DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "a first one of the pair of flat faces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “pair of flat faces” is newly introduced. It appears this issue may stem from a typographical error in claim 2 in which “part of flat faces” was likely intended to be “pair of flat faces.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5) teaches a ferrite core for an induction coil (Figure 5, material grade for shape 4 is 3C90 which is a McZn ferrite type as evidenced by FERROXCUBE [Power Conversion, 2020]; can be reasonably used for an induction coil; preamble not limiting), the ferrite core comprising:
a central portion (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, central portion);
a first end portion adjacent the central portion (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, first end); and
a second end portion adjacent the central portion opposite the first end portion (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, second end);
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion extend perpendicular to the central portion (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, first end and second end extend perpendicularly to the central portion) and wherein the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, have a cross-section selected from a rounded non-circular cross-section and a circular cross-section having an aperture extending at least partially along the first end portion and the second end portion respectively (circular cross-section having an aperture extending; FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, each of the first and second end portions have a circular cross-section having an aperture extending at least partially along the first and second end portions respectively).
PNG
media_image1.png
209
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1 Type 4; first/second end and central portion are annotated
Regarding claim 18, FERROXCUBE teaches the ferrite core for an induction coil of claim 17, wherein
the cross-section of the first end portion is a first cross-section, and wherein the cross-section of the second end portion is a second cross-section, and wherein the first cross-section is the same as the second cross-section (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, cross section of the two ends is identical; FERROXCUBE Figure 1 Type 1, “c” is used to denote width for one end while “e’ is used to denote length for the other; Page 3 Table 1, UR64/40/20 have the same value for both “c” and “e”).
Regarding claim 19, FERROXCUBE teaches the ferrite core for an induction coil of claim 17, wherein
the cross-section is a consistent cross-section along the length of the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively (FERROXCUBE Annotated Figure 1, cross section of the two ends portions is consistent across each respectively length).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Njiende (US 20180197673 A1).
Regarding claim 20, FERROXCUBE teaches the ferrite core for an induction coil of claim 17.
While FERROXCUBE does not explicitly teach that “the central portion, the first end portion and the second end portion are formed integrally as a single unitary body”, that the MEPE teaches that the use of one-piece construction instead of a separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. MPEP §2144.04.V.B. In this case, having the central portion, first end portion, and second end portion all be formed integrally would be merely a matter of obvious engineer choice. Furthermore, Njiende (US 20180197673 A1) teaches that magnetic core elements are preferably manufactured as a single piece of magnetic material (Paragraph 177) wherein the transformer core elements are u-shaped core elements (Paragraph 183). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Njiende and have magnetic core elements be manufactured as a single piece of magnetic material. This would have been done for purposes of obvious engineering choice.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) and Sigl (US 20190103218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holz (US 4110588 A) teaches an inductive cooktop (Figure 1) comprising:
a panel configured to support a cookware object (Column 1 Lines 45-47, thin insulating plate 80); and
an induction coil layer disposed below the panel (Figure 2 Column 2 Lines 11-18, U-shaped magnetic core 168 positioned below plate 80), the induction coil layer operable to generate a time varying electromagnetic field (Column 3 Lines 37-55, current flows periodically in the oscillator winding wherein heating current is induced in the metal base of the cup 70 as the oscillator continues to oscillate) that inductively couples with the cookware object supported at the panel (Column 2 Lines 11-18, cup 60 and core 148 are dimensioned so that the metal base of the cup forms an inductive circuit with the core legs 170); and
the induction coil layer comprising an induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168);
the induction coil comprising a ferrite core (Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 wherein the core is made of ferrite), the ferrite core comprising a central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises a base 172), a first end portion adjacent the central portion and a second end portion adjacent the central portion opposite the first end portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170 positioned adjacent to the base 172); and a conductor wound around the central portion of the ferrite core (Column 2 Lines 25-36, inductive winding 284 is wound around the base 172); wherein the first end portion and the second end portion extend perpendicular to the central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170 which each extend in a perpendicular direction to the base 172).
Holz fails to explicitly teach:
a transparent panel configured to support a cookware object; and
an induction coil layer disposed below the transparent panel
the cookware object supported at the transparent panel; and
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, have a rounded non-circular cross-section
Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) teaches an induction heating cooking apparatus, comprising:
a transparent panel configured to support a cookware object (Paragraph 59, top plate 21 is formed with a light transparent material; Paragraph 54, top plate wherein a cook pot such as a pan and a kettle are placed);
an induction coil layer disposed below the transparent panel (Paragraph 54, coil 22 for generating magnetic force for heating the cook pot by induction heating is disposed below the top plate 21)
the cookware object supported at the transparent panel (Paragraph 54, top plate wherein a cook pot such as a pan and a kettle are placed); and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Hosoi and have the insulating plate be transparent. This would have been done so that an illuminated circle is projected and appears on the top plate so that a user can easily recognize a place where a cook pot can be efficiently induction-heated (Hosoi Paragraph 59).
While Holz modified with Hosoi fails to explicitly teach that “the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, have a rounded non-circular cross-section”, the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the first end portion and second end portion have rounded non-circular cross-sections is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, Sigl (US 20190103218 A1) teaches of a power source applied to induction heating (Sigl Paragraph 15) using U-shaped ferrite cores (Sigl Paragraph 17) wherein a conductive wire is found around the bridge of a core (Sigl Figure 3 Paragraph 29) and wherein the end faces of said U-shaped ferrite cores comprise obround cross sections (Sigl Figure 3 Paragraph 31). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Sigl and have had the end faces of the ferrite cores comprise rounded non-circular cross-sections. This would have been done as an obround profile of the cores improves the ease, speed, and/or efficiency of the windings (Sigl Paragraph 34).
The Office further notes that the use of two legs positioned perpendicular to a central ferrite core for heating cooking appliances is well known in the art as evidenced by SCHROEDER (US 3530499 A).
Regarding claim 2, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 1.
Sigl further teaches:
the rounded non-circular cross-section comprises a first semi-circular end, a second semi-circular end (Paragraph 34, cores include some flat areas 315 along each of the legs which comprise a semicircular shape; Figure 3, two semi-circular ends form the edges of the obround shape), and a part of flat faces separating the semi-circular ends (Figure 3 Paragraph 31, leg portions each have an obround cross section which comprises two semi-circular cross sectional ends combined with a flat face separating said two ends to form an obround shape)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 2.
Sigl further teaches:
a first one of the pair of flat faces is disposed adjacent the conductor (Figure 3, at least one flat face cross sections are positioned on the bridge is positioned adjacent to the bridge and thus the windings 130).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
See 112b rejection above for “the pair of flat faces”.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) and Sigl (US 20190103218 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 1, wherein:
the induction coil is a first induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168)
the induction coil layer comprising a first induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168), the first induction coil comprising a first ferrite core (Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 wherein the core is made of ferrite), the first ferrite core comprising a first central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises a base 172), a first first end portion adjacent the first central portion, and a first end portion adjacent the first central portion opposite the first end portion Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170); and a first conductor wound around the first central portion of the first ferrite core (Column 2 Lines 25-36, inductive winding 284 is wound around the base 172); wherein the first first end portion and the first end portion extend perpendicular to the first central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises base and legs 170 which each extend in a perpendicular direction); and wherein the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively have a first rounded cross-section (Sigl Paragraph 31, end faces of said U-shaped ferrite cores comprise obround cross sections).
Holz as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the induction coil layer further comprising a second induction coil
OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for electromagnetic induction, wherein:
the induction coil layer further comprising a second induction coil (Figure 5A-5B Paragraph 57, electromagnetic induction device 2000 may include a plurality of working coils corresponding to the plurality of cooking zones; Paragraph 155, each of the working coils are wound around a ferrite core; Paragraph 154, working coil is used to inductively heat the cooking device placed on the top plate)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with OOSAKO and have had a second induction coil identical to the first induction coil. This would have been done to provide a plurality of working coils corresponding to a plurality of cooking zones (OOSAKO Paragraph 57).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having a second induction coil which is identical to the first induction coil has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 6, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 4.
the rounded cross-section is a first rounded cross-section (Sigl Paragraph 31, end faces of said U-shaped ferrite cores comprise obround cross sections) and wherein the second rounded cross-section is the same as the first rounded cross-section (OOSAKO Figure 5A-5B Paragraph 57, electromagnetic induction device 2000 may include a plurality of working coils corresponding to the plurality of cooking zones; Paragraph 155, each of the working coils are wound around a ferrite core; Paragraph 154, working coil is used to inductively heat the cooking device placed on the top plate).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, duplicating the first induction coil and using a second induction coil with the same cross-section has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The Office further notes, the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the second rounded-cross section be the same as the first rounded cross-section is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
The Office further notes, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the second rounded-cross section be the same as the first rounded cross-section is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1), Sigl (US 20190103218 A1), and OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Seguy (US 4792652 A).
Regarding claim 5, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 4.
Holz as modified fails to teach:
the second conductor is wound in an anti-parallel direction about the second central portion relative to conductor of the first induction coil
Seguy (US 4792652 A) teaches an induction cooking apparatus, wherein:
the second conductor is wound in an anti-parallel direction about the second central portion relative to conductor of the first induction coil (Column 2 Lines 55-62, first coil having a first direction of winding and at one second coil formed of at least turn of a direction opposite to that of the first coil)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Seguy and have the second conductor be wound in an anti-parallel direction to the first conductor. This would have been done to produce magnetic fields which are equal in value but opposite in phase such as to reduce harmonic pollution to a minimum (Seguy Column 2 Lines 49-54).
The Office further notes that it is known in the art that adjusting the winding direction and current flow of adjacent induction coils is known in the art to be beneficial for creating an even heating pattern as evidenced by Paragraph 65 of Bassill (US 20230380023 A1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1), Sigl (US 20190103218 A1), and OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Iguchi (US 5401939 A).
Regarding claim 7, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 4.
Holz as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the second induction coil is arranged in the induction coil layer such that the second central portion extends parallel to the first central portion.
Iguchi (US 5401939 A) teaches an electromagnetic induction heater, wherein:
the second induction coil is arranged in the induction coil layer such that the second central portion extends parallel to the first central portion (Figure 16 Column 8 Lines 16-28, positioning a plurality of units each comprising a magnetic flux diffusing members and a metal core wherein each of the metal cores are parallel to one another and each of the magnetic flux diffusing members are parallel to one another).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with OOSAKO and have the second central portion extends parallel to the first central portion. This would have been done to so that a wide cooking area can be heated uniformly (OOSAKO Column 3 Lines 11-16).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) and FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Holz (US 4110588 A) teaches an inductive cooktop (Figure 1) comprising:
a panel configured to support a cookware object (Column 1 Lines 45-47, thin insulating plate 80); and
an induction coil layer disposed below the panel (Figure 2 Column 2 Lines 11-18, U-shaped magnetic core 168 positioned below plate 80), the induction coil layer operable to generate a time varying electromagnetic field (Column 3 Lines 37-55, current flows periodically in the oscillator winding wherein heating current is induced in the metal base of the cup 70 as the oscillator continues to oscillate) that inductively couples with the cookware object supported at the panel (Column 2 Lines 11-18, cup 60 and core 148 are dimensioned so that the metal base of the cup forms an inductive circuit with the core legs 170); and
the induction coil layer comprising an induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168);
the induction coil comprising a ferrite core (Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 wherein the core is made of ferrite), the ferrite core comprising a central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises a base 172), a first end portion adjacent the central portion and a second end portion adjacent the central portion opposite the first end portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170 positioned adjacent to the base 172); and a conductor wound around the central portion of the ferrite core (Column 2 Lines 25-36, inductive winding 284 is wound around the base 172); wherein the first end portion and the second end portion extend perpendicular to the central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170 which each extend in a perpendicular direction to the base 172).
Holz fails to explicitly teach:
a transparent panel configured to support a cookware object; and
an induction coil layer disposed below the transparent panel
the cookware object supported at the transparent panel; and
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, have a circular cross-section including a first aperture extending at least partially through the first end portion and a second aperture extending at least partially through the second end portion
Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) teaches an induction heating cooking apparatus, comprising:
a transparent panel configured to support a cookware object (Paragraph 59, top plate 21 is formed with a light transparent material; Paragraph 54, top plate wherein a cook pot such as a pan and a kettle are placed);
an induction coil layer disposed below the transparent panel (Paragraph 54, coil 22 for generating magnetic force for heating the cook pot by induction heating is disposed below the top plate 21)
the cookware object supported at the transparent panel (Paragraph 54, top plate wherein a cook pot such as a pan and a kettle are placed); and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Hosoi and have the insulating plate be transparent. This would have been done so that an illuminated circle is projected and appears on the top plate so that a user can easily recognize a place where a cook pot can be efficiently induction-heated (Hosoi Paragraph 59).
While Holz modified with Hosoi fails to explicitly teach that “wherein the first end portion and the second end portion, respectively, have a circular cross-section including a first aperture extending at least partially through the first end portion and a second aperture extending at least partially through the second end portion”, the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the first end portion and second end portion have circular cross-sections with apertures extending through is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5) teaches of a UR64/40/20 ferrite cores of 3C90 material grade (which is a McZn ferrite type as evidenced by FERROXCUBE [Power Conversion, 2020]) comprising circular cross-sections and an aperture extending at least partially through the center of each of a first and second end (FERROXCUBE Figures 1-2 Type 4). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with FERROXCUBE and have the ferrite core be a UR64/40/20 ferrite core. This would have been done for purposes of obvious engineering choice of choosing the desired effective core parameters and dimensions.
Regarding claim 9, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 8.
FERROXCUBE further teaches:
the first aperture extends fully through the first end portion and the second aperture extends fully through the second end portion (Figures 1-2, the apertures of the type 4 ferrite core extend entirely through the first and second end portions respectively).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 9.
FERROXCUBE further teaches:
the first aperture is disposed along a center of the circular cross-section of the first end portion and the second aperture is disposed along a center of the circular cross-section of the second end portion (Figures 1-2, the apertures of the type 4 ferrite core are disposed along the center of the first end portion and the second end portion respectively).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1) and FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 8, wherein:
the induction coil is a first induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168)
the induction coil layer comprising a first induction coil (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168), the first induction coil comprising a first ferrite core (Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 wherein the core is made of ferrite), the first ferrite core comprising a first central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises a base 172), a first first end portion adjacent the first central portion, and a first end portion adjacent the first central portion opposite the first end portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170); and a first conductor wound around the first central portion of the first ferrite core (Column 2 Lines 25-36, inductive winding 284 is wound around the base 172); wherein the first first end portion and the first end portion extend perpendicular to the first central portion (Figure 2 Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 7, U-shaped magnetic core 168 comprises legs 170 which each extend in a perpendicular direction); and wherein the first first end portion and the first second end portion, respectively have a first circular cross-section including a third aperture extending at least partially through the first first end portion and a fourth aperture extending at least partially through the first second end portion (FERROXCUBE Figures 1-2, Type 4 UR64/40/20 ferrite cores comprise of circular cross-sections and an aperture extending at least partially through the center of each of a first and a second end).
Holz as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the induction coil layer further comprising a second induction coil
OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for electromagnetic induction, wherein:
the induction coil layer further comprising a second induction coil (Figure 5A-5B Paragraph 57, electromagnetic induction device 2000 may include a plurality of working coils corresponding to the plurality of cooking zones; Paragraph 155, each of the working coils are wound around a ferrite core; Paragraph 154, working coil is used to inductively heat the cooking device placed on the top plate)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with OOSAKO and have had a second induction coil. This would have been done to provide a plurality of working coils corresponding to a plurality of cooking zones (OOSAKO Paragraph 57).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having a second induction coil which is identical to the first induction coil has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 12, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 11.
FERROXCUBE further teaches:
the third aperture extends fully through the second first end portion and the fourth aperture extends fully through the second second end portion (Figures 1-2, the apertures of the type 4 ferrite core extend entirely through the first and second end portions respectively).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 11.
FERROXCUBE further teaches:
the third aperture is disposed along a center of the circular cross-section of the second first end portion and the fourth aperture is disposed along a center of the circular cross-section of the second second end portion (Figures 1-2, the apertures of the type 4 ferrite core are disposed along the center of the first end portion and the second end portion respectively).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 11, wherein:
the circular cross-section is a first circular cross-section (Figures 1-2, the end faces of the legs comprise circular cross-sections) and wherein the second circular cross-section is the same as the first circular cross-section (OOSAKO Figure 5A-5B Paragraph 57, electromagnetic induction device 2000 may include a plurality of working coils corresponding to the plurality of cooking zones; Paragraph 155, each of the working coils are wound around a ferrite core; Paragraph 154, working coil is used to inductively heat the cooking device placed on the top plate).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, duplicating the first induction coil and using a second induction coil with the same cross-section has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The Office further notes, the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the second rounded-cross section be the same as the first circular cross-section is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
The Office further notes, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having the second circular-cross section be the same as the first rounded cross-section is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1), FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5), and OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Iguchi (US 5401939 A).
Regarding claim 14, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 11.
Holz as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the first induction coil and the second induction coil are arranged in the induction coil layer with the second central portion extending parallel to the first central portion.
Iguchi (US 5401939 A) teaches an electromagnetic induction heater, wherein:
the first induction coil and the second induction coil are arranged in the induction coil layer with the second central portion extending parallel to the first central portion (Figure 16 Column 8 Lines 16-28, positioning a plurality of units each comprising a magnetic flux diffusing members and a metal core wherein each of the metal cores are parallel to one another and each of the magnetic flux diffusing members are parallel to one another).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with OOSAKO and have the second central portion extends parallel to the first central portion. This would have been done to so that a wide cooking area can be heated uniformly (OOSAKO Column 3 Lines 11-16).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (US 4110588 A) in view of Hosoi (US 20080017633 A1), FERROXCUBE (UR cores, 2004, Pages 1-5), OOSAKO (US 20230403767 A1), and Iguchi (US 5401939 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Seguy (US 4792652 A).
Regarding claim 15, Holz as modified teaches the inductive cooktop of claim 14.
Holz as modified fails to teach:
the second conductor is wound in an anti-parallel direction about the second central portion relative to conductor of the first induction coil
Seguy (US 4792652 A) teaches an induction cooking apparatus, wherein:
the second conductor is wound in an anti-parallel direction about the second central portion relative to conductor of the first induction coil (Column 2 Lines 55-62, first coil having a first direction of winding and at one second coil formed of at least turn of a direction opposite to that of the first coil)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holz with Seguy and have the second conductor be wound in an anti-parallel direction to the first conductor. This would have been done to produce magnetic fields which are equal in value but opposite in phase such as to reduce harmonic pollution to a minimum (Seguy Column 2 Lines 49-54).
The Office further notes that it is known in the art that adjusting the winding direction and current flow of adjacent induction coils is known in the art to be beneficial for creating an even heating pattern as evidenced by Paragraph 65 of Bassill (US 20230380023 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights