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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the SMPS 170 described in fig. 3 is not shown in fig. 3; the Drawings also show a sensor 170, which appears to be different than an SMPS 170 that is described in the Specification.
The drawings are objected to because fig. 5 is not reproducible or legible (evident in the publication of US20240188200A1). Recommend using lines that are “sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined” to delineate the figure (MPEP 608.02).
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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitation in claim 8 lacks antecedent bases in the Specification: “a plurality of discharge holes overlapping with wires.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/525,634 in view of Alves et al. (US-20070228031-A1).
Instant Application
Application No. 18/525,634
1. A cooking appliance comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated; a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object;
a temperature sensor configured to sense a first temperature of the upper plate; at least one sub temperature sensor configured to sense a second temperature of the upper plate; and
a sensor support member including a main mounting portion and a sub mounting portion, the temperature sensor being mounted on the main mounting portion and the at least one sub temperature sensor being mounted on the sub mounting portion, wherein the sensor support member is disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil along a radial direction of the working coil.
1. A cooking appliance comprising: a first temperature sensor; a second temperature sensor; an analog switch configured to select one of a sensing value of the first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor as a selected sensing value; and a processor configured to: receive the selected sensing value from the analog switch, and apply the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generate a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function.
2. The cooking appliance according to claim 1, further comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated; and a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object.
3. The cooking appliance according to claim 2, further comprising
a sensor support member disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil, wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are mounted on the sensor support member.
15. A cooking appliance comprising:
a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object; a temperature sensor configured to sense a first temperature; at least one sub temperature sensor configured to sense a second temperature; and
a sensor support member supporting the temperature sensor and the at least one sub temperature sensor, wherein a first end of the sensor support member corresponds to a center of the working coil and a second end of the sensor support member is disposed outside of an outermost coil winding of the working coil, and wherein the temperature sensor and the at least one sub temperature sensor are located at different distances away from the center of the working coil.
1. A cooking appliance comprising: a first temperature sensor; a second temperature sensor; an analog switch configured to select one of a sensing value of the first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor as a selected sensing value; and a processor configured to: receive the selected sensing value from the analog switch, and apply the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generate a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function.
2. The cooking appliance according to claim 1, further comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated; and a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object.
3. The cooking appliance according to claim 2, further comprising
a sensor support member disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil, wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are mounted on the sensor support member.
Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634 teach claim 1 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor configured to sense a first temperature of the upper plate; at least one sub temperature sensor configured to sense a second temperature of the upper plate; and
a sensor support member including a main mounting portion and a sub mounting portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Alves teaches a temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 54, fig. 1) configured to sense a first temperature of the upper plate (cooking plate 4, fig. 2; para 0061); at least one sub temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 40, fig. 1) configured to sense a second temperature of the upper plate (cooking plate 4, fig. 2; para 0060); and a sensor support member (temperature sensor assembly 30, fig. 1) including a main mounting portion (central region 36, fig. 1) and a sub mounting portion (peripheral region 34, fig. 1).
Alves, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
1000
1393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634, in view of the teachings of Alves, by using a temperature sensor assembly 30, as taught by Alves, as the sensor support member, such that the first and second temperature sensors, as taught in Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634, were mounted in the central region 36 and in the peripheral region 34, respectively, of the sensor assembly 30, as taught by Alves, in order to use an elongated sensor assembly that is not cumbersome or expensive and that minimizes the thermal conduction that is absorbed from the heating element to the sensor assembly (Alves, paras 0005, 0019, and 0062).
Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634 teach claim 15 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose a first end of the sensor support member corresponds to a center of the working coil and a second end of the sensor support member is disposed outside of an outermost coil winding of the working coil, and wherein the temperature sensor and the at least one sub temperature sensor are located at different distances away from the center of the working coil.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Alves teaches a first end (annotated in fig. 1 below) of the sensor support member (temperature sensor assembly 30, fig. 1) corresponds to a center of the working coil (center of heating element 20, fig. 1; “electrical induction heating element,” para 0040) and a second end (annotated in fig. 1 below) of the sensor support member is disposed outside of an outermost coil winding of the working coil (outermost coil of heating element 20, fig. 1), and wherein the temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 54, fig. 1) and the at least one sub temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 40, fig. 1) are located at different distances away from the center of the working coil (element 40 is a further distance than element 54 from the center of the heating element 20, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634, in view of the teachings of Alves, by using a temperature sensor assembly 30, as taught by Alves, as the sensor support member, such that the first and second temperature sensors, as taught in Claims 1-3 of Application No. 18/525,634, were mounted in the central region 36 and in the peripheral region 34, respectively, of the sensor assembly 30, as taught by Alves, in order to use an elongated sensor assembly that is not cumbersome or expensive and that minimizes the thermal conduction that is absorbed from the heating element to the sensor assembly (Alves, paras 0005, 0019, and 0062).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite “an object” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
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 the following:
In claims 1 and 15, the “sensor support member” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “member” and the functional limitation is “sensor support.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “bridge” and a “screw” through a “fixing portion.”
In claim 13, the “fitting portions” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “portions” and the functional limitations are “fitting” and “for fixing the sensor support member on the coil base member.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “protrusions.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves et al. (US-20070228031-A1) in view of Enomoto et al. (JP-4934168-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Alves teaches a cooking appliance (“cooking appliance,” para 0001) comprising:
an upper plate (cooking plate 4, fig. 2) configured to support an object (cooking utensil 8, fig. 2) to be heated;
a working coil (heating elements 20, fig. 1; the heating elements 20 are construed as having a coil shape, fig. 1) for heating the object (para 0060);
a temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 54, fig. 1) configured to sense a first temperature of the upper plate (plate 4, fig. 2; para 0061);
at least one sub temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 40, fig. 1) configured to sense a second temperature of the upper plate (para 0060); and
a sensor support member (temperature sensor assembly 30, fig. 1; the assembly has an elongated bridge shape, fig. 1; “elongate substrate,” para 0036; the assembly 30 includes a fastener 90, which is construed as a screw, and a bracket 80, which is construed as a fixing portion, fig. 3A) including a main mounting portion (central region 36, fig. 1) and a sub mounting portion (peripheral region 34, fig. 1), the temperature sensor being mounted on the main mounting portion (element 54 is in region 36, fig. 1) and the at least one sub temperature sensor being mounted on the sub mounting portion (element 40 is in region 34, fig. 1),
wherein the sensor support member is disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil along a radial direction of the working coil (assembly 30 extends radially outwards from the center of elements 20, fig. 1).
Alves, figs. 1 and 3A
PNG
media_image2.png
1057
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
580
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alves does not explicitly disclose a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields (although Alves teaches that the heating element 20 can include “at least one electrical induction heating element,” para 0040).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches a working coil (coil 110, fig. 1) configured to generate magnetic fields (para 0007).
Enomoto, fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
640
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using an annular coil, as taught by Enomoto, as the heating elements 20, as taught by Alves, in order to heat the cooking container by generating a magnetic field when an electric current is applied, such that eddy currents are generated, causing a top plate to heat up so that cooking can occur (Enomoto, paras 0006-0007).
Regarding claim 2, Alves teaches wherein the main mounting portion is disposed at the center of the working coil (region 36 is at the center of element 20, fig. 1), and wherein the sub mounting portion is disposed over the working coil (region 34 is over the element 20, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Alves teaches wherein the sub mounting portion is disposed between the main mounting portion and an outer circumference of the working coil (region 34 is located between region 36 and the outer circumference of the outer coil for element 20, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Alves teaches wherein the at least one sub temperature sensor (element 40, fig. 1) includes a plurality of sub temperature sensors (“additional to the first temperature-sensitive electrical resistance element 40 provided on the upper surface 38 of the substrate 32, a first temperature-sensitive electrical resistance element could be provided on a lower surface 66 of the substrate 32,” para 0046; construed as two sensors for element 40, one on the top surface 38 and another on the bottom surface 66 of substrate 32, fig. 3A), and wherein the sensor support member includes a plurality of sensor spaces (space inside insulation means 74 and the recess 72, fig. 3B) defined in the sub mounting portion (region 34, fig. 1), the plurality of sub temperature sensors being disposed in the plurality of sensor spaces (the element 40 is located within the space inside means 74 and within the recess 72, figs. 3A and 3C).
Regarding claim 5, Alves teaches wherein each of the plurality of sensor spaces (space inside insulation means 74 and the recess 72, fig. 3B) is located at a different distance away from the main mounting portion (annotated in fig. 3B below).
Alves, fig. 3B (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
1030
1030
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Alves teaches wherein the plurality of sensor spaces (space inside insulation means 74 and the recess 72, fig. 3B) are disposed in a straight line (the construed spaces are disposed along a line through the center of the assembly 30, fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 8, Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor support member includes a plurality of discharge holes overlapping with wires connected to the plurality of sub temperature sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches wherein the sensor support member (base member 31, fig. 3) includes a plurality of discharge holes (holes 42, fig. 3) overlapping with wires (wires 37, fig. 4a) connected to the plurality of sub temperature sensors (detection units 32, fig. 4a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using the base member 31, as taught by Enomoto, at the end 52, as taught by Alves, in order to use an insulated base member at the end which suppresses the effects of the magnetic field generated by the coil (Enomoto, para 0007).
Regarding claim 9, Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a harness space is defined in the sub mounting portion, and wherein a harness is disposed in the harness space, the harness being connected to the at least one sub temperature sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches wherein a harness space (grooves 31d, fig. 3; construed as a harness space because the wires 37 connect to a harness, fig. 6) is defined in the sub mounting portion (base member 31, fig. 3), and wherein a harness is disposed in the harness space (wires 37 connect to a harness, fig. 6), the harness being connected to the at least one sub temperature sensor (wires 37 connect to sensors 32, fig. 4a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using the base member 31, as taught by Enomoto, at the end 52, as taught by Alves, and by using the single connector 50, as taught in fig. 6 of Enomoto, for the lines 94 and 96, as taught by Alves, in order to use an insulated base member at the end which suppresses the effects of the magnetic field generated by the coil and so that as a result of using a single connector, miswiring can be prevented when assembling the temperature sensor (Enomoto, paras 0007 and 0022).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Alves in view of Enomoto as set forth above regarding claim 9 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Enomoto teaches wherein the harness space (grooves 31d, fig. 3) has a bent portion that is bent at least one time (groove 31d at bent part 31a, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Alves in view of Enomoto as set forth above regarding claim 9 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Enomoto teaches wherein the bent portion (groove 31d at bent part 31a, fig. 3) has a rounded shape or a curved shape (bent part 31a has a curved shape, fig. 3) that bends away from the center of the working coil (the bent part 31a is construed as being away to the outside away from the center of the coil when the member 31 is added to the end 52, fig. 1 of Alves).
Regarding claim 12, Alves teaches wherein the sensor support member (assembly 30, fig. 1) has a bridge shape (“temperature sensor assembly 30 comprises a thin elongate substantially planar substrate 32,” para 0042; construed as being a “bridge shape”) including a first end disposed at center of the working coil (center of elements 20, fig. 1) and second end disposed outside of an outermost coil winding of the working coil (outermost coil of elements 20, fig. 1; annotated in fig. 1 below).
Alves, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
1000
1380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor support member includes a harness outlet hole disposed at an end of the sensor support member that is opposite to the center of the working coil.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches wherein the sensor support member (base member 31, fig. 3) includes a harness outlet hole (holes 42, fig. 3; construed as a harness outlet hole because the wires 37 connect to a harness, fig. 6) disposed at an end of the sensor support member that is opposite to the center of the working coil (member 31 is construed as being added to the end 52, which is opposite to the center of the coil 20, fig. 1 of Alves).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using the base member 31, as taught by Enomoto, at the end 52, as taught by Alves, in order to use an insulated base member at the end which suppresses the effects of the magnetic field generated by the coil (Enomoto, para 0007).
Regarding claim 15, Alves teaches a cooking appliance (“cooking appliance,” para 0001) comprising:
a working coil (heating elements 20, fig. 1; the heating elements 20 are construed as having a coil shape, fig. 1) for heating the object (cooking utensil 8, fig. 2; para 0060);
a temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 54, fig. 1) configured to sense a first temperature (para 0061);
at least one sub temperature sensor (electrical resistance element 40, fig. 1) configured to sense a second temperature (para 0060); and
a sensor support member (temperature sensor assembly 30, fig. 1; the assembly has an elongated bridge shape, fig. 1; “elongate substrate,” para 0036; the assembly 30 includes a fastener 90, which is construed as a screw, and a bracket 80, which is construed as a fixing portion, fig. 3A) supporting the temperature sensor and the at least one sub temperature sensor (paras 0046-0047),
wherein a first end of the sensor support member (annotated in fig. 1 above) corresponds to a center of the working coil (center of elements 20, fig. 1) and a second end (annotated in fig. 1 above) of the sensor support member is disposed outside of an outermost coil winding of the working coil (outermost coil of elements 20, fig. 1), and
wherein the temperature sensor and the at least one sub temperature sensor are located at different distances away from the center of the working coil (element 40 is further away from the center than element 54, fig. 1).
Alves does not explicitly disclose a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields (although Alves teaches that the heating element 20 can include “at least one electrical induction heating element,” para 0040).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches a working coil (coil 110, fig. 1) configured to generate magnetic fields (para 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using an annular coil, as taught by Enomoto, as the heating elements 20, as taught by Alves, in order to heat the cooking container by generating a magnetic field when an electric current is applied, such that eddy currents are generated, causing a top plate to heat up so that cooking can occur (Enomoto, paras 0006-0007).
Regarding claim 16, Alves teaches further comprising an upper plate (cooking plate 4, fig. 2) configured to support the object to be heated (cooking utensil 8, fig. 2), wherein the sensor support member is disposed between the upper plate and the working coil (assembly 30 is between heating elements 20 and plate 4, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Alves teaches further comprising a sensor hole (recess 72, fig. 3B) in an upper surface (upper surface 38, fig. 3A) of the sensor support member, wherein the at least one sub temperature sensor is disposed in the sensor hole (resistance element is located within recess 72, fig. 3B; para 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Alves taches wherein the temperature sensor is disposed at the center of the working coil (element 54 is located at the center of the elements 20, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a cavity within the sensor support member, wherein the at least one sub temperature sensor and a wiring harness connected to the at least one sub temperature sensor are disposed in the cavity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Enomoto teaches further comprising a cavity (grooves 31d, fig. 3) within the sensor support member (base member 31, fig. 3), wherein the at least one sub temperature sensor (sensor 32, fig. 4a) and a wiring harness (fig. 6 is construed as being a wire harness) connected to the at least one sub temperature sensor are disposed in the cavity (wires 37 are located in the grooves 31d, fig. 4a; the wires 37 connect with the connection 50 through the lead wires 39 and the sensor 32, figs. 4 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Enomoto, by using the base member 31, as taught by Enomoto, at the end 52, as taught by Alves, and by using the single connector 50, as taught in fig. 6 of Enomoto, for the lines 94 and 96, as taught by Alves, in order to use an insulated base member at the end which suppresses the effects of the magnetic field generated by the coil and so that as a result of using a single connector, miswiring can be prevented when assembling the temperature sensor (Enomoto, paras 0007 and 0022).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Alves in view of Enomoto as set forth above regarding claim 19 teaches the invention of claim 20. Specifically, Enomoto teaches wherein the cavity (grooves 31d, fig. 3) includes a main cavity portion and a sub cavity portion (annotated in fig. 3 below) extending from the main cavity portion (the construed sub cavity portion extends upwards away from the construed main cavity portion, annotated fig. 3 below), and wherein the sub cavity portion has a shape that bends or curves (bent part 31a has a curved shape, fig. 3) away from the center of the working coil (the bent part 31a is construed as being away to the outside away from the center of the coil when the member 31 is added to the end 52, fig. 1 of Alves).
Enomoto, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
816
757
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves et al. (US-20070228031-A1) in view of Enomoto et al. (JP-4934168-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Ota et al. (JP-2009283205-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a thermal grease disposed in the plurality of sensor spaces.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Ota teaches further comprising a thermal grease disposed in the plurality of sensor spaces (“heat-conductive silicone grease may be applied around the temperature sensing junction 31,” para 0043).
Ota, fig. 3
PNG
media_image8.png
562
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Ota, by using a heat-conductive silicone grease, as taught by Ota, in the insulation means 74 and in the recess 72, as taught by Alves, in order to insulate sensor the air generated around the induction heating coil, so that the sensor 40 only measures the temperature of the plate 4 that is above the sensor and is not affected by the air around the coil, which is below the sensor (Ota, paras 0043 and 0046).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves et al. (US-20070228031-A1) in view of Enomoto et al. (JP-4934168-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Choi et al. (KR-20210095491-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Alves teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a coil base member, the working coil being wrapped around the coil base member; a pair of fitting portions protruding from the main mounting portion of the sensor support member; and a space between the pair of fitting portions, wherein the pair of fitting portions are inserted into a central hole in the coil base member for fixing the sensor support member on the coil base member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Choi teaches further comprising: a coil base member (coil base 20, fig. 3), the working coil being wrapped around the coil base member (coil 10 wraps around base 20, fig. 2); a pair of fitting portions (projections 64, fig. 3) protruding from the main mounting portion (support member 60, fig. 3) of the sensor support member; and a space between the pair of fitting portions (space between projections 64 and seating portion 66, fig. 3), wherein the pair of fitting portions are inserted into a central hole in the coil base member (“a hole formed in the working coil base,” para 0036; the hole in base 20 is shown in fig. 3) for fixing the sensor support member on the coil base member (“inserted and coupled,” para 0036).
Choi, fig. 3
PNG
media_image9.png
850
748
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Alves, in view of the teachings of Choi, by using the support member 60 with a temperature sensor 30, as taught by Choi, instead of the element 54, as taught by Alves, such that the support member coupled with a base, as taught by Choi, for the coil, as taught by Enomoto, in order to secure the sensor to the middle of the coil such that there is a gap space between the coil and the top plate, which facilitates determining the eccentricity of the container (Choi, paras 0032, 0039, and 0042)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang et al. (US-20210259064-A1) teach multiple temperature sensors (fig. 19).
Cha et al. (US-20210289592-A1) teach a wiring harness for a temperature sensor.
Ok et al. (US-20240215122-A1) is the publication for Application No. 18/525,634.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights