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 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/15/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/25/2023 and 1/4/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 12, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “embroidering process” in line 8. For clarity of the claim, the limitation should be recited as “said embroidering process” since it is previously recited.
Claim 4 recites “said same continuous woven fabric” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, the limitation should be recited as “said flexible woven fabric” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 5 recites “only feed lines” two times in line 1 and 2. For clarity of the claim, the limitation should be recited as “only said feed lines” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 12 recites “said coupling” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a coupling” since it is the first recitation of the claim limitation.
Claim 21 depends from claim 1. All of the limitations previously recited in claim 1 should be recited as “said” limitation. For example, the claim should be recited as: “A method for producing [[a]]said support structure for said induction cooktop according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
providing [[a]]said flexible woven fabric as [[a]]said planar and flat support having said two surfaces,
mounting or securing said antennas and/or said sensors at least on one said side or surface of said support by means of said embroidering processes,
mounting or securing said feed lines for said antennas and/or said sensors on said support by means of said embroidering processes, wherein said feed lines cross each other or said antennas and/or said sensors on said same surface of said support and wherein said feed lines are electrically insulated from one another when doing so.”
Claim 23 recites “embroidering process” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, the limitation should be recited as “said embroidering process” since it is previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “one said protruding region sticking out from an outer edge of said support by a length of between 5% and 20%.” It is unclear what the range is the length of in a percentage. Is between 5-20% of the length of the total support length or of the fabric or what?
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 1-5, 8-11, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetze et al. US 20160302263.
Regrading claim 1, Goetze discloses:
wherein said support structure (Fig 6: 40) is formed in a planar and flat manner and has:
a flexible woven fabric (13 is a textile support) as a planar and flat support having two surfaces,
antennas and/or sensors (multiple 35s) on said support,
wherein said antennas and/or said sensors are mounted or secured as lines at least on one side or on one surface of said support by means of embroidering processes (Par 30: sensors are lines and have electrical connections which are stitched to the support (Par 40)),
said antennas and/or said sensors have feed lines (31), wherein said feed lines are mounted or secured on said support by means of embroidering processes (Par 30: sensors have electrical connections which are stitched to the support (Par 40)),
wherein said feed lines cross each other or said lines of said antennas and/or said sensors on said same surface of said support and are electrically insulated from one another when doing so (Fig 4: 36 and 31 cross each other),
a thermal stability of ≥200°C (Par 37: Textile part 13 is fiber and woven which is for temperatures of 250°C to 270°C),
wherein said support structure (Fig 9: 40) is arranged on a planar and flat retainer (53) and thus, together with said antennas and/or said sensors, directly or indirectly abuts an underside of said cooktop plate (51).
Regrading claim 2, Goetze discloses:
wherein at least one induction heating coil (Fig 9: 47) for inductively heating a cooking vessel placed on said cooktop plate is arranged below said support structure,
at least one said antenna and/or at least one said sensor extending, by less than an entire surface area, over said induction heating coil or projecting beyond said induction heating coil sideways or radially outward at least in part (35 extends less than the entire surface area of the induction heating coil).
Regrading claim 3, Goetze discloses:
wherein at least two said antennas and/or said sensors are mounted on said same surface of said support (Fig 6 35 is mounted on the same surface of the support).
Regrading claim 4, Goetze discloses:
wherein said support has at least one protruding region sticking out from said support, said protruding region being formed from said same continuous woven fabric as of said support, a portion of said feed lines or said antennas or said sensors being mounted or secured on said protruding region (Fig 6: Protruding regions 15 of the fabric of 40 that protrudes out and wires are on the protruding region).
Regrading claim 5, Goetze discloses:
wherein either only feed lines to said antennas or only feed lines to one said sensor are mounted or secured on one said protruding region (Fig 6: Protruding regions 15 of the fabric of 40 that protrudes out and wires are on the protruding region).
Regrading claim 8, Goetze discloses:
wherein said feed lines or said antennas and/or said sensors are formed from uninterrupted wire and form said lines of said antennas and/or said sensors (Fig 6: 35 and the connection lines are from one line and wire).
Regrading claim 9, Goetze discloses:
wherein said antennas and/or said sensors and said feed lines are each formed from joint uninterrupted wire (Fig 6: 35 and the connection lines are from one line and wire), said wire being a single conductor and not a multi-strand conductor (Par 9: Wire is mono-filament).
Regrading claim 10, Goetze discloses:
wherein said wire has a thermally stable lacquer coating as electrical insulation, said lacquer coating having a thermal stability of at least 200°C (Par 47: wire is coated and the thermal rating is of 250°C to 270°C).
Regrading claim 11, Goetze discloses:
wherein at least one said sensor and/or at least one said antenna has, as a line, two said wires extending in parallel (Fig 2: 33 extend parallel).
Regrading claim 21, Goetze discloses:
providing a flexible woven fabric (Fig 6: 13 is a textile support) as a planar and flat support having two surfaces,
mounting or securing antennas and/or sensors (multiple 35s) at least on one side or surface of said support by means of embroidering processes (Par 30: sensors are lines and have electrical connections which are stitched to the support (Par 40)),
mounting or securing feed lines (31) for said antennas and/or said sensors on said support by means of embroidering processes (Par 30: sensors have electrical connections which are stitched to the support (Par 40)),
wherein said feed lines cross each other or said antennas and/or said sensors on said same surface of said support (Fig 4: 36 and 31 cross each other) and
wherein said feed lines are electrically insulated from one another when doing so (Par 37: Textile part 13 is fiber and woven which is for temperatures of 250°C to 270°C),
Regrading claim 22, Goetze discloses:
wherein at least two said antennas and/or said sensors are mounted on said same surface of said support (Fig 6 35 is mounted on the same surface of the support).
Regrading claim 24, Goetze discloses:
wherein at least one said feed line to at least one said antenna and/or to at least one said sensor is mounted or secured on a protruding region(Fig 6: Protruding regions 15 of the fabric of 40 that protrudes out and wires are on the protruding region).
Regrading claim 25, Goetze discloses:
wherein, once said support structure is complete or finished, said at least one feed line is detached from said protruding region again and is placed back on said support or said support structure and is also secured thereon (Fig 6: Protruding regions 15 of the fabric of 40 that protrudes out and wires are on the protruding region).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetze et al. US 20160302263.
Regrading claim 6, Goetze discloses:
wherein said support has a plurality of said protruding regions for said feed lines to said sensor in an outer region of said support (Fig 6: Multiple protruding regions of the fabric of 40 that protrudes out and 35 are on the protruding region),
However, Goetze is silent as to:
one said protruding region sticking out from an outer edge of said support by a length of between 5% and 20%.
However, there is no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range. The courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have protruding region sticking out by a length that has a range of 5% to 20% if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the most optimum length.
Claims 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetze et al. US 20160302263 in view of Clothier US 20020008632.
Regrading claim 13, Goetze discloses all of the above limitations. However, Goetze is silent as to:
wherein said antennas are formed as NFC antennas or RFID antennas.
From the same field of endeavor, Clothier teaches:
wherein said antennas are formed as NFC antennas or RFID antennas (Fig 1: 38 is an RFID reading apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Goetze’s sensor to be RFID and connected to a controller as taught by Clothier to identify what item is being heated and can have a pre-programed heating algorithm to heat the object (Par 52).
Regrading claim 14, Goetze discloses all of the above limitations. However, Goetze is silent as to:
wherein said sensors are formed as FOD sensors for detecting objects or items on said cooktop plate above said support structure, said FOD sensors being formed as coils formed by a single wire.
From the same field of endeavor, Clothier teaches:
wherein said sensors are formed as FOD sensors for detecting objects or items on said cooktop plate above said support structure, said FOD sensors being formed as coils formed by a single wire (Fig 1: 38 is an RFID reading apparatus that detects objects with RFID).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Goetze’s sensor to be RFID and connected to a controller as taught by Clothier to identify what item is being heated and can have a pre-programed heating algorithm to heat the object (Par 52).
Regrading claim 18, Goetze discloses:
wherein an electrical connection of said wires extending in parallel is electrically connected in a region of a connection (Fig 6: a connection of the wires that connects to 35 has a portion extending parallel and a region of the connection of 15 and 28).
However, Goetze is silent as to:
a connection to a controller.
From the same field of endeavor, Clothier teaches:
a connection to a controller (Fig 1: 38 is connected to a controller 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Goetze’s sensor to be RFID and connected to a controller as taught by Clothier to identify what item is being heated and can have a pre-programed heating algorithm to heat the object (Par 52).
Regrading claim 19, Goetze discloses:
wherein said feed lines stick out from said support structure and run further, in an uninterrupted manner (Fig 6: lines extend on 15 and are uninterrupted).
However, Goetze is silent as to:
a connection to a controller.
From the same field of endeavor, Clothier teaches:
a connection to a controller (Fig 1: 38 is connected to a controller 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Goetze’s sensor to be RFID and connected to a controller as taught by Clothier to identify what item is being heated and can have a pre-programed heating algorithm to heat the object (Par 52).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetze et al. US 20160302263 in view of Kwack et al. US 20210259061.
Regrading claim 20, Goetze discloses all of the above limitations. However, Goetze is silent as to:
wherein an electrical insulation is provided between said support structure having said feed lines and said antennas and/or said sensors and said underside of said cooktop plate,
said electrical insulation being a structural unit that can be handled independently or is formed by said support itself in that said support, as said electrical insulation, abuts said underside of said cooktop plate by an underside on which no said feed lines and no said antennas or said sensors are mounted.
From the same field of endeavor, Kwack teaches:
wherein an electrical insulation (Fig 2: 35) is provided between said support structure (WC1),
said electrical insulation being a structural unit that can be handled independently or is formed by said support itself in that said support, as said electrical insulation, abuts said underside of said cooktop plate by an underside on which no said feed lines and no said antennas or said sensors are mounted (35 abuts against the underside of 15 and is independent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Goetze to have an insulation layer between the cook top and the sensor fabric as taught by Kwack to block heat that is generated when the first thin film or a target heating object is heated upon driving of the first working coil which prevents damage (Par 69).
The combination would result in: said support structure having said feed lines and said antennas and/or said sensors and said underside of said cooktop plate,
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12, 15-17, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 recites “wherein said antennas or said sensors are arranged so as to overlap in order to be used in an alternating manner”, claim 12 recites “wherein said feed lines are twisted or are secured on said support in a crossing structure by means of said embroidering processes, so as to reduce said coupling of interference signals into said feed line”, claim 15 recites “wherein adjacent of said FOD sensors overlap and said lines thereof cross each other when doing so, said FOD sensors being configured in a form of circular segments and being of same type and same size”, claim 16 recites “wherein said support structure has four to eight of said FOD sensors per one said induction heating coil, and in each case two said FOD sensors are electrically interconnected and are electrically connected outwardly using two of said feed lines, said two FOD sensors being wound in opposite directions, each of said two FOD sensors being opposite one another”, claim 17 recites “wherein precisely one first feed line for said FOD sensors runs toward said support, forms one said FOD sensor thereon as a coil running from an outside inward, then extends through a center region of said support toward an opposite region of said support and forms said other FOD sensor as a coil running from an inside outward, and then extends from said support as an other, second feed line next to said first feed line” and claim 23 recites “wherein said feed lines are twisted or are secured on said support in a crossing structure by means of embroidering processes, so as to reduce coupling of interference signals into said feed line” and all of these claims recite a manner in a way that the sensors or feed lines alternate, cross, overlap, or form a patterned path which is considered allowable subject matter. This was not found in the closest prior art of Goetze et al. US 20160302263 and the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harnden JR US 3742179 teaches a detection device similar to applicants.
Nagata et al. US 20150341990 teaches an induction heating cooktop similar to applicants.
Egenter et al. US 20190154266 teaches a controlling method similar to applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights