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 .
Reopened after the filing of an Appeal brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 18 Feb. 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 03/26/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21 are as follow.
Claim Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitation “a controller… identifying a cookware item” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “identifying” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 21 has/have been respectively interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0019], Fig. 2, Interactive assembly 110 may have a controller 510A.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller in operable communication with the heating element and the camera assembly, the controller being configured to initiate a cooking operation comprising …identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item” in line 6-10 and “displaying care recommendations based on the detected material” in line 13. It is unclear how a controller “identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item” as claimed? and Independent Claim 21 recites the limitation “a controller in operable communication with the heating element and the camera assembly, the controller being configured to initiate a cooking operation comprising… identifying a cookware item… performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby detecting a material and a care state of the cookware item” in line 7-12 and “displaying care recommendations on the image monitor based on the detected material and the determined care state of the cookware item” in line 16-17. It is unclear how a controller “to identifying the cookware item” by “performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a material and a care state of the cookware item” as claimed? Although applicant's Fig. 2 shown a cooking assembly comprising a controller 510A and a camera assembly 114A; and Para. [0033-0034] mentioned: “During use of one or more of the camera assemblies 114A, 114A, such as during an image capture sequence, camera 114A or 114B may capture one or more two-dimensional images (e.g., as a video feed or series of sequential static images) that may be transmitted to the controller 51 0A (e.g., as a data or image signal), as is generally understood. From the captured images, a cookware item 338 (e.g., type of cookware, manufacturer of the cookware, material from which the cookware is formed, etc.) within the field of view for the camera 114A or 114B may be automatically detected or identified by the controller 510A”, and “visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material, including the care state of a cookware item (e.g., whether it has been properly seasoned; whether it has been properly cleaned; whether a defect, such as a crack, scratch, or oxidization layer is present; whether it is an appropriate cookware item for use with the corresponding heating element 326 on which it is placed or is provided on cooktop surface 324, etc.). Such a correspondence or correlation between visible characteristics and material may be cataloged or stored within one or more databases (e.g., as a lookup table, chart, formula, etc.)”; the specification fails to disclose any structural details and algorithm information in the specification and drawings enabling a controller “identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item” as claimed; any image signal might be able used to decide a color (or a figure) of a cookware but not the material of the cookware as claimed (According to Dictionary.com, 1. Material means: the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed; 2. Color means: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma); it is unclear how any material can be identified based on the recited limitation and the Specification.
Applicant’s affidavit filed 10/18/2024 is directly pertinent to this written description issue and further reinforces examiner’s point. Specifically sections 6 and 8 specifically set forth that one skilled in the art would understand the system would be able to make “a prediction…as to what the material the cookware item was formed from”. Examiner agrees with this point that utilizing an image, by itself without visibly scanning a barcode, or similar, would allow a prediction to be made. The definition of “detect” is “to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of”. Applicant’s original disclosure does not broaden the definition of “detect” to include “predict” as a prediction may or may not be accurate. It is common for cookware made of different materials to look identical nonetheless (color, reflectivity, etc). Further, it is common for cookware constructed of the same base material to have coatings of various materials, non-stick coatings for example, that are deposited onto the base cookware as clear, colored, and of varying reflectively and color, such that cookware constructed of the same base material cookware would have different care instructions because of the different coatings applied. If these coatings were clear, and/or the same color and reflectivity, the camera would not be able to determine whether a coating was present (a clear coating for example having the same reflectivity as the base material) and/or which type of coating it was.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller… identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item”, rendering the claim indefinite. The 112(b) rejection are based on the fact that while turning to the specification for guidance, even though in the Specification mentioned that "visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material” in [0034], nowhere shown/ explained how a controller, by receiving the received image signal can detect a material of the cookware item as claimed; and how the care recommendations can be displayed based on the detected material as claimed. According to Dictionary.com, 1. Material means: the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed; 2. Color means: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma. Clearly, objects made with different materials can have the same color, and objects with the same material can have different color; therefore, it is unclear how can “a controller… identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item” as claimed? Please see the discussion above in the 112(a) section as to how it is unclear what the scope of the claim encompasses because of the distinction between “predict” and “detect” and with respect to base materials and coatings and how it is possible to accurately detect the material. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a controller… identifying the cookware item comprising performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a material and a care state of the cookware item”, rendering the claim indefinite. The 112(b) rejection are based on the fact that while turning to the specification for guidance, even though in the Specification mentioned that "visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material, including the care state of a cookware item” in [0034], nowhere shown/ explained how a controller, by only receiving the received image signal can determining a material and a care state of the cookware item as claimed; and how the care recommendations can be displayed based on the detected material as claimed. According to Dictionary.com: 1. Material means: the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed; 2. Color means: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma. Clearly, objects made with different materials can have the same color, and objects with the same material can have different color; therefore, it is unclear how can “controller… identifying the cookware item comprising performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a material and a care state of the cookware item” as claimed? Please see the discussion above in the 112(a) section as to how it is unclear what the scope of the claim encompasses because of the distinction between “predict” and “detect” and with respect to base materials and coatings and how it is possible to accurately detect the material. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 7-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2021/0102707 A1) in view of Schlack (US 2022/0034016 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Park et al. discloses a smart home appliance, particularly a smart cooking assembly comprising:
a cooking appliance (cooking appliance 300, [0024], Figs 1-2) comprising a heating element (heating element 326 332, [0024], Figs 1-2) defining a cooking zone selectively heated by the heating element (see cooking zones in Figs 1-2);
a camera assembly (imaging sensor 160 may be a camera, [0039], Figs 1-2) directed at the cooking zone to capture one or more images thereof (configured to capture image data of cooktop appliance 300, [0038]); and
a controller (controller 340 and 150, [0028, 0035]) in operable communication with the heating element and the camera assembly, the controller being configured to initiate a cooking operation (for controlling cooktop appliance, [0028], can selectively activate and operate these carious components, [0029]) comprising
receiving an image signal from the camera assembly (imaging sensor 160 is configured to image data of the cooktop surface 324… routed from imaging sensor 160 to controller 150, [0038]) adjacent to the cooking zone,
identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal (to image data of the cooktop surface and any cookware placed thereon, [0038], Fig 2).
Park et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item, and
initiating, automatically, care information according to the identified cookware item, wherein initiating, automatically, the care information according to the identified cookware item comprises displaying care recommendations based on the detected material.
Schlack teaches it is known in the art of smart household appliances (a laundry device 287 and 289, [0376], Fig 27. Note: “a cooking assembly” taught by Park et al. already), that include a controller (287 comprises… a display element 293 and/ or a control element 295… further comprise a camera element, [0209, 0210, 0376], Fig 27), to utilize the camera and controller in combination to determine the material and soil level of the object(s) (laundry [0209, 0210, 0376]) a user is acting on via the smart household appliance to communicate to a user (transmitting information from the controller to the app), and initiating, automatically, care information according to the identified object(s) to properly clean the object(s) even when objects of differing materials are detected [0209] and display relevant information to the user via the display [0209]. Schlack additionally teaches, in Para. [0209, 0210], a suitable program can be automatically selected depending on the detected material or type and care state (i.e. soil level) of laundry for a proper treatment during operation. Schlack further teaches, in Para. [0212-0215], storing information on material and care state (i.e. soil level) in a database and then comparing the obtained image with the information in the database to determine, display, and complete the proper next steps.
The device of Park et al. teaches the structure (camera and controller) necessary to identify cookware in a smart home appliance. Schlack is pertinent to the particular problem of increasing convenience, and within the field of endeavor, of smart home appliances. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park et al. with Schlack’s teaching of utilizing this structure to also identify the material of the identified object(s) (i.e. the cookware) and current care state (i.e. soil level) of the object(s) to automatically provide/display information to the user on how to properly care for the object(s). The technique of improving a particular class of devices (smart appliances) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art (utilizing a camera present in the smart device to identify an object presented by a user), in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, i.e. in laundry to accurately and automatically determine proper care instructions of object(s) of different materials and different soil levels.
Claim 2, wherein identifying the cookware item comprises determining a visible color of the cookware item according to the image signal (enlarged image 604 of the cookware 1’… includes color, [0045], Park et al.).
Claim 3, wherein identifying the cookware item comprises determining an identification marker on the cookware item according to the image signal (to a top surface- enlarged image 604 of the cookware 1’… includes text, [0045], Fig 6, Park et al.).
Claim 4, wherein identifying the cookware item comprises determining a cookware shape of the cookware item according to the image signal (a cookware shape- enlarged image 604 of the cookware 1’, [0045], Fig 6, Park et al.).
Claim 5, wherein identifying the cookware item comprises determining a care state of the cookware item based on the image signal (on cooktop surface- a spill event identifiable through image capture and processing, [0049], Fig 9, Park et al.. Clearly, the controller can “identifying the cookware item comprises determining a care state of the cookware item based on the image signal” as claimed).
Claim 7, wherein the cookware item comprises cast iron, and wherein the care state comprises an insufficient cookware seasoning of the cast iron based on reflectivity captured in the received image signal. (Clearly, the care state can “comprises cast iron, and wherein the care state can comprises an insufficient cookware seasoning of the cast iron based on reflectivity captured in the received image signal” as claimed, [0045-0049], Fig 9, Park et al.).
Claim 8, wherein initiating, automatically, the care information according to the identified cookware item further comprises displaying seasoning instructions in response to determining the care state of the cookware item (Clearly, wherein initiating, automatically, care information according to the identified cookware item can further “comprises displaying seasoning instructions in response to determining the care state of the cookware item” as claimed, [0045-0049], Fig 9, Park et al.).
Claim 9, wherein the care state of the cookware item comprises a cookware defect at a cooking surface of the cookware item (a cookware defect at a cooking surface- enlarged image 604 of the cookware 1’, [0045], Fig 6, Park et al.).
Claim 10, wherein initiating, automatically, the care information according to the identified cookware item further comprises displaying the care recommendations on an image monitor above the cooking appliance (an image monitor 112 above 300, [0035], Fig 1, Park et al.).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Park et al. discloses a smart home appliance, particularly a smart cooking assembly (system 100, [0024], Figs 1-2) comprising:
a cooking appliance (cooking appliance 300, [0024], Figs 1-2) comprising a heating element (heating element 326 332, [0024], Figs 1-2) defining a cooking zone selectively heated by the heating element (see cooking zones in Figs 1-2);
an image monitor mounted above the cooking appliance (an image monitor 112 above 300, [0035], Fig 1);
a camera assembly (imaging sensor 160 may be a camera, [0039], Figs 1-2) directed at the cooking zone to capture one or more images thereof (configured to capture image data of cooktop appliance 300, [0038]); and
a controller (controller 340 and 150, [0028, 0035]) in operable communication with the heating element and the camera assembly (see Figs 1-2), the controller being configured to initiate a cooking operation (for controlling cooktop appliance, [0028], can selectively activate and operate these carious components, [0029]) comprising
receiving an image signal from the camera assembly (imaging sensor 160 is configured to image data of the cooktop surface 324… routed from imaging sensor 160 to controller 150, [0038]) adjacent to the cooking zone,
identifying a cookware item the received image signal (to image data of the cooktop surface and any cookware placed thereon, [0038], Fig 2).
Park et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: identifying the cookware item comprising performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a material and a care state of the cookware item, and
initiating, automatically, care information according to the identifying the cookware item, wherein initiating, automatically, the care information according to the identified cookware item comprises
displaying care recommendations on the image monitor based on the determined material and the determined care state of the cookware item.
Schlack teaches it is known in the art of smart household appliances (a laundry device 287 and 289, [0376], Fig 27. Note: “a cooking assembly” taught by Park et al. already), that include a controller (287 comprises… a display element 293 and/ or a control element 295… further comprise a camera element, [0209, 0210, 0376], Fig 27), to utilize the camera and controller in combination to determine the material and soil level of the object(s) (laundry [0209, 0210, 0376]) a user is acting on via the smart household appliance to communicate to a user (transmitting information from the controller to the app), and initiating, automatically, care information according to the identified object(s) to properly clean the object(s) even when objects of differing materials are detected [0209] and display relevant information to the user via the display [0209]. Schlack additionally teaches, in Para. [0209, 0210], a suitable program can be automatically selected depending on the detected material or type and care state (i.e. soil level) of laundry for a proper treatment during operation. Schlack further teaches, in Para. [0212-0215], storing information on material and care state (i.e. soil level) in a database and then comparing the obtained image with the information in the database to determine, display, and complete the proper next steps.
The device of Park et al. teaches the structure (camera and controller) necessary to identify cookware in a smart home appliance. Schlack is pertinent to the particular problem of increasing convenience, and within the field of endeavor, of smart home appliances. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park et al. with Schlack’s teaching of utilizing this structure to also identify the material of the identified object(s) (i.e. the cookware) and current care state (i.e. soil level) of the object(s) to automatically provide/display information to the user on how to properly care for the object(s). The technique of improving a particular class of devices (smart appliances) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art (utilizing a camera present in the smart device to identify an object presented by a user), in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, i.e. in laundry to accurately and automatically determine proper care instructions of object(s) of different materials and different soil levels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims have been considered but are moot because of the updated rejection with new prior art made of record.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “the Affidavit traversing rejections or objections rule 132” by Jeffrey Donald Drake filed in at 10/18/2024.
The examiner’s response: The Affidavit filed on 10/18/2024 under 37 CFR 1.132 has been considered. The Affidavit fails to provide any factual evidence (e.g., experiments; studies; articles) to show that “to detect a material of the cookware item” in line 10 and “displaying care recommendations based on the detected material” in line 13 under claim 1 and “detecting a material and a care state of the cookware item” in line 12 and “displaying care recommendations on the image monitor based on the detected material” in line 16 under claim 21 (In fact, the Affidavit only mentioned “routines or programs for measuring and assigning values of visible color or reflectivity in a captured image are known” under #6 and #8 respectively); since the image received from the camera assembly can only present the color (Color means: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma) or shape of the cookware item; as to the statement in #6 and #8 of the Affidavit respectively: “it would be understood that the material of a cookware item could be detected ( e.g., a prediction made as to what material the cookware item was formed from) based on captured image” are not true; because cookware items made of different materials can be coated with same color, and cookware items made of same materials can be coated with different color, there is no way a controller can “identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the receiver image signal to detect a material of the cookware item” as claimed. the Affidavit fail to establish that the results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance (see MPEP 716.02 (b)). Furthermore, the Affidavit fails to provide any test data and analysis of the unexpected result, the examiner determines that the Affidavit are insufficient to overcome the rejection of obviousness of the pending claims based upon the combined references as set forth in this Office action. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
In addition, sections 6 and 8 of the affidavit specifically set forth that one skilled in the art would understand the system would be able to make “a prediction…as to what the material the cookware item was formed from”. Examiner agrees with this point that utilizing an image, by itself without visibly scanning a barcode, or similar, would allow a prediction to be made. The definition of “detect” is “to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of”. Applicant’s original disclosure does not broaden the definition of “detect” to include “predict” as a prediction may or may not be accurate. It is common for cookware made of different materials to look identical nonetheless (color, reflectivity, etc). Further, it is common for cookware constructed of the same base material to have coatings of various materials, non-stick coatings for example, that are deposited onto the base cookware as clear, colored, and of varying reflectively and color, such that cookware constructed of the same base material cookware would have different care instructions because of the different coatings applied. If these coatings were clear, and/or the same color and reflectivity, the camera would not be able to determine whether a coating was present (a clear coating for example having the same reflectivity as the base material) and/or which type of coating it was.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights