Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitaizumi et al (US 2011/0100980) cited by applicant. Kitaizumi discloses induction heating cooker comprising a glass upper plate (1) configured to have a heating region to heat a cooking container (par. 0111); a working coil (2, 3) configured to generate a first magnetic field to heat the cooking container; an inverter (5) comprising a switching element driven to allow a current to flow through the working coil (2, 3, par.0115), claim 14); and a shield circuit (17) configured to generate a second magnetic field to negate effects of the first magnetic field (par. 0114, Figure 5A).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaizumi et al (US 2011/0100980) cited by applicant. Regarding claim 2, Kitaizumi discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention includes the shield circuit (17) but silent the shield circuit comprises a shield coil and a shield capacitor. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to have the shield circuit comprises a shield coil and a shield capacitor in order to block the leakage magnetic field by generates a magnetic field reverse to the magnetic field generated by the heating coil.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaizumi et al (US 2011/0100980), in view of KR 1020200075551 both cited by applicant. Regarding claims 3-7, Kitaizumi discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention including an inductor comprising a switching element (par. 0115) is used to reduce electromagnetic waves by generating a magnetic field reverse to the magnetic field generated by the heating coil (par. 0114 and figure 5A), but does not discloses an inner coil and an outer coil wound in a circular shape are formed by separate closed circuits; and when strong heat is required, both the two coils are operated, and when weak heat is required, only the inner coils is operated. KR 1020200075551 discloses an inner coil and an outer coil wound in a circular shape are formed by separate closed circuits; and when strong heat is required, both the two coils are operated, and when weak heat is required, only the inner coils is operated (claims 1 and 4, figures 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Kitaizumi an inner coil and an outer coil wound in a circular shape are formed by separate closed circuits; and when strong heat is required, both the two coils are operated, and when weak heat is required, only the inner coils is operated as taught by KR 1020200075551 in order to have power suitable for heating the object. Regarding claim 8, KR 1020200075551 discloses controlling the operations of an inner coil (120) and an outer coil (130) through a control unit (190) according to the size of a cooking container (B, par. 0031, and figures 4-5).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaizumi et al (US 2011/0100980), in view of KR 1020200075551 and further in view of JP 2000-182762A all cited by applicant. Regarding claim 9, Kitaizumi/ KR 1020200075551 discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention except an output unit configured to output a notification when the size of the cooking container is smaller than or equal to the reference size and the cooking container is not aligned to the heating region. JP 2000-182762A discloses detecting a positional deviation of a heating container with respect to an induction heating device and displaying or warning same (claim 6). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to utilize in Kitaizumi/ KR 1020200075551 detecting a positional deviation of a heating container with respect to an induction heating device and displaying or warning same as taught by JP 2000-182762A in order to detect and compare the position and the size of the cooking container with the reference size.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaizumi et al (US 2011/0100980) cited by applicant. Regarding claims 10-11, Kitaizumi discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention includes the shield circuit (17, Figure 1B) but silent the shield device comprising: a case disposed on an upper portion of the cooktop; and a shield coil disposed inside of the case. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to have the shield device comprising: a case disposed on an upper portion of the cooktop; and a shield coil disposed inside of the case in order to prevent the leakage magnetic field to outside of the case. Regarding claims 12-14, additional features could be readily derived from the magnetic field shield member (17) disclosed by Kitaizumi, which has a greater size than the heating region of the heating coil (par. 0114, Figure 5A). Regarding claims 15 and 20, additional features could be derived through simple design change to the magnetic field shield member (17) for generating a magnetic field reverse to the magnetic field generated by the heating coil (par. 0114, figures 5A). Regarding claim 16, Kitaizumi discloses a ferrite core (27) disposed below the working coil (2, 3), wherein the ferrite core (27) negates the effects of a portion of the first magnetic field near the ferrite core (Figure 2B). Regarding claim 17, Kitaizumi discloses an aluminum plate (13, par. 0125) disposed below the ferrite core (27). Regarding claim 18, Kitaizumi discloses the shield circuit (17) further comprises an aluminum plate (par. 0114). Regarding claim 19, Kitaizumi discloses the working coil (2, 3) is disposed on an upper portion of the aluminum plate (13, Figure 5B).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: OK et al (US 2024/0060653) discloses cooktop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG T VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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.
/QUANG T VAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights