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 .
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same phraseology as claim 1. Recommend breaking up the sentence into multiple sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 20 in fig. is not mentioned in the Specification.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Dashed circles are used in combination for the lead lines for “PGS,” “MCP,” and “FCP.” Although circles are permitted for identifying “views,” circles are not permitted for use with “lead lines” (MPEP 608.01).
The lead line for WCT5 in fig. 13 is illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US-12089320-B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. US-12089320-B2
1. An induction heating device, comprising:
a case;
a working coil disposed inside the case, the working coil comprising a conducting wire that is annularly wound;
a base plate that is disposed vertically below the working coil, the base plate having an upper surface that supports the working coil;
an indicator substrate support that is coupled to the case and that is disposed vertically below the base plate;
an indicator substrate that is disposed on an upper surface of the indicator substrate support, that is disposed vertically below the base plate, and that is spaced apart from the base plate;
an inverter substrate disposed at a lower surface of the indicator substrate support, the inverter substrate comprising an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil through a switching operation; and
a resonance substrate that is disposed at the lower surface of the indicator substrate support and that is connected to the working coil, the resonance substrate comprising a resonance capacitor configured to generate the resonance current based on the switching operation of the inverter.
1. An induction heating device, comprising:
a case;
a working coil disposed inside the case, the working coil comprising a conducting wire annularly wound;
a base plate disposed vertically below the working coil, the base plate having an upper surface supporting the working coil;
an indicator substrate support coupled to the case and disposed vertically below the base plate;
an indicator substrate disposed on an upper surface of the indicator substrate support, disposed vertically below the base plate, and spaced apart from the base plate, the indicator substrate comprising a light emitting element disposed on the indicator substrate;
an inverter substrate disposed at a lower surface of the indicator substrate support, the inverter substrate comprising an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil through a switching operation;
a resonance substrate disposed at the lower surface of the indicator substrate support and connected to the working coil, the resonance substrate comprising a resonance capacitor electrically connected to the working coil and the inverter;
a first heat sink disposed at the inverter substrate and configured to dissipate heat generated by the inverter; and
a second heat sink disposed at the resonance substrate and configured to dissipate heat generated by the resonance capacitor,
wherein an air flow path is defined between the base plate and the indicator substrate,
wherein the base plate defines a plate hole at a position corresponding to an annular inner side of the working coil,
wherein the indicator substrate defines a substrate hole at a position corresponding to the plate hole,
wherein the indicator substrate support defines a support hole at a position corresponding to the substrate hole,
wherein the plate hole, the substrate hole, and the support hole are arranged along a height direction of the case, and
wherein the working coil comprises an individual terminal connected to the resonance capacitor through the plate hole, the substrate hole, and the support hole.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US-11672055-B2 in view of Kusaka et al. (US-20110073588-A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. US-11672055-B2
1. An induction heating device, comprising:
a case;
a working coil disposed inside the case, the working coil comprising a conducting wire that is annularly wound;
a base plate that is disposed vertically below the working coil, the base plate having an upper surface that supports the working coil;
an indicator substrate support that is coupled to the case and that is disposed vertically below the base plate;
an indicator substrate that is disposed on an upper surface of the indicator substrate support, that is disposed vertically below the base plate, and that is spaced apart from the base plate;
an inverter substrate disposed at a lower surface of the indicator substrate support, the inverter substrate comprising an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil through a switching operation; and
a resonance substrate that is disposed at the lower surface of the indicator substrate support and that is connected to the working coil, the resonance substrate comprising a resonance capacitor configured to generate the resonance current based on the switching operation of the inverter.
1. An induction heating device, comprising:
a working coil comprising a conducting wire that is wound in an annular shape and that is connected to a plurality of electric terminals;
a ferrite core disposed vertically below the working coil and configured to direct upward an alternating magnetic field generated by the working coil, the ferrite core defining a stepped portion at each corner of the ferrite core;
a base plate that supports the ferrite core on an upper surface of the base plate and that defines a connection hole having a shape corresponding to the corner of the ferrite core; and
an indicator substrate disposed vertically below the base plate, the indicator substrate comprising a connector that is disposed on an upper surface of the indicator substrate, that is coupled to one or more of the plurality of electric terminals, and that protrudes upward through the connection hole,
wherein the connection hole is defined at an oblique position with respect to the ferrite core and has a rectangular shape, and
wherein the stepped portion of the ferrite core is curved inward to thereby accommodate a corner of the connection hole.
17. The induction heating device of claim 1, further comprising:
an indicator substrate support comprising an upper surface that supports the indicator substrate;
an inverter substrate disposed on a lower surface of the indicator substrate support, the inverter substrate comprising an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil and a first heat sink configured to dissipate heat generated by the inverter; and
a resonance substrate disposed on the lower surface of the indicator substrate support, the resonance substrate comprising a resonance capacitor configured to generate the resonance current and a second heat sink configured to dissipate heat generated by the resonance capacitor.
Claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US-11672055-B2 teach claim 1 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose a case; an indicator substrate support that is coupled to the case.
However, in the same field of endeavor of induction heating devices, Kusaka teaches a case (“a box-shaped outer shell opening upward and having a bottom wall 21 a and a plurality of side walls (not shown),” para 0036); an indicator substrate support (supports 31a, fig. 5) that is coupled to the case (bottom wall 21a, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US-11672055-B2, in view of the teachings of Kusaka, by using a box-shaped outer shell, as taught by Kusaka, such that the shell connected with the inverter substrate support, as taught in claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. US-11672055-B2, in order to use an outer shell around the induction heating device, for the advantage of keeping the induction coil clean and from being tampered with while a cooking container is over the induction coil and is being heated.
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: “indicator substrate support” in claim 1.
The generic placeholder is “support,” and the functional limitation is “indicator substrate support” (interpreted as being a means for supporting the indicator substrate).
Structure that is used to cover the functional limitation from the Specification includes an “lower fence” and an “upper fence.”
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaka et al. (US-20110073588-A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US-20120223070-A1) and Yun (US-20200329535-A1, effective filing date of 5 Sep 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Kusaka teaches an induction heating device (fig. 5; “the basic construction of the fifth embodiment is the same as that of the first embodiment,” para 0054), comprising:
a case (“a box-shaped outer shell opening upward and having a bottom wall 21 a and a plurality of side walls (not shown),” para 0036; annotated in fig. 5);
a working coil (coil 24, fig. 5) disposed inside the case (the coil 24 is construed as being inside the “outer shell,” taught in para 0036);
a base plate (coil base 29, annotated in fig. 5) that is disposed vertically below the working coil, the base plate having an upper surface that supports the working coil (upper surface of base 29 supports coil 24, fig. 5);
an indicator substrate support (supports 31a, annotated in fig. 5; interpreted under 35 USC 112f; the bottom half of supports 31a is construed as being a “lower fence” and the upper half of supports 31a is construed as being an “upper fence”) that is coupled to the case (supports 31a couple to bottom wall 21a, fig. 5) and that is disposed vertically below the base plate (the supports 31a are vertically below the base 29, fig. 5);
an indicator substrate (plate 28, fig. 5, annotated) that is disposed on an upper surface of the indicator substrate support (top surface of supports 31a, fig. 5), that is disposed vertically below the base plate, and that is spaced apart from the base plate (spaced vertically as a result of the springs 31b, fig. 5);
an inverter substrate (heat sink 36a, annotated in fig. 5; the heat sink 36a has an upper surface, which is construed as being a “substrate” because the semiconductor elements 36c are mounted to this upper surface, para 0037 and fig. 2) disposed at a lower surface of the indicator substrate support (bottom half surface of support 31a; annotated in fig. 5), the inverter substrate comprising an inverter (“an inverter circuit formed by semiconductor elements 36 c such as, for example, IGBTs and rectifiers mounted to and cooled by a heat sink (cooling fins) 36 a,,” para 0037); and
a resonance substrate (control circuit 27, annotated in fig. 5) that is disposed at the lower surface of the indicator substrate support (bottom half surface of support 31a; annotated in fig. 5) and that is connected to the working coil (“The control circuit 27 also includes a controller for the inverter circuit and generates a high frequency current to be supplied to the heating coil 24,” para 0037), the resonance substrate comprising a resonance capacitor (resonance capacitors 36b, fig. 5).
Kusaka, fig. 5 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
567
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusaka does not explicitly disclose the working coil comprising a conducting wire that is annularly wound; an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil through a switching operation; a resonance capacitor configured to generate the resonance current based on the switching operation of the inverter (Kusaka does not explicitly disclose that the coils are comprised of wires).
However, in the same field of endeavor of induction heating devices, Matsui teaches the working coil comprising a conducting wire that is annularly wound (“wires constituting the heating coil 4,” para 0054).
Matsui, fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
833
964
media_image2.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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Matsui, by using wires, as taught by Matsui, to constitute the heating coils 24, as taught by Kusaka, in order to produce a circulating electric current around the coil, which results in a magnetic field that enables the inducting heating device to cook food (Matsui teaches that it is “generally provided” or known that “wound wires” are used “in the induction heating coil,” para 0007).
Kusaka/Matsui do not explicitly disclose an inverter configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil through a switching operation; a resonance capacitor configured to generate the resonance current based on the switching operation of the inverter (although Kusaka teaches an inverter and a resonance capacitor, Kusaka does not explicitly disclose the functions for these components or how they work).
However, in the same field of endeavor of induction heating devices, Yun teaches an inverter (inverter circuit 53, fig. 6) configured to apply a resonance current to the working coil (para 0128) through a switching operation (switches Q1 and Q2, fig. 6; paras 0129-0137); a resonance capacitor (capacitors C3 and C4, fig. 6) configured to generate the resonance current based on the switching operation of the inverter (paras 0133-0137).
Yun, fig. 6
PNG
media_image3.png
1078
690
media_image3.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 Kusaka, in view of the teachings of Yun, by using the IGBT and resonance capacitors, as taught by Kusaka, such that the IGBT was a switching circuit that supplies or blocks current to the induction heating coil through the resonance capacitors, as taught by Yun, in order to control the switching frequency of the IGBT to cause resonance with the induction heating coil such that the output intensity of the cooking apparatus was driven for efficient operation of the induction heating coil at the resonant switching frequency (Yun, paras 0128, 0141, and 0155).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsui et al. (US-20120152933-A1) teach dividing an inverter substrate into different sections.
Son et al. (US-10917947-B2) teach resonant frequency.
Kim et al. (US-10980156-B2) was determined not to pose a double-patenting rejection for the current claims under review.
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 10/2/2026
Prosecution Insights