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 § 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 13, 14, and 16 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.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the citation of the exponent “a” in the equations is undefined by the claims. It is unclear what is it in the claims?
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a spacing" at line 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this spacing is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickens et al. (US 5,227,597).
Regarding claim 1, Dickens et al. discloses a coil system (see figure 1, i.e. called a griddle system) for inductive heating of a cooking surface (10) comprising:
at least one coil (42, i.e. Litz wire 36) having a continuous winding from a center region to an outer region (see figure 4);
wherein a spacing within adjacent wires in the winding varies (i.e. spacing from 0.25 inch to zero) between a center of the winding and an outer portion (i.e. the edges) of the winding (col. 7, lines 27-42).
With respect to claim 2, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the spacing is larger at center region than the outer portion (see figure 4, the spacing at the center is larger than the outer edge).
With respect to claim 3, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the at least one coil (42) is rectangular (col. 7, lines 46-47, i.e. 11 inches by 10 inches).
With respect to claim 5, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the at least one coil (42) comprises a plurality of coils (col. 7, lines 44-53).
With respect to claim 6, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the plurality of coils are each about the same size (i.e. the coils 42 underneath the ferrite bar 40; See figure 5, same size: 2.5 inches long, 0.75 inch wide, and 0.0187 inch thick).
With respect to claim 8, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the plurality of coils comprises a first inner coil (i.e. the central region) and a group of outer coils (i.e. the perimeter region).
With respect to claim 9, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the first inner coil is larger (see figure 4 for the coils arrangement) than any coil in the group of outer coils (i.e. the spacing at the center is larger than the outer edge).
With respect to claim 15, Dickens et al. discloses an inductive cooking device (i.e. a griddle system) comprising:
a cooking surface (10); and
at least one induction coil (42, i.e. Litz wire 36) below the cooking surface (10);
wherein the at least one induction coil (42, i.e. Litz wire 36) comprises a winding comprising adjacent lengths of winding (col. 7, lines 37-43, i.e. the coil length is 37 feet 10 inches);
wherein the adjacent lengths of winding have a spacing (i.e. spacing from 0.25 inch to zero) that varies between a center of the coil and an edge of the coil (see figure 4; i.e. the edges) (col. 7, lines 27-42).
With respect to claim 16, Dickens et al. discloses wherein a spacing between adjacent lengths increases from the edge to the center of the coil (see figure 4, i.e. the coil length is longer from the edge to the center of the coil).
With respect to claim 17, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the at least one induction coil (42) has a non-circular arrangement (see figures 1 and 4; none-circular, i.e. 11 inches by 10 inches) to induce heat in a non-circular area on the cooking surface (10).
With respect to claim 19, Dickens et al. discloses an inductive cooking device (i.e. a griddle system) comprising:
a power supply (not illustrated, col. 4, lines 32-39);
a power switch (see figure 7, i.e. User on/off switch);
a rectilinear cooking surface (10); and
an induction coil (4, 42) below the cooking surface (10) arranged in a tank circuit (see figure 7) to be energized by the power supply via the power switch (see figure 7, i.e. User on/off switch);
wherein the induction coil (4, 42) comprises a plurality of winding lengths (col. 7, lines 37-43, i.e. the coil length is 37 feet 10 inches) having a spacing (i.e. spacing from 0.25 inch to zero) between adjacent ones of the plurality of winding lengths (col. 7, lines 37-43, i.e. the coil length is 37 feet 10 inches) that decreases from a center of the coil toward a perimeter of the coil (see figure 4, i.e. the winding length is shorter than toward the edges).
With respect to claim 20, Dickens et al. discloses wherein the induction coil (4, 42) is rectangular (i.e. 11 inches by 10 inches).
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) 4, 7, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens et al. (US 5,227,597) in view of Holtz (US 20200374989).
Regarding claim 4, Dickens et al. discloses all the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the at least one coil is circular.
However, Holtz teaches wherein the at least one coil (210, 222) is circular (¶ 0029).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of induction heating surfaces. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Holtz before him or her, to include such circular shape as suggested by Holtz because it allows a surface to be used as a multi-functional surface that may be used without fear of damaging a component of the induction heating unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides heating one or more pots placed anywhere on the top surface of the range and may have the ability to read induction ready vessels placed anywhere on the surface (¶ 0006).
With respect to claim 7, Dickens in view of Holtz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Holtz further discloses wherein the at least two (232, 242, 252) of the plurality of coils differ in size (¶ 0028, 0031).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Holtz before him or her, to include such coil(s) sizes of Holtz because it allows a surface to be used as a multi-functional surface that may be used without fear of damaging a component of the induction heating unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides heating one or more pots placed anywhere on the top surface of the range and may have the ability to read induction ready vessels placed anywhere on the surface (¶ 0006).
With respect to claim 12, Dickens in view of Holtz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Holtz further discloses wherein each coil in the plurality of coils (230, 242, 252) is switched by a single switch (636) to a power supply (620) (¶ 0031, 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Holtz before him or her, to include such a switch arrangement of Holtz because it allows a surface to be used as a multi-functional surface that may be used without fear of damaging a component of the induction heating unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides heating one or more pots placed anywhere on the top surface of the range and may have the ability to read induction ready vessels placed anywhere on the surface (¶ 0006).
With respect to claim 18, Dickens in view of Holtz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Holtz further discloses wherein the at least one induction coil (210, 222) comprises a plurality of adjacent circular coils (242) arranged below the cooking surface to induce heat in non-circular area on the cooking surface (110, 220) (¶ 0029, 0031).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Holtz before him or her, to include such coil(s) arrangement of Holtz because it allows a surface to be used as a multi-functional surface that may be used without fear of damaging a component of the induction heating unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides heating one or more pots placed anywhere on the top surface of the range and may have the ability to read induction ready vessels placed anywhere on the surface (¶ 0006).
With respect to claim 21, Dickens in view of Holtz discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Holtz further discloses wherein the induction coil (210, 222)comprises a plurality of circular coils (242) each with a plurality of winding lengths (see figure 2D) having a spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality of winding lengths that decreases from a center of the coil toward a perimeter of the coil (see figure 2D) (¶ 0030-0031).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Holtz before him or her, to include such coil(s) arrangement of Holtz because it allows a surface to be used as a multi-functional surface that may be used without fear of damaging a component of the induction heating unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides heating one or more pots placed anywhere on the top surface of the range and may have the ability to read induction ready vessels placed anywhere on the surface (¶ 0006).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens et al. (US 5,227,597) in view of Cunningham (US 3,843,857).
Regarding claim 10, Dickens et al. discloses all the claimed limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein each coil in the plurality of coils has a separate tank circuit.
However, Cunningham teaches wherein each coil (26) in the plurality of coils has a separate tank circuit (52) (col. 7, lines 67-col. 8, lines 25).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an induction heating/cooking system. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dickens and Cunningham before him or her, to include such tank circuit arrangement of Cunningham because it provides extremely utilitarian, relatively inexpensive stove tops and coils as indicated which may be easily and conveniently manufactured and which are capable of giving prolonged, reliable performance. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it gives a prolonged reliable performance at a comparatively economic cost and which may be easily and conveniently used efficiently with a minimum of difficulty (col. 2, lines 23-26).
With respect to claim 11, Dickens in view of Cunningham discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Dickens further discloses wherein each coil (62) in the plurality of coils is switched by a plurality of separate switches to a power supply (col. 9, lines 3-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record are Dickens et al. in view of Holtz, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 13, “wherein the at least one coil further comprises stretches of rectangular winding having spacings therebetween governed by the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xcoil and ycoil are coordinate values for a given stretch of rectangular windings as defined by the wind number, which is the quantized parameter going from zero to a maximum value of total number of windings and the maximum and minimum values for the coil winding (xmax, ymax and xmin, ymin respectively) are predetermined.
Similarly, the closest prior art of record are Dickens et al. in view of Holtz, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 14, “wherein the at least one coil comprises a plurality of winding lengths having spacings therebetween governed by the equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where rcoil is the radius of the coil at a given point as defined by the wind number, which is the continuous parameter going from zero to a maximum value of total number of winding lengths from a center of the coil, and the maximum and minimum values for the coil winding ( rmax and rmin respectively) are predetermined.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dickens et al. (US 5,134,265). Schmidt (US 20180332998). Poumey (US 4,833,288). And Akel et al. (US 6,498,325).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights