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 for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because Reference Numeral 1 in Figure 1 is improperly underlined. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84 (q).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because the use of shading in Figs 6-23 uses solid blacks shading areas in a matter not utilized to represent a bar graph or color. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because Figures 7-13 use reference numerals with no reference lines and are not underlined. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) and 1.84(q) because Figure 14 includes a reference numeral that is in brackets, where the reference numeral is not underlined and does not include reference lines. Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted. See 37 CFR 1.83(p)(1). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because characters are placed on the drawing in Figure 24. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20100176116-A1) in view of Kwack (KR-102306813-B1).
With regards to Claims 1 and 15 Lee teaches (Figs 1-7) a cooking appliance and heating device including working coils. Lee teaches that the cooking appliance (1) with an oven (10) and a cook top (30) disposed at the upper part, and a drawer (70) disposed at a lower part of the oven serving as storage ([0026]). Lee also teaches the cooktop (30) includes a case (31), a cooking plate (32), a heating device (34), and a control unit (48), where the case receives the various parts and electric components, including the heating device (34) and control unit (48) that make up the cook top ([0034]-[0035]). The cooking plate (32) in the upper part of the case may be flat and formed using tempered glass, where the heating device (34) is mounted at the lower part of the cooking plate to heat a container placed on the plate ([0036]-[0037]). Lee teaches that to heat the container, the heating device includes working coils (36, 38, 40, 42) which generate a magnetic field to heat a cooking container, where the first and second working coils are arranged side by side, and the define a first cooking area (32a), which can be further broken into cooking areas (32b and 32c), where a third sub cooking area (32d) partly overlaps both of the first and second working coils ([0037]-[0038]). Additionally, the third and fourth working coils define a second and third cooking area (32e, 32f), where the control unit controls the operation of the cooktop and working coils through an operation unit (49), allowing the user to operate the heating areas and coils simultaneously or separately depending on the size and shape of the cooking container (Figs 3-7, [0039]-[0042]). However, Lee does not teach that a plurality of inverters apply current to the working coils.
With regards to Claims 1, Kwack teaches (Figs 1-17) an induction heating type cooktop. Kwack teaches that the induction heating cooktop includes a controller (70) that controls the direction of current flowing through the first and second working coils (WC-1, WC-2) through an inverter (60), which includes a first inverter (61) and second inverter (62), where the inverter (60) can provide resonant current to the working coil (WC) through switching operations performed as a signal from the control unit (70) (Figs 13-15, [0146]-[0149], [0162]). Kwack further teaches that the inverters can individually supply power to separate coils, where the current comes from the same inverter (Fig 13, switching SW1 to point 2 and SW2 to point 1 creates an open loop such that WC-2 does not make a complete circuit and WC-1 does make a complete circuit); additionally Kwack teaches that that multiple working coils can receive current from different inverters (Fig 14, [0147]-[0148], WC-1 receives current from inverter 61 (61-1 & 61-2), and WC-2 receives current from inverter 62 (62-1 & 62-2)). Additionally, Kwack teaches that the first working coils (WC-1) and the second working coil (WC-2), where the working coils together make up a single circular shape (WC), and includes a Thin Film (TL) that overlaps the outer region of the working coils (WC-O) in a vertical direction, where the thin film can include magnetic or non-magnetic properties (Fig 9, [0038], [0039], [0107]). Kwack also teaches that the thin film may be coated on the upper plate (15) of the case (25), and can be coated on the upper surface or the lower surface of the upper plate, such that the thin film is inductively heated by the working coil unit ([0034]-[0037]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Lee teaches the cooking appliance that includes a top plate to support the container to be heated, multiple working coils arranged in different heating areas to heat the container, and a controller that controls the cooktop and the working coils that provide heat to the container, and Kwack teaches the inclusion of multiple inverters to provide current to the working coils, as well as a thin film that is heated by the working coils to provide heat to nonmagnetic containers. One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of inverters in cooking appliances is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the inverters is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because both references deal with a cooktop appliance used to heat a container using working coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance taught by Lee to incorporate different inverter setups and films that provide heat to non-magnetic containers as taught by Kwack, to provide current to the working coils because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claims 2, 3, and 16, Kwack teaches that the first working coils (WC-1) and the second working coil (WC-2), where the working coils together make up a single circular shape (WC) where a Thin Film (TL) overlaps the outer region of the working coils (WC-O) in a vertical direction (Fig 9, [0038], [0107]). Additionally, Kwack teaches that the thin film that can include magnetic or non-magnetic properties ([0039]). Kwack also teaches that the thin film may be coated on the upper plate (15) of the case (25), and can be coated on the upper surface or the lower surface of the upper plate, such that the thin film is inductively heated by the working coil unit ([0034]-[0037]).
With regards to Claims 5 and 6, Kwack teaches that the inverter (60) can provide resonant current to the working coil (WC) through switching operations performed as a signal from the control unit (70) (Fig 13, [0146]-[0147], [0162]). Kwack further teaches that the inverters can individually supply power to separate coils, where the current comes from the same inverter (Fig 13, switching SW1 to point 2 and SW2 to point 1 creates an open loop such that WC-2 does not make a complete circuit and WC-1 does make a complete circuit).
With regards to Claims 7, Kwack teaches that multiple working coils can receive current from different inverters (Fig 14, [0147]-[0148], WC-1 receives current from inverter 61 (61-1 & 61-2), and WC-2 receives current from inverter 62 (62-1 & 62-2)).
With regards to Claim 8, Kwack teaches that the multiple working coils can receive current from individual inverters (Fig 15, [0147]-[0148], WC-1 receives current from inverter 61, and WC-2 receives current from inverter 62).
With regards to Claim 18, as previously stated, Lee and Kwack teach the cooking appliance with a top plate, a plurality of working coils, an intermediate heating member with magnetic materials, a storage drawer, multiple inverters, and a controller to control the heating areas and coils of the cooking appliance. It can be noted that the device inherently contains an accommodation portion for the intermediate member when the intermediate heater is not in use as the heating member is part of the device and is therefore stored within the device. (Examiner Note: It appears applicant wants the intermediate heating member to be stored in an accommodation portion when the controller moves the intermediating intermediate heating member in Claim 17 and 19, however Claim 18 requires no controller or movement as currently written.)
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kwack in view of Younghwan (KR-20190131386-A).
With regards to Claim 4, Lee and Kwack teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that the coils work in a same phase.
With regards to Claim 9, Lee and Kwack teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that the inverters supply current in the same frequency but opposite phases.
Younghwan teaches (Figs 1-8) an induction heating device having improved control. Younghwan teaches the control unit (310) provides control signals of the same frequency and same phase to the first and second inverter units (IV1, IV2), where the first and second working coils (WC1, WC2) can be driven with the same phase and frequency ([0090]-[0091]). Younghwan also teaches that the control unit (310) can provide signals of the same frequency and 180 degree opposite phases to the first and second inverter which in turn drive the first and second working coils with the same frequency but at opposite phases ([0093]-[0095]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Lee teaches the cooking appliance that includes a top plate to support the container to be heated, multiple working coils arranged in different heating areas to heat the container, and a controller that controls the cooktop and the working coils that provide heat to the container, Kwack teaches the inclusion of multiple inverters to provide current to the working coils, and Younghwan teaches driving the inverters and working coils at the same frequency and either in phase or opposite phase depending on the need and input. One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of inverters and working coils being operated at the same frequency and at the same and opposite phases in cooking appliances is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the inverters and working coils is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a cooktop appliance used to heat a container using working coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance taught by Lee to incorporate inverters as taught by Kwack, along with driving the inverters and working coils at the same frequency at either the same or opposite phase to provide current to the working coils because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kwack in view of Moon (US-20130248517-A1).
Lee and Kwack teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the controller detects the location of the object and determines what corresponding heating area applies to the location.
Moon teaches (Figs 1-11) an induction heating cooking apparatus and control method. Moon teaches the induction heating cooking apparatus has hating units (110) and (120) which includes a plurality of heating coils forming heating regions where a plurality of inverters (210, 22) supply a driving voltage to the heating coils ([0030]). Additionally, Moon teaches a control unit (400) that is configured to detect the heating regions in which a vessel is placed and control the inverters and relays (310, 320) to connect the heating coils corresponding to the heating region detected by the control unit ([0030]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Lee teaches the cooking appliance that includes a top plate to support the container to be heated, multiple working coils arranged in different heating areas to heat the container, and a controller that controls the cooktop and the working coils that provide heat to the container, Kwack teaches the inclusion of multiple inverters to provide current to the working coils, and Moon teaches detecting and operating the heating area corresponding to the location of the placed vessel. One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of inverters, working coils, and object detection in cooking appliances is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the cooking appliance is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a cooktop appliance used to heat a container using working coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance taught by Lee to incorporate inverters as taught by Kwack, along with the objection detection and control of the heating area provided by Moon, to provide current to the working coils because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Kwack, and Moon in view of Seongjun (US-20200154598-A1).
Lee, Kwack, and Moon teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the cooking appliance has a diffusion plate and an indicator light, where the indicator light is disposed around a working coil.
Seongjun teaches (Figs 1-15) an induction heating device having an improved cooling structure. Seongjun teaches a light guide (210) that displays whether the working coil (WC) is driven and outputs the intensity of the working coil through a light emitting upper surface ([0090]). Seongjun further teaches that a light guide installation hole (147) is used to install the light guide in the space between the ferrite cores in the base plates (145) ([0091]). The light guide installation hole may be defined around the working coil and four light guide installation holes exist per one working coils, defining the exterior around the working coil ([0091]). Seongjun further teaches that the plurality of light emitting elements (177) on the indicator substrates, where the substrates are installed on the upper surface of the support (170), may be made of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0094]-[0095]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Lee teaches the cooking appliance that includes a top plate to support the container to be heated, multiple working coils arranged in different heating areas to heat the container, and a controller that controls the cooktop and the working coils that provide heat to the container, Kwack teaches the inclusion of multiple inverters to provide current to the working coils, Moon teaches detecting and operating the heating area corresponding to the location of the placed vessel, and Seongjun teaches the indicator LEDs that are disposed around and correspond to working coils that are actively being utilized . One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of inverters, working coils, object detection, and indicator lights in cooking appliances is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the cooking appliance is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a cooktop appliance used to heat a container using working coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance taught by Lee to incorporate inverters as taught by Kwack, the objection detection and control of the heating area provided by Moon, and the indicator lights taught by Seongjun to provide current to the working coils because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kwack in view of Seongjun.
Lee and Kwack teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically teach the indicator light disposed around the working coils.
Seongjun again teaches (Figs 1-15) an induction heating device having an improved cooling structure. Seongjun teaches a light guide (210) that displays whether the working coil (WC) is driven and outputs the intensity of the working coil through a light emitting upper surface ([0090]). Seongjun further teaches that a light guide installation hole (147) is used to install the light guide in the space between the ferrite cores in the base plates (145) ([0091]). The light guide installation hole may be defined around the working coil and four light guide installation holes exist per one working coils, defining the exterior around the working coil ([0091]). Seongjun further teaches that the plurality of light emitting elements (177) on the indicator substrates, where the substrates are installed on the upper surface of the support (170), may be made of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0094]-[0095]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Lee teaches the cooking appliance that includes a top plate to support the container to be heated, multiple working coils arranged in different heating areas to heat the container, and a controller that controls the cooktop and the working coils that provide heat to the container, Kwack teaches the inclusion of multiple inverters to provide current to the working coils, and Seongjun teaches the indicator LEDs that are disposed around and correspond to working coils that are actively being utilized . One of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of inverters, working coils, and indicator lights in cooking appliances is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the cooking appliance is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a cooktop appliance used to heat a container using working coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooking appliance taught by Lee to incorporate inverters as taught by Kwack, and the indicator lights taught by Seongjun to provide current to the working coils because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 would be allowable for disclosing an intermediate housing member that a controller moves from a first position does not overlap working coils to a second portion that overlaps at least one of the working coils in a vertical direction.
Claim 19 would be allowable for disclosing an intermediate housing member that a controller moves from a stowed position to a position that overlaps the first and second working coils. Lee discloses a cooking appliance and heating device that includes working coils. Lee teaches that the cooking appliance (1) with an oven (10) and a cook top (30) disposed at the upper part, and a drawer (70) disposed at a lower part of the oven serving as storage ([0026]). Lee also teaches the cooktop (30) includes a case (31), a cooking plate (32), a heating device (34), and a control unit (48), where the case receives the various parts and electric components, including the heating device (34) and control unit (48) that make up the cook top ([0034]-[0035]). The cooking plate (32) in the upper part of the case may be flat and formed using tempered glass, where the heating device (34) is mounted at the lower part of the cooking plate to heat a container placed on the plate ([0036]-[0037]). Lee teaches that to heat the container, the heating device includes working coils (36, 38, 40, 42) which generate a magnetic field to heat a cooking container, where the first and second working coils are arranged side by side, and the define a first cooking area (32a), which can be further broken into cooking areas (32b and 32c), where a third sub cooking area (32d) partly overlaps both of the first and second working coils ([0037]-[0038]). Additionally, the third and fourth working coils define a second and third cooking area (32e, 32f), where the control unit controls the operation of the cooktop and working coils through an operation unit (49), allowing the user to operate the heating areas and coils simultaneously or separately depending on the size and shape of the cooking container (Figs 3-7, [0039]-[0042]). However, Lee does not teach that a plurality of inverters apply current to the working coils.
Kwack teaches (Figs 1-17) an induction heating type cooktop. Kwack teaches that the induction heating cooktop includes a controller (70) that controls the direction of current flowing through the first and second working coils (WC-1, WC-2) through an inverter (60), which includes a first inverter (61) and second inverter (62) (Figs 13-15, [0146]-[[0149]). Kwack further teaches that the first working coils (WC-1) and the second working coil (WC-2), where the working coils together make up a single circular shape (WC) where a Thin Film (TL) overlaps the outer region of the working coils (WC-O) in a vertical direction (Fig 9, [0038], [0107]). Additionally, Kwack teaches that the thin film that can include magnetic or non-magnetic properties ([0039]). Kwack also teaches that the thin film may be coated on the upper plate (15) of the case (25), and can be coated on the upper surface or the lower surface of the upper plate, such that the thin film is inductively heated by the working coil unit ([0034]-[0037]). Kwack further teaches that the inverter (60) can provide resonant current to the working coil (WC) through switching operations performed as a signal from the control unit (70) (Fig 13, [0146]-[0147], [0162]). Kwack further teaches that the inverters can individually supply power to separate coils, where the current comes from the same inverter (Fig 13, switching SW1 to point 2 and SW2 to point 1 creates an open loop such that WC-2 does not make a complete circuit and WC-1 does make a complete circuit). Furthermore, Kwack teaches that multiple working coils can receive current from different inverters (Fig 14, [0147]-[0148], WC-1 receives current from inverter 61 (61-1 & 61-2), and WC-2 receives current from inverter 62 (62-1 & 62-2)) as well as teaching that the multiple working coils can receive current from individual inverters (Fig 15, [0147]-[0148], WC-1 receives current from inverter 61, and WC-2 receives current from inverter 62).
Kwack discloses a thin film that can be made of a magnetic material that can be positioned over the working coils such that the thin film can be heated by the working coils to heat a container placed on the top surface of the cooktop. The thin film is an integrated part of the cooktop and thus would not be movable by the controller. Therefore, Lee in view of Kwack would fail to teach the controller moving the intermediate heater. One of ordinary skill would be drawn to a configuration such as Kwack, where the intermediate heater is stationary and doesn’t move to a stowed position, when designing a stovetop with an intermediate heater.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US-20210259067-A1) teaches (Figs 1-25) an induction heating type cooktop. Kim teaches that the induction heating type cooktop (1) includes a case (2), a cover plate (3), a working coil (WC), and a thin layer (TL) ([0059]). The induction cooktop includes other elements such as a rectifier for supplying AC power and rectifying the AC power to DC power, an inverter for converting the DC power into a resonance current, a control module for controlling the operations of the induction cooktop, including a relay or switch that turns on and off the working coil ([0061]).
Son (WO-2022231065-A1) teaches (Figs 1-19) an induction heating type cooktop. The induction heating cooktop of Son includes an intermediate heating body (IM), a working coil (WC), cover plate (20), case (25), and a cooktop (1) ([0061]). Son also teaches that the intermediate heating element is heated by an eddy current (I) so that the heated object (HO) that does not have magnetism can be indirectly heated by the intermediate heating element heated by the working coil.
Jian (CN-113396642-A) teaches (Figs 1-22) an induction heating cooker that includes a first induction heating component (11) and an intermediate coil (113) disposed between the inner coil (111) and the outer coil (112) ([0156]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights