a position sensing unit on a larger coil array (Pars. 0103-0105) and describes a temperature sensing unit but does not describe the temperature unit playing any part in sensing the vessel or show the determination of the type of vessel placed on the system. Similarly, Han (US 20220201808) describes the sensing of a vessel position (Pars. 0102-0104) but again does not include a temperature measurement in this determination or provide a selection from the size of different pans or cooking implements.
Claim 19 includes similar limitations to the discussion of claims 2 and 8 above where the different vessel sizes are required and the controller limitations for the determined well location and width are required. As with the descriptions above, the prior art found does not teach or disclose these limitations.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are listed as allowable subject matter due to being dependent from claims 5 and 8. Claim 20 is allowable due to being dependent from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights