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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyairi et al (US 2021/0291157).
Miyairi discloses an induction heating device claimed including an induction heating coil form with a conductor (4) wound around a predetermined axis line, a member (18, 19) comprising at least one soft magnetic material (para 0033 which discloses for the magnetic substance including electromagnetic soft iron) disposed at or on an outer side of each axis line end portion of the induction heating coil in an extending direction of the axis line, and a heating object (a honeycomb structure 1) disposed on an inner side of the induction heating coil and the member wherein the heating object is configured to be heatable by induction heating using a magnetic flux (which is generated by a magnetic field passing through the heating object) from the induction heating coil. Also, see annotated drawing below.
PNG
media_image1.png
755
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Miyairi discloses the heating object forming a flow path for fluid (e.g., gas) flowing in the extending direction of the axis line.
With respect to claim 5, Miyairi discloses the induction heating coil having opening portions on both sides in the extending direction of the axis line (i.e., the coil that is wound around has openings on both ends of the coil) wherein the member (shown by plugs 18, 19) disposed so as to cover at least a part of at least one of the opening portions. Also, see Figure 2.
With respect to claim 6, Miyairi discloses the induction coil having opening portions on both sides in the extending direction of the axis line wherein the member comprises is a first member (e.g., 19) covering one opening portion of the induction heating coil and a second member (e.g., 18) covering other opening portion of the induction heating coil.
With respect to claim 17, Miyairi discloses the heating object is a honeycomb structure comprising an outer peripheral wall and a partition wall disposed on an inner side of the outer peripheral wall wherein the partition wall defining a plurality of cells with each cell extending from one end face to other end face to form a flow path. Also, see Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claim 18, Miyairi discloses a part of the honeycomb that comprises a magnetic material (18, 19) as illustrated in Figure 2.
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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al (US 2021/0291157) in view of Crawford et al (US 2017/0218816) and Barman et al (US 2012/0112552).
Miyairi discloses a back wall (shown by a fixing member 5) disposed to cover at least a part of a back portion of the induction heating coil but does not disclose that the back wall is made of a soft magnetic material.
Crawford discloses it is known to provide an induction coil that is covered by a back wall (24) made of an electromagnetic shield (para 0042).
Barman discloses that it is known make an electromagnetic shield with a soft magnetic material (para 0055).
In view of Crawford and Barman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Miyairi with the back wall including an electromagnetic shield, which is known to be made of a soft magnetic material as taught by Barman, to reduce induction loss to an outer metal housing.
With respect to claim 8, Miyairi discloses the backwall that is connected at an end portion of the induction heating coil where the member (18, 19) is also provided. Also, see Figures 2 and 5.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al (US 2021/0291157) in view of Urata et al (US 2007/0175545).
Miyairi discloses the induction heating device including the soft magnetic material but does not disclose for its relative magnetic permeability of 80 or more.
Urata discloses it is known to provide a soft magnetic material having excellent magnetic properties (Abstract) which has a magnetic permeability of 80 or more (also, see Table 15 in para 0148).
In view of Urata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Miyairi with the soft magnetic material that includes its relative magnetic permeability that is 80 or more to provide for the magnetic material having more enhanced or excellent magnetic properties.
With respect to claim 13, Urata further discloses it is known for the soft magnetic material having a resistivity of 10 Ωcm or more. Also, see para 0072 and Table 15 in para 0148.
With respect to claim 14, Urata discloses for the soft magnetic material having a Curie point that is 240º C or more (para 0055) that overlaps with the claimed range of 250º C or more.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi et al (US 2021/0291157) in view of Morrison (US 2003/0029863).
Miyairi discloses the induction heating device except for a power supply circuit that comprises a direct-current power supply, an inverter, and a transformer as claimed.
Morrison discloses it is known to provide an induction heating having a power supply circuit that includes a direct-current power supply (e.g., battery that supplied DC current), an inverter (40) that inverts the DC current to an alternative current AC that is supplied to a transformer (110) for supplying the AC current to an induction coil (50). Also, see Figure 2.
In view of Morrison, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Miyairi with a known power supply circuit that includes a direct-current (DC) power supply that supplies the DC current which is inverted to an AC current by an inverter which is connected to a transformer and an induction coil for supplying the AC current to the induction coil to predictably induce a voltage in the heating object (workpiece) to be heated (via magnetic flux) as known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 9-11, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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