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 .
Priority
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 uses the word “means,” and are 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:
(i) power receiving module (claims 1, 13, 17),
(ii) power converter (claims 1, 13, 17),
(iii) power factor corrector circuit (claims 1, 13, 17), 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 limitation
(i) power receiving module (claims 1, 13, 17),
(ii) power converter (claims 1, 13, 17),
(iii) power factor corrector circuit (claims 1, 13, 17), has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) power receiving module (claims 1, 13, 17), US 2025/0211098, figure 2, par 0023, power receiving module 14 may be configured as a mains line (e.g., power cord) that receives the mains voltage from a wall outlet
(ii) power converter (claims 1, 13, 17), figures 3, 5, 6, par 0025, the power converter 16 includes the EMI (electromagnetic emission) filter 34, a rectifier 19 (e.g., rather than rectifier 46), an inductor 38, and the DCBUS capacitor 18, and the inverter 22 but does not include the power factor corrector circuit 20
(iii) power factor corrector circuit (claims 1, 13, 17), figure 5, power factor corrector circuit 20, inductor 42, diode 44, power switching device 48, paragraph 0030, 0031.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-20 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 2, line 1 recites “the nominal capacity”; claim 3, line 3 recites “the range”; claim 4, line 3 recites “the range”; claim 5, line 3 recites “the amplitude”; claim 14, line 1 recites “the nominal capacity”; claim 15, line 2 recites “the range”; claim 18, line 1 recites “the nominal capacity”; claim 19, line 2 recites “the range”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 13 and 17 recite “power receiving module; power converter; power factor corrector circuit” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required by the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6-12, 16, 17 and 20 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claims 1, 13 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ban (WO2023/249224) in view of Yoshino (US 2015/0245416). Ban (US 2025/0112545) is being used as an English language equivalent for Ban (WO2023/249224).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Ban teaches an induction device including: at least one induction burner (0079, induction device); a power receiving module (Figs 9, 14, wires / conductors receiving power from input power source 101, 0081) configured to receive an applied mains voltage (input power source 101, 0081); and a power converter (0066, PFC circuit 104 may be referred to as a boost converter) transmitting the applied mains voltage from the power receiving module (101) to at least one induction burner (load 105, 0062), the power converter including: an EMI filter (Fig 14, 0062, EMI filter 1411 of FIG. 14 may be a component that removes high-frequency noise applied from the input power source 101) in electrical communication with the power receiving module, a DCBUS capacitor (DC Link capacitor 13, 0135), a power factor corrector circuit electrically (PFC circuit 104, inductor 10, switch 11, diode 12, 0069) connected between the EMI filter (1411) and the DCBUS capacitor (13), and the power converter further including a logic microcontroller (switch controller 114, 0072) configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage; and an inverter (Fig 14, inverter circuit 1413, 0182) supplied with the DCBUS voltage that converts the DCBUS voltage to an alternating voltage for the at least one induction burner.
Ban discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner; the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage.
However, Yoshino discloses the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner (Fig 1, induction heating cooker 100, heating means 11, 0030); the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage (Figs 14, 15, controller 45, 0111, 0112, the electric power applied to the heating coil 11a is fixed) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban having the recited power receiving module, power convert and inverter silent to an induction cooktop with the induction cooktop of Yoshino for the purpose of providing an overvoltage or undervoltage protection level (Ban, 0019, 0020) to a known and conventional induction cooktop device.
Additionally, it would also have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban silent to a power converter power factor range with the controller regulating a fixed power factor of Yoshino for the purpose of providing a steady power and constant power to the heating coil.
With respect to the limitations of claims 6 and 7, Ban teaches the power factor corrector circuit includes a voltage rectifier and a boost converter (inductor 10, diode 12, 0073);
the boost converter includes an inductor with a value of at least 50 µH, one or more diodes, and one or more power switching devices (inductor 10, switch 11, diode 12, 0073).
With respect to the limitations of claim 12, Ban in view of Yoshino discloses the at least one induction burner includes two or more induction burners (Yoshino, Fig 1, multiple burners 11) in communication with the power converter (Ban, PFC circuit 104).
With respect to the limitations of claim 13, Ban discloses all the limitations of the claim as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above except for explicitly showing the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner; the DCBUS capacitor having a nominal capacity of at least 100 µF; the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage.
However, Yoshino discloses the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner (Fig 1, induction heating cooker 100, heating means 11, 0030); the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage (Figs 14, 15, controller 45, 0111, 0112, the electric power applied to the heating coil 11a is fixed) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban having the recited power receiving module, power convert and inverter silent to an induction cooktop with the induction cooktop of Yoshino for the purpose of providing an overvoltage or undervoltage protection level (Ban, 0019, 0020) to a known and conventional induction cooktop device.
Additionally, it would also have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban silent to a power converter power factor range with the controller regulating a fixed power factor of Yoshino for the purpose of providing a steady power and constant power to the heating coil.
Moreover, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the DCBUS capacitor having a nominal capacity of at least 100 µF, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable capacitor operating ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Ban teaches the power factor corrector circuit includes one of a totem pole PFC rectifier circuit or a boost converter (0066, the PFC circuit 104 may also be referred to as a boost converter).
With respect to the limitations 17, Ban discloses all the limitations of the claim as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above except for explicitly showing the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner; the DCBUS capacitor having a nominal capacity of at least 15 µF; the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage.
However, Yoshino discloses the induction device is a cooktop with at least one induction burner (Fig 1, induction heating cooker 100, heating means 11, 0030); the power converter further including a logic microcontroller configured to maintain a power factor of the power converter at a value within a range of 0.8 - 1, at steady state condition of a DCBUS voltage (Figs 14, 15, controller 45, 0111, 0112, the electric power applied to the heating coil 11a is fixed) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban having the recited power receiving module, power convert and inverter silent to an induction cooktop with the induction cooktop of Yoshino for the purpose of providing an overvoltage or undervoltage protection level (Ban, 0019, 0020) to a known and conventional induction cooktop device.
Additionally, it would also have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban silent to a power converter power factor range with the controller regulating a fixed power factor of Yoshino for the purpose of providing a steady power and constant power to the heating coil.
Moreover, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the DCBUS capacitor having a nominal capacity of at least 15 µF, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable capacitor operating ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 2-5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected to as being dependent upon claims 1, 13 and 17.
Claims 8, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ban (WO2023/249224) in view of Yoshino (US 2015/0245416) as applied to claims 1 and 17, further in view of Perez-Tarragona (NPL, Soft-Transient Modulation Strategy for Improved Efficiency and EMC Performance of PFC Converters Applied to Flexible Induction Heating Appliances). A copy of Perez-Tarragona was provided by the applicant submitted with the IDS on 6/10/2025.
With respect to the limitations of claims 8, 9 and 20, Ban discloses a mains voltage which can supply single or multiple phases (input power source 101). Ban in view of Yoshino discloses the claimed invention except for the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a totem pole PFC rectifier circuit when the applied mains voltage is provided with a single supply phase;
the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a two- phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit or a three-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit when the applied mains voltage is provided with two or three supply phases, respectively;
the power factor corrector circuit is configured as one of a multi-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit, or a multi-phase totem pole bridgeless PFC circuit.
However, Perez-Tarragona discloses the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a totem pole PFC rectifier circuit (Fig 2, PFC Converter with stacked MOSFET, Pg 3531, Col 1) when the applied mains voltage is provided with a single supply phase;
the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a two- phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit or a three-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit (Fig 2, PFC Converter with stacked MOSFET, Pg 3531, Col 1) when the applied mains voltage is provided with two or three supply phases, respectively;
the power factor corrector circuit is configured as one of a multi-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit (Fig 2, PFC Converter with stacked MOSFET, Pg 3531, Col 1), or a multi-phase totem pole bridgeless PFC circuit is known in the art. It would also have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the induction device of Ban in view of Yoshino having a power factor corrector circuit silent to a totem pole with the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a totem pole PFC rectifier circuit when the applied mains voltage is provided with a single supply phase; the power factor corrector circuit is configured as a two- phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit or a three-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit when the applied mains voltage is provided with two or three supply phases, respectively; the power factor corrector circuit is configured as one of a multi-phase totem pole PFC rectifier circuit, or a multi-phase totem pole bridgeless PFC circuit of Perez-Tarragona for the purpose of providing a known power factor corrector configuration that avoids zero-crossing distortion at the cost of higher switching and conduction losses due to lower efficiency (Pg 3532, Col 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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 Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/3/2026
Prosecution Insights