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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 08/11/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1, 8-9 and 21 has /have been amended, claims 6 and 11-20 were previously cancelled, claim 5 and 7 has /have been cancelled, claim 22 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 8-10 and 21-22 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 1-4, 8-10 and 21-22 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” and “a controller… identifying a predicted 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 21-22 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 1-4, 8-10 and 21-22 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 can “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 determining 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 determined material and the determined care state of the cookware item” in line 16-17. It is unclear how can 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? and Independent Claim 22 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 predicted cookware item… performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a prediction of a material and a prediction of a care state of the cookware item” in line 7-13 and “initiating, automatically, a display of care recommendations on the image monitor based on the determined perdition of material and the determined perdition of the care state of the cookware item” in line 14-16. It is unclear how can a controller “to identifying a predicted cookware item” by “performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a prediction of a material and a prediction of 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); by only received image signal, it is unclear how any material can be identified / predicted 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 1-4, 8-10 and 21-22 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a controller… identifying the predicted cookware item comprising performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a prediction of a material and a prediction of 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 prediction of a material and a prediction of 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 prediction of a material and a prediction of 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 1-4, 8-10 and 21-22 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. disclose 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).
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. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the controller capable of “identifying the cookware item comprises determining a care state of the cookware item based on the image signal” as claimed).
wherein the cookware item comprises cast iron (cookware data (e.g., cast iron, [0003]), and
wherein the care state comprises an insufficient cookware seasoning of the cast iron based on reflectivity captured in the received image signal. (Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that “wherein the care state” capable of “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. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclosed: 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 well 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), with 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]. Additionally, Schlack 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]).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Park et al. disclose a 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 based on the received image signal (to image data of the cooktop surface and any cookware placed thereon, [0038], Fig 2),
wherein identifying the cookware item based on a visible color of the cookware item according to the 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 disclosed: 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. wherein identifying the cookware item comprises determining the material of the cookware item based on a visible color of the cookware item according to the image signal.
Schlack teaches it is well 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]. Additionally, Schlack 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 22, Park et al. disclose 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,
wherein the cookware item comprises cast iron (cookware data (e.g., cast iron, [0003]), and
wherein the prediction of the care state comprises an insufficient cookware seasoning of the cast iron based on reflectivity captured in the received image signal (Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that “wherein the prediction of the care state” capable of “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. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclosed: identifying a predicted cookware item based on the received image signal, identifying the predicted cookware item comprising performing a routine applied to the image signal and thereby determining a prediction of a material and a prediction of a care state of the cookware item, and initiating, automatically, a display of care recommendations on the image monitor based on the determined prediction of the material and the determined prediction of the care state of the cookware item.
Schlack teaches it is well 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), with 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]. Additionally, Schlack 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
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding 112(a) rejection, namely “Appellant respectfully traverses the rejections under§ l 12(a). As described in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Specification of the present application with respect to the exemplary use of a camera and controller for detecting a material, "visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material." Moreover, "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.)." Id. In other words, a visible color or reflectivity value detected from a captured image may be applied to a lookup table, chart, or formula that correlates visible color or reflectivity values to a programmed list of materials. Such lookup tables, charts, or formulas may be developed prior to programming a controller, for instance, using empirical data in which the visible color or reflectivity is measured for several known materials that are commonly used for cooking utensils. Thus, the detected visible color or reflectivity value may be an input variable for a lookup table, chart, or formula providing a stored material (i.e., the label of such a material) as an output variable. Care recommendations may further correspond to (e.g., be linked to) different materials. See e.g., id at paragraphs 61 and 62. Thus, once the material or care state is determined (e.g., as an output variable) care recommendations stored with or as part of a database of known materials, may further be looked up and subsequently displayed on a suitable image monitor or display, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. As previously discussed, this position is further supported by the Rule 1.132 Declaration of Jeffrey Donald Drake, filed October 18, 2024. For instance, as evidenced by Mr. Drake's statements, "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the specification, 'identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item.' For instance, 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. Such a detection may be made based on one or more values of visible color or reflectivity that may be measured on a captured image file. Referring to the original disclosure of the present application, this is supported by, at least, paragraph 0034 (e.g., 'As an example, the identification or detection may be based, at least in part, an analysis for color, reflectivity, or other visible characteristics of the cookware 338 captured in one or more images of the image capture sequence. For instance, visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material ... '). The fact that certain materials may look visually similar does present practical challenges in executing portions of the present disclosure ( e.g., the granularity of reference data and precision or accuracy of a camera assembly), but does not change the fundamental understanding of the terms used herein or counter the evidence provided by the Applicant”.
The examiner’s response: The claims 1 and 21-22 (see 112(a) rejection shown above in this office action) contain 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. 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); by only received image signal, it is unclear how any material can be identified / predicted based on the recited limitation and the Specification? Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding 112(b) rejection, namely “As Applicant has previously noted, that the examiner's above statement mischaracterizes the current claim. For instance, it is important to note that the claim does not recite that received image signal can detect a material. Claim 1 recites a cooking assembly, including a controller is configured to initiate a cooking operation that includes "identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item." In this clause, the actor is not the image signal, it is the controller. The image signal ( e.g., a two dimensional image included therein) is used to detect a material. As noted above, embodiments described in the specification provide examples that illustrate how this might occur. For instance, paragraph 34 of the Specification of the current application states that "visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material." Moreover, "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.)." Id. In light of such disclosures, Appellant notes that it would understood by one of ordinary skill how a captured image or signal may be analyzed ( e.g., using edge matching, divide-and-conquer search, greyscale matching, histograms of receptive field responses, or another suitable routine-see e.g., ,i 33) to make an identification or detection of color, reflectivity, or other visible characteristics as one or more characteristic values and then match such values to a particular material using the one or more databases. Thus, based on specific colors and reflectivity values captured in an image, identification of a material may be made. The definiteness of claim 1 is further supported by the Rule 1.132 Declaration of Jeffrey Donald Drake, filed October 18, 2024. For instance, as evidenced by Mr. Drake's statements, "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the specification, 'identifying a cookware item based on a routine applied to the received image signal to detect a material of the cookware item.' For instance, 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. Such a detection may be made based on one or more values of visible color or reflectivity that may be measured on a captured image file. Referring to the original disclosure of the present application, this is supported by, at least, paragraph 0034 ( e.g., 'As an example, the identification or detection may be based, at least in part, an analysis for color, reflectivity, or other visible characteristics of the cookware 338 captured in one or more images of the image capture sequence. For instance, visible color or reflectivity (e.g., including variations thereof) may correspond to cookware items of a particular material ... '). Moreover, routines or programs for measuring and assigning values of visible color or reflectivity in a captured image are known." Id at paragraph 6. Furthermore, "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in light of the specification, 'displaying care recommendations based on the detected material.' For instance, it would be understood that information or data regarding a detected material could be stored and correlated ( e.g., as part of a database within a controller). Referring to the original disclosure of the present application, this is supported by, at least paragraph [0034] (e.g., 'For instance, 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.).'). See also, paragraphs 0047, 0061, and 0062. Moreover, correlated databases, which may be referenced to provide data to be displayed based on a separate detection are known." Id at paragraph 7”.
The examiner’s response: The claims 1 and 21-22 (see 112(b) rejection shown above in this office action) 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? 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? Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding 103 rejection, namely “Independent Claim 1, the Office Action already acknowledges that Park does not disclose "identifying a cookware item" with respect to claim 1. It is, thus, contradictory to allege that Park in fact does teach wherein identifying a cookware item comprises the additional steps of claim 7. Moreover, in reviewing Park itself, no support is provided for identifying cast iron, let alone its seasoning state. As a result, the cited references fail to indicate the current claim 1. For at least this reason, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not obvious over the materials cited in the Office Action. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under§ 103”, and “Independent Claim 21, Applicant notes that the cited references fail to indicate any such identification of a cookware item. For instance, Applicant notes that, as acknowledged by the Office Action, Park fails to indicate does not disclose "identifying a cookware item." Although paragraph 0045 was previously cited as indicating determining a visible color, the reference to "color" in paragraph 0045 is in the context of a display element shown to a user as a reference for cooktop data, not a visible color in a received image signal, let alone an identification of a cookware item or determination of a material of a cookware item based on a visible color”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Park et al. (2021/0102707 A1) in view of Schlack (US 2022/0034016 A1) teach exactly a cooking assembly as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of independent Claims 1 and 21-22 respectively as set forth in this office action shown above. Since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01); and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114). During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights