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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 6 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “D1” has been used to designate both clearance distance and a first creepage distance.
The creepage distance Dc illustrated in Fig. 5 should extend from the bottom face to the surface of the top face, not just along the sloped surface (136) between the faces. In other words, Dc should include the side walls of the first and second faces as they are part of the path between the cooktop and coil along the surface of the insulating material (i.e. the spacer). This correction of the drawings would be consistent with the illustration of creepage distance in Fig. 6.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the threshold distance must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. 36, in discussion of Fig. 6 reference characters "D1" [Fig. 6] and "Dc” [Para. 36] have both been used to designate the creepage distance. It is unclear whether Dc is being used to compare Figs. 5 and 6, or whether a reference character Dc was unintentionally omitted from the illustration of Fig. 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation recites the spacer is “between the two face,” but understood to mean “between the two faces.”
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation recites “an additional insulating layer/s” but understood to mean “an additional insulating layer,” as claim 11 requires at least one layer.
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.
Claims 9, 14, 17 and 18 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 9 recites the limitation "the threshold distance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the threshold distance is first introduced in claim 8 and the immediate claim depends from Claim 6. It should read “a threshold distance” to be consistent with its dependency on Claim 6. In the interest of compact prosecution this Claim will be understood to depend from Claim 8.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an additional layer" (see objection above). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The disclosure provides a spacer with a second material made of insulation but does not provide any third material or additional insulation layers, and thus construed as a single additional layer of second material. (Paras. 48-50) Accordingly, the limitation of Claim 14 should read “the additional layer” to be consistent with its dependency on Claim 11 and the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation, “wherein the creepage is at least one corner notch at the first surface forming a step-like cross section,” is unclear because a distance cannot have a shape (corner notch), and the limitation “creepage” is originally presented as “creepage distance” so it is unclear whether this is a different limitation or not. As, no further disclosure besides substantially verbatim support is provided in the Speciation (para. 43) it is unclear what exactly is claimed beyond that a stepped portion is present in the spacer. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be construed to merely require a stepped portion on at least one corner of the spacer.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “increases the creepage,” is unclear because the limitation “creepage” is originally presented as “creepage distance” so it is unclear whether this is a different limitation or not. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be understood to refer to the creepage distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaspard (US 5,686,006)
Regarding Claim 1, Gaspard discloses an inductive cooking appliance designed for half-bridge, full-bridge and quasi-resonant inverters (Examiner Note: The preamble of a claim will be treated as a claim limitation to the extent that it limits the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02-I). When the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention, the preamble is a mere statement of intended use and not limiting the scope of the claim. Id. As the claims provide a structurally complete inductive cooking appliance the preamble is considered intended use, and thus not limiting the scope of the claim.), the inductive cooking appliance comprising:
a cooking coil [Strand 1 forming a Coil with turns 10, Annotated Fig. 1] for the inductive cooking appliance;
a cooktop configured to receive a cooking item [Plate 2, Annotated Fig. 1], wherein the cooking coil and the cooktop are mutually spaced so as to define a clearance distance [Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: Gaspard discloses, “[t]he inductor is preferably separated from the plate by a layer 2a of thermal insulating material,” and thus understood to disclose a cooktop mutual spaced by the layer 2a (i.e. the spacer), where the clearance distance is defined by the thickness of the spacer (layer 2a)); and
a spacer [Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1] arranged between the cooktop and the cooking coil [Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: Gaspard discloses, “[t]he inductor is preferably separated from the plate by a layer 2a of thermal insulating material.”), the spacer having a first face abutting the cooktop and a second face abutting the coil [Top and Bottom of Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1, Col. 2 L 32-37], wherein a length of either lateral side of the spacer creates a creepage distance between the first face and the second face [Creepage Distance (distance t + distance w), Annotated Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: As the creepage distance is understood as the shortest total distance along the insulator between conductive paths, in this case the coil and cooktop, the creepage distance is not merely the length of the lateral side, but the distance between faces in contact with the conductive element. Accordingly, Gaspard is understood to disclose a spacer with a creepage distance (t+w) comprising the a distance t (i.e. thickness of the layer 2a) and a distance w (i.e. some distance along the bottom face of the layer 2a), and thus discloses this limitation.) in the cross-section that is greater than the clearance distance [Clearance Distance (distance t), Annotated Fig. 1] between the cooking coil and the cooktop. (Examiner Note: As the clearance distance is merely the thickness of the layer 2a (t), the creepage distance is necessarily greater than clearance distance as it is the thickness of the layer (2a) (i.e. the clearance distance) in addition to a short distance on the bottom face (t +w). Accordingly, Gaspard discloses this limitation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
337
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses wherein the spacer includes at least one layer of a thermally-insulating material [Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: Gaspard discloses, “[t]he inductor is preferably separated from the plate by a layer 2a of thermal insulating material,” and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 8, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses wherein the creepage distance is greater than the clearance distance by a threshold distance [Distance w, Annotated Fig. 1]. [Annotated Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Gaspard discloses a spacer where in the creepage distance is greater than the clearance distance. The difference in the distances can be understood as the threshold distance and thus discloses this limitation. In other words, the portion of the creepage distance along the bottom face of the layer 2a, the distance w, is understood as the threshold distance.)
Regarding Claim 10, Gaspard discloses an inductive cooking appliance designed for half-bridge, full-bridge and quasi-resonant inverters (Examiner Note: The preamble of a claim will be treated as a claim limitation to the extent that it limits the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02-I). When the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention, the preamble is a mere statement of intended use and not limiting the scope of the claim. Id. As the claims provide a structurally complete inductive cooking appliance the preamble is considered intended use, and thus not limiting the scope of the claim.), the inductive cooking appliance comprising:
a cooking coil [Strand 1 forming a Coil with turns 10, Annotated Fig. 1] for the inductive cooking appliance;
a cooktop configured to receive a cooking item [Plate 2, Annotated Fig. 1]; and
a spacer [Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1] arranged between the cooktop and the cooking coil [Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: Gaspard discloses, “[t]he inductor is preferably separated from the plate by a layer 2a of thermal insulating material.”), the spacer having a first face and a second face arranged between the coil and the cooktop [Top and Bottom of Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1, Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: As the layer 2a separates the cooktop and coil, it is understood to disclose a first and second face between the components.), wherein between the two faces there is a shape variation [Corner of Creepage Distance, Annotated Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: As the 2 faces are arranged between the coil and cooktop, a shape variation between the 2 faces includes the top and bottom face of the spacer. As the creepage distance includes the bottom face and lateral side of layer 2a, the corner can be understood to be a shape variation between the faces and thus discloses this limitation.) that creates a creepage distance [Creepage Distance, Annotated Fig. 1] between the first and second face that is greater than a clearance distance [Clearance Distance, Annotated Fig. 1] between the cooking coil and the cooktop. (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 1 above, Gaspard discloses a creepage distance greater than the clearance distance by a distance w and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 18, Gaspard discloses a spacer for an inductive cooking appliance [Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1], comprising: a first face and a second face opposite the first face cooktop [Top and Bottom of Layer 2a, Annotated Fig. 1, Col. 2 L 32-37] (Examiner Note: As the layer 2a separates the cooktop and coil, it is understood to disclose a first and second face between the components.), the first face having a first length, the second face having a second length, (Examiner Note: In its present form, the claim merely requires that both faces have a length generally, and thus necessarily disclosed by the top and bottom faces of layer 2a because they have a length. There is no recitation or requirement that the first and second lengths are different from each other.) wherein between the two faces there is a shape variation [Corner of Creepage Distance, Annotated Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: As the 2 faces are arranged between the coil and cooktop, a shape variation between the 2 faces includes the top and bottom face of the spacer. As the creepage distance includes the bottom face and lateral side of layer 2a, the corner can be understood to be a shape variation between the faces and thus discloses this limitation.) that increases the creepage [Creepage Distance, Annotated Fig. 1] between the first and second side. (Examiner Note: A shape variation that increases the creepage will be understood to mean any variation in shape that causes the creepage to be greater than the clearance distance, because an increase in a quantity requires a reference point which is not provided. Accordingly, as discussed in Claims 1 and 10 above, Gaspard discloses a corner between the first and second face, which is understood to read onto a shape variation between the faces, and thus discloses this limitation.)
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 2-5, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 2, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer has a trapezoidal shape in cross-section. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard notes that, “the appended figures are not aimed at showing the dimensions or the variety shapes that the different elements of the cooking heater according to the invention may have” it is understood to disclose a spacer with a rectangular cross section and does not specifically disclose the claimed shape. (Col. 3 L 60-64))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the spacer (layer 2a) of Gaspard such that the cross section of the spacer is the shape of a trapezoid because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a trapezoidal shaped spacer will function the same as a rectangular spacer for providing insulation between conductive surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of spacers are common in the art to accommodate different operating conditions, and that increasing the surface area of the insulator between 2 conductive surfaces would have the predictable effect of increasing the creepage distance between them. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a trapezoidal spacer to work equally as well as the rectangular spacer disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 3, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer has a double pyramid shape in cross-section. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard notes that, “the appended figures are not aimed at showing the dimensions or the variety shapes that the different elements of the cooking heater according to the invention may have” it is understood to disclose a spacer with a rectangular cross section but does not specifically disclose the claimed shape. (Col. 3 L 60-64))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the spacer (layer 2a) of Gaspard such that the cross section of the spacer is the shape of a double pyramid because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a double pyramid shaped spacer will function the same as a rectangular spacer for providing insulation between conductive surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of spacers are common in the art to accommodate different operating conditions, and that increasing the surface area of the insulator between 2 conductive surfaces would have the predictable effect of increasing the creepage distance between them. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a double pyramid shaped spacer to work equally as well as the rectangular spacer disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 4, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer has a concave hour-glass like cross-section. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard notes that, “the appended figures are not aimed at showing the dimensions or the variety shapes that the different elements of the cooking heater according to the invention may have” it is understood to disclose a spacer with a rectangular cross section but does not specifically disclose the claimed shape. (Col. 3 L 60-64))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the spacer (layer 2a) of Gaspard such that the cross section of the spacer is the shape of a concave hour-glass because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a concave hour-glass shaped spacer will function the same as a rectangular spacer for providing insulation between conductive surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of spacers are common in the art to accommodate different operating conditions, and that increasing the surface area of the insulator between 2 conductive surfaces would have the predictable effect of increasing the creepage distance between them. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a concave hour-glass shaped spacer to work equally as well as the rectangular spacer disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 5, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer has a convex bell-shaped cross-section. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard notes that, “the appended figures are not aimed at showing the dimensions or the variety shapes that the different elements of the cooking heater according to the invention may have” it is understood to disclose a spacer with a rectangular cross section but does not specifically disclose the claimed shape. (Col. 3 L 60-64))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the spacer (layer 2a) of Gaspard such that the cross section of the spacer is the shape of a convex bell because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a convex bell shaped spacer will function the same as a rectangular spacer for providing insulation between conductive surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of spacers are common in the art to accommodate different operating conditions, and that increasing the surface area of the insulator between 2 conductive surfaces would have the predictable effect of increasing the creepage distance between them. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a convex bell shaped spacer to work equally as well as the rectangular spacer disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 16, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 10.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer forms a trapezoidal, hour-glass or bell shape in cross section. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard notes that, “the appended figures are not aimed at showing the dimensions or the variety shapes that the different elements of the cooking heater according to the invention may have” it is understood to disclose a spacer with a rectangular cross section but does not specifically disclose the claimed shape. (Col. 3 L 60-64))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the spacer (layer 2a) of Gaspard such that the cross section of the spacer is the shape of a trapezoid because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a trapezoidal shaped spacer will function the same as a rectangular spacer for providing insulation between conductive surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of spacers are common in the art to accommodate different operating conditions, and that increasing the surface area of the insulator between 2 conductive surfaces would have the predictable effect of increasing the creepage distance between them. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a trapezoidal spacer to work equally as well as the rectangular spacer disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard.
Regarding Claim 20, Gaspard as modified per claim 16 discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16, and further discloses wherein the creepage distance is greater than the clearance distance by a threshold distance. [Distance w, Annotated Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the portion of the creepage distance along the bottom face of the layer 2a (distance w) is understood as the threshold distance and thus discloses this limitation.)
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard in view of Milanesi (EP 3441678)
Regarding Claim 6, Gaspard discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer is made of an electrically-insulating material. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard discloses a support bar (3) made of electrically insulating material, it does not specifically disclose that material with the spacer (layer 2a))
However, Milanesi teaches wherein the spacer is made of an electrically-insulating material. [Mica layer 32, Fig. 2, paras. 88, 91] (Examiner Note: Milanesi teaches an induction cooking hob with a mica layer (32) provided between the cooktop (glass panel 14) and heating coil unit (16) that provides, “electrical isolation of conducting parts of the heating element 16 towards the panel 14,” and thus teaches this limitation. Milanesi further teaches the mica layer 32 provides thermal insultation as well, and thus understood to teach a spacer with both thermal and electrical insulation)
Milanesi is in the same field of invention as the application because both are related to inductive cooking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacer of Gaspard with the mica layer taught in Milanesi to improve electrical insulation between the heating coil and cooking top. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Milanesi could be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to inductive cooking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Milanesi because the improved electrical insulation allows for a smaller layer thickness, enabling a smaller distance between the coil and cooktop. (Para. 91) The reduced spacer thickness allows for a smaller overall construction height and additional storage space can be added to the design. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard in view of Milanesi.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard in view of Milanesi (EP 3441678), and further in view of Stull (IEC 60335-1 Explained)
Regarding Claim 9, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6. (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Claim 9 was construed to depend from Claim 8 to remedy the antecedent basis issue. Nevertheless, Gaspard in view of Milanesi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6.)
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the threshold distance is at least 0.1 mm. (Examiner Note: Gaspard discloses a creepage distance greater than the clearance distance by a threshold distance but does not specifically disclose this limitation.)
However, Stull teaches wherein the threshold distance is at least 0.1 mm. [Creepage and Clearance, p. 4] (Examiner Note: As the present invention is designed to meet standards of IEC 60335 in regard to creepage and clearance distances, both of these distance must at least satisfy the minimum requirements for creepage and clearance distance under this standard. Stull specifically teaches a minimum creepage of 8 mm for 250-300V with a minimum clearance of 3.5 mm for EIC 60335-1 and thus teaches a threshold distance of at least 4.5 mm.)
Stull is in the same field of invention as the application because both are related to creepage distance in inductive cooking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Gaspard with Stull to meet minimum safety requirements of the appliance. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Stull could be combined with Gaspard because they are both related to household appliances, specifically creepage distance in inductive cooking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Stull to meet the minimum safety requirements necessary for operation of a household appliance. Furthermore, by maintaining these minimum safety requirements it ensures safety of the user and prevents surface tracking between conductive components. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard in view of Stull.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0223263)
Regarding Claim 11, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
Gaspard does not disclose at least one additional insulating layer arranged between the cooktop and the coil.
However, Park teaches at least one additional insulating layer [Heat insulation part 35, Fig. 3] arranged between the cooktop [Top plate portion 15, Fig. 3] and the coil [Working Coil WC1, Fig. 3]. [Paras. 58] (Examiner Note: Park teaches a heat insulation part (35) inserted between the coil and top plate and thus discloses this limitation.)
Park is in the same field of invention as the application because both are related to inductive cooking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaspard with the additional insulation layer taught in Park to improve thermal insulation of the stove components. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Park can be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success because they both relate to induction cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Park because the improved the thermal insulation helps prevent damage to internal components and harm of the user. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as obvious of Gaspard in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 12, Gaspard in view of Park discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the additional insulating layer is arranged between the spacer and the cooktop.
However, Park further teaches wherein the additional insulating layer [Heat insulation part 35, Fig. 3] is arranged between the spacer [Spacer 40, Fig. 2] and the cooktop [Top plate portion 15, Fig. 3] [Para. 58] (Examiner Note: Park specifically teaches a spacer is provided between the first working coil (WC1) and the thermal insulating member (35).)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaspard with the additional insulation layer taught in Park to minimize the distance between the heated object and working coil to improve heating efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Park can be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success because they both relate to induction cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Park because providing additional insulation with the spacer because it allows the spacer and insulation member to share the thermal insulating function such that the, “distance between the object HO and the first working coil WC1 may be minimized,” which in turn improves heating efficiency of the stove. [Para. 60] Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious of Gaspard in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 13, Gaspard in view of Park discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Gaspard and Park do not disclose wherein the additional insulating layer is arranged between the spacer and the coil. (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 12 above, Park teaches a thermal insulation part (35) between the spacer (40) and cooktop (15) but does not specifically teach an insulation layer between the spacer and coil (WC1) (Paras. 58-60))
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to modify the inductive cooking assembly disclosed by Gaspard in view of Park such that the insulation layer is provided between the coil and spacer because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the additional insulation layer between the spacer and coil as claimed provides any unexpected advantage over the arrangement as taught in Park. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the insulation layer can be arranged in many different ways without impacting its thermal insulation function. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed insulation arrangement to work equally as well as the arrangement disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 14, Gaspard in view of Park discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Gaspard does not disclose more than one spacer arranged between the cooktop and an additional insulating layer.
However, Park further teaches more than one spacer [Spacer 40, paras. 64-67] arranged between the cooktop [Top plate portion 15, Fig. 3] and an additional insulating layer [Heat insulation part 35, Fig. 3]. (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Park teaches a plurality of spacers can be provided between the first working coil and thermal insulating member and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaspard with the additional insulation layer taught in Park to improve cooling of internal components. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Park can be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success because they both relate to induction cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Park because the plurality of spacers allow for air gaps between spacers for air flow to improve cooling of the internal components and reduces the amount of insulation required to effectively cool the device. Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected as obvious of Gaspard in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 15, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the spacer includes a second material, the second material being thermal and/or electrical insulating. (Examiner Note: While Gaspard discloses a spacer made of thermally insulating material, it does not disclose a second material of any type to be used with the spacer.)
However, Park teaches wherein the spacer [Spacer 40 and Heat insulation part 35, Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: As a spacer is construed as any structure configured to maintain a fixed distance between the components of the coil and the cooktop, the spacer is understood to comprise the spacer (40) and insulation part (35) where the spacer (40) is the first material, and the insulation part (35) is the second material.) includes a second material [Heat insulation part 35, Fig. 3], the second material being thermal [Para. 45] and/or electrical insulating. (Examiner Note: Park discloses “the heat insulation part 35 [is] made of “heat insulating material,” and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaspard with the second insulation layer on the spacer taught in Park to minimize the distance between the heated object and working coil and improve heating efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Park can be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success because they both relate to induction cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Park because it allows the spacer and insulation member to share the thermal insulating function such that the, “distance between the object HO and the first working coil WC1 may be minimized,” which in turn improves heating efficiency of the stove. [Para. 60] Accordingly, Claim 15 is rejected as obvious of Gaspard in view of Park.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0154530)
Regarding Claim 17, Gaspard discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein the creepage is at least one corner notch at the first surface forming a step-like cross section.
However, Kim teaches wherein the creepage is at least one corner notch [MCP on Mica Sheet 120, Fig. 9] at the first surface forming a step-like cross section. [Para. 133] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Kim discloses a first mica sheet (120) with a step part (MCP, Fig. 9), “disposed at each corner of the first mica sheet and that corresponds to one of the step portions of the ferrite core.” (Para. 26) The Mica sheet provides both thermal and electrical insulation and thus improve the creepage distance between the WC and conductive surfaces (ferrite core (126) and the base plate) as well as “block heat transfer from the working coil to the ferrite core. Id. As a spacer is construed as any structure configured to maintain a fixed distance between the components of the induction coil, the MPC of mica sheet (120) teaches this limitation.)
Kim is in the same field of invention as the application because both are related to inductive cooking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaspard with the stepped corner portion taught in Kim to improve reliability and performance of the induction stove. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kim can be combined with Gaspard with a reasonable expectation of success because they both relate to induction cookers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim because the stepped portion increases the creepage distance provided by the insulating material without increasing its thickness, improving the thermal efficiency and improving user safety of the device. Furthermore, Kim explicitly provides that the arrangement allows for use of high-output working coils, “improving the performance and reliability of the product.” (Para. 144) Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected as obvious of Gaspard in view of Kim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaspard in view of Stull (IEC 60335-1 Explained)
Regarding Claim 19, Gaspard as modified per claim 16 discloses all the limitations of Claim 16.
Gaspard does not disclose wherein creepage distance is greater than 0.18 mm.
However, Stull teaches wherein creepage distance is greater than 0.18 mm. [Creepage and Clearance, p. 4] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Stull discloses a minimum creepage of 8 mm thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Gaspard with Stull to meet minimum creepage requirements for the appliance. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Stull could be combined with Gaspard because they are both related to household appliances, specifically creepage distance in inductive cooking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Stull to meet the minimum creepage requirements necessary for operation of a household appliance. Furthermore, by maintaining these minimum safety requirements it ensures safety of the user and prevents surface tracking between conductive components. Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected as obvious over Gaspard in view of Stull.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Urlich (EP 3441676 A1) discloses an induction cooking system with a creepage reducing element (20) that is designed to reduce the overall construction height of the hob, but it is arranged between the coil and the power circuitry, not the cooktop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights