Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 35/524,198

Portable induction cooker

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
ETEMADI, AVA
Art Unit
2921
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 36 resolved
+40.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
38
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§102
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§112
76.9%
+36.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Objection No description of the design in the specification beyond a brief description of the drawing is generally necessary, since as a rule the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description. In re Freeman, 23 App. D.C. 226 (App. D.C. 1904) (MPEP 1503.01(II)). Additionally, the design represented may comprise shading and hatching to provide relief, and shading is understood to provide relief (37 C.F.R. 1.1026). Accordingly, for clarity, the following should be cancelled from the specification: --[[The characteristic features of the design lie in the shape;]]-- --[[the shading lines are used to show the surface of the claimed design and do not represent its surface ornamentation.]]-- The specification is also objected to for not clearly indicating the purpose of the broken lines (MPEP 1503.01(II)). The examiner understands the dash-dash broken lines in reproductions 1.8 and 1.9 to illustrate the environment, and the remaining broken lines to depict portions of the portable induction cooker. Accordingly, for clarity, the broken line description should be amended to read: --The dash-dash broken lines in reproductions 1.8 and 1.9 illustrate the environment and form no part of the claimed design. All other broken lines in reproductions depict portions of the portable induction cooker and form no part of the claimed design. -- Drawing Objection The drawing is objected to because a margin of at least 5 millimeters should be left on the sheets of each reproduction (MPEP 2909.02). Reproductions 1.1-1.4 and 1.6-1.9 have a margin smaller than 5 millimeters on the left and right sides, and reproductions should be amended to have a margin of at least 5 millimeters. PNG media_image1.png 575 808 media_image1.png Greyscale The screenshot below has arrows pointing to some of these areas. Any amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or the remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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. When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). This pertains to either: the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the originally disclosed design. 35 USC § 112(a) & (b) Rejection The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because it is not clear if the surface within the long thin rectangular area on the bottom of the design forms part of claimed design or not. Reproduction 1.2 shows this long thin rectangle in solid lines with surface shading, implying that this area within the solid thin rectangle forms part of the claimed design. However, reproduction 1.8 shows this area filled with color and the specification reads “all other broken lines and colors shown in reproductions 1.8 and 1.9 illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design,” which implies that this area within the solid thin rectangle forms no part of the claimed design. This inconsistency makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear if this area forms part of the claimed design or not. Additionally, Reproduction 1.2 shows a long thin rectangle in solid lines with surface shading, which implies that this area is part of the article being claimed, the portable induction cooker. However, the specification reads “all other broken lines and colors shown in reproductions 1.8 and 1.9 illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design,” which implies that this same area is “environmental structure.” This inconsistency makes the claim indefinite, since it is not clear if this area is part of the article, or somehow PNG media_image2.png 477 1247 media_image2.png Greyscale supposed to show part of the environment. The screenshot above has arrows pointing to the long thin rectangular area on the bottom of the design. A definite design is understood as having a specific appearance. Because of the indefinite nature of the claim, and without further clarification throughout the disclosure, the scope of the claim is left to conjecture. In an attempt to overcome the rejection, the nature of the claim must be clarified. The examiner recommends clearly describing the areas of the design that form no part of the claimed design consistently throughout the application. If the color area in reproductions 1.9 shows portions of the portable induction cooker that forms no part of the claimed design, the same area should be consistently shown to not form part of the claimed design in reproduction 1.2 (such as also being shown in color) and be clearly described in the specification. If this area is shown in color in reproductions 1.2 and 1.8 and meant to show portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design, an example description would be “The areas shown in color in reproductions 1.2 and 1.8 depict portions of the portable induction cooker and form no part of the claimed design.” Conclusion The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVA ETEMADI whose telephone number is (703)756-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Jae Liang can be reached on (571) 270-0229. 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. /A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2921 /CATHERINE S POSTHAUER/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2922
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1112359
Display screen with transitional graphical user interface
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent D1105158
DISPLAY SCREEN WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105102
DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105159
DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR A SECURITY DASHBOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1105165
DISPLAY SCREEN WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE WITH TRANSITIONAL ICON
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 36 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month