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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 10/13/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211253380.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/23/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings including photographs as shown in Figures 7 and 8 that do not clearly illustrate its details. 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.
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.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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:
A switching power supply circuit in claims 1 and 10 wherein the switching power supply is a functional language with the term circuit being a generic placeholder for means.
A booster circuit in claims 1 and 10 wherein the booster is a functional language with the term circuit being a generic placeholder for means.
An arc-striking ion generator in claim 1 wherein the arc-striking ion is a functional language with the term generator being a generic placeholder for means.
A power control circuit in claims 1 and 10 wherein the power control is a functional language with the term circuit being a generic placeholder for means.
A support mechanism in claims 8 and 19 wherein the support is a function language with the term mechanism as a generic placeholder for means.
A first drive transformation circuit and a second drive transformation circuit in claims 5 and 16 wherein the first/second drive transformation is a functional language with the term circuit being a generic placeholder for means.
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.
A switching power supply circuit is interpreted as a power supply driving circuit (e.g., a driving chip) and a power amplifier (e.g., transistor) as disclosed in para 0016 and 0018 of the specification, or its equivalents thereof.
A booster circuit is interpreted as a transformer as disclosed in the para 0043 of the specification, or its equivalents thereof.
A power control circuit is interpreted as a processing chip and a power regulation switch circuit (e.g., a potentiometer or a push-button switch) as disclosed in para 0013 and para 0015 of the specification, or its 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 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 limitations “an arc-striking ion generator” in claims 1 and 10 and “a support mechanism” in claims 8 and 19 and “first/second drive transformation circuit” in claims 5 and 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification lacks a corresponding structure of the arc-striking ion generator, the support mechanism, and the first/second drive formation circuit that each performs its respective function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordberg et al (US 2006/027805) in view of Xiao (CN 111795409).
With respect to claim 1, Nordberg discloses the electric ignition circuit claimed including a switching power supply circuit (shown by a dotted block 49) having an input terminal connecting an external power supply (51/69), a booster circuit (56 having a transformer 25) having a first input (24) and a second input terminal (27) respectively connected to an output terminal (at node 53) of the switch power supply circuit, a spark rod assembly (34) as an ion needle module that is connected to a first output (33) of the booster circuit, a power control circuit (shown by a power controller 16) connected to a control terminal (18) of the switching power supply circuit (including a transistor or mosfet 15) and configured to transmit a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal as shown in Figure 1 with a preset duty cycle (para 0019) to output a signal to the booster circuit according to the PWM signal for the booster circuit to transmit a booster power supply signal (i.e., high voltage) to the spark/ion rod assembly to initiate a spark which inherently performs ionization arc striking. But, Nordberg does not explicitly show an arc-striking ion generator that is paired with the spark/ion needle module as claimed.
Xiao discloses it is known to provide a plasma cooking device including an ion needle assembly shown by a discharging/positive electrode (5) that discharges a high voltage to ignite arcs or plasma (inherently formed of positive and negative ions; see para 0004 of Xia) between the discharging electrode and an arc-striking ion generator (which can be a metal cookware or a negative electrode 8) to generate ion/plasma flames for cooking. Also, see para 0007 and 0053.
In view of Xiao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nordberg with the ion/spark needle module that is provided with an arc-striking ion generator (shown by either the metal cookware or the negative electrode) to create a differential voltage therebetween to cause or ignite sparks or plasma to generate ion flames that can be used for heating or cooking in place of a gas or fuel consumption as an alternative means of heating or cooking applications as taught by Xiao.
With respect to claim 7, Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses the arc-striking generator (which can be shown as a metal cookware) provided on a pot ring (4) of an electric fire stove (100) as disclosed by Xiao.
With respect to claim 8, Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses the ion needle assembly (as shown by Xiao) that includes a support mechanism (shown by an insulating board 7) where the ion needle assembly is provided thereon, the pot ring (4) provided above the support mechanism and around the ion needle module wherein the ion needle module would be located below the arc-striking ion generator, i.e., a cookware. Also, see Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claim 10, Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses an electric fire stove (100) having a cooking surface (4) for supporting a cookware that is heated by a plasma generated by an electric ignition circuit (also, see Figure 4 of Xiao) wherein Nordberg discloses an electric ignition circuit including a switching power supply circuit (shown by a dotted block 49) having an input terminal connecting an external power supply (51/69), a booster circuit (56 having a transformer 25) having a first input (24) and a second input terminal (27) respectively connected to an output terminal (at node 53) of the switch power supply circuit, a spark rod assembly (34) as an ion needle module that is connected to a first output (33) of the booster circuit, a power control circuit (shown by a power controller 16) connected to a control terminal (18) of the switching power supply circuit (including a transistor or mosfet 15) and configured to transmit a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal as shown in Figure 1 with a preset duty cycle (para 0019) to output a signal to the booster circuit according to the PWM signal for the booster circuit to transmit a booster power supply signal (i.e., high voltage) to the spark/ion rod assembly to initiate a spark which inherently performs ionization arc striking. But, Nordberg does not explicitly show an arc-striking ion generator that is paired with the spark/ion needle module as claimed.
Xiao further discloses it is known to provide the plasma cooking device including an ion needle assembly shown by a discharging/positive electrode (5) that discharges a high voltage to ignite arcs or plasma (inherently formed of positive and negative ions; see para 0004 of Xia) between the discharging electrode and an arc-striking ion generator (which can be a metal cookware or a negative electrode 8) to generate ion/plasma flames for cooking. Also, see para 0007 and 0053. And, in view of Xiao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nordberg with the ion/spark needle module that is provided with an arc-striking ion generator (shown by either the metal cookware or the negative electrode) to create a differential voltage therebetween to cause or ignite sparks or plasma to generate ion flames that can be used for heating or cooking in place of a gas or fuel consumption as an alternative means of heating or cooking applications as taught by Xiao.
With respect to claim 11, Xiao discloses that the cooking surface comprise the ring (4).
With respect to claim 12, Xiao disclose that the arc-striking generator (which can be shown as a metal cookware) provided on a pot ring (4) of an electric fire stove (100) as disclosed by Xiao.
With respect to claim 18, Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses the arc-striking generator (which can be shown as a metal cookware) provided on a pot ring (4) of an electric fire stove (100) as disclosed by Xiao.
With respect to claim 19, Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses the ion needle assembly (as shown by Xiao) that includes a support mechanism (shown by an insulating board 7) where the ion needle assembly is provided thereon, the pot ring (4) provided above the support mechanism and around the ion needle module wherein the ion needle module would be located below the arc-striking ion generator, i.e., a cookware. Also, see Figures 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordberg in view of Xiao as applied to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Burkhart (US 2004/0060924).
Nordberg in view of Xiao discloses the electric ignition circuit claimed except for the power control circuit comprising a processing chip and a power regulation switching circuit for regulating the preset duty cycle of the PWM signal as claimed.
Burkhart discloses it is known provide an igniter controller that includes a power control circuit including a processing chip (148) and a power regulation switching circuit (shown by a potentiometer/variable resistor 132) that is used to regulate a power output that is based on a duty cycle of a pulse width modulation signal (para 0019, 0020, 0024 and 0026) wherein the power output is provided without flicker effects having a near unity power factor whose power output is proportional to the duty cycle.
In view of Burkhart, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nordberg, as modified by Xiao, with the power control circuit comprising a processing chip and a power regulation switching circuit for regulating the preset duty cycle of the PWM signal so that a desired power output is predictably produced without flickering effects that is proportional to the duty cycle set by the power control circuit.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Burkhart discloses the power regulating switch is a potentiometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 15-17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martinez et al (US 2012/0171628) discloses for an ignition circuit with a voltage control PWM circuit.
Shukla et al (US 2003/0094448) discloses for a power regulation switching including a potentiometer for adjusting a duty cycle for a output power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights