DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 20-22, 30, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al (US 2011/0134413) in view of Pippia (US 2015/0008216).
With respect to claim 1, Has discloses the method claim claimed including a computer-implemented method for monitoring a user of the cooking hob comprising accessing a plurality of infrared images taken by an infrared sensor (28/36), processing one or more images by at least one data processor (para 0031 and 0034) to distinguish different regions of the cooking hob (as illustrated in Figure 5a and 5b that show different region such as a heated area verse a non-heated area), classifying or determining a type of a cooking operation (heating operation) of the cooking region based on temperature that ascribes a characteristic to the region (e.g., a heated zone along with cookware including a material being cooked/heated; also, see para 0016 and 0041 via a monitoring unit and an evaluation unit for classifying or monitoring an acceptable cooking application), determining a relevant criteria including conditions attributable to operation acceptable (i.e., the condition corresponds or matches a temperature value as an acceptable operation) for the type/heating of cooking operations and one or more of conditions that includes a hazardous (risk of injury) condition (para 0015 and 0042 showing a hazardous condition when the temperature image exceeds a certain value) wherein the processor processes whether the region is deviating from relevant criteria (i.e., exceeding at a temperature value) and providing one or more predetermined responses (e.g., audio or visual output; para 0039) when that region deviates from its acceptable/relevant criteria. But, Has does not explicitly show determining a type of cooking operations that is selected from a group consisting of boiling, simmering, frying, or others as claimed.
Pippia shows it is known to provide a computer-implemented monitor (para 0076) of a cooking hob including determining a type of cooking operations that includes frying, boiling, simmering, and among others associated with a cooking region (115) wherein each region is also classified based on temperature and the type of cooking operation ascribed to that region to reach a desired target temperature. Also, see Abstract and para 0088-0089.
In view of Pippia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Has with the type of cooking operations that is determined including frying, boiling, or simmering, or any other cooking operations performed with a cookware based on the temperature including a temperature image associated with the cookware so that the desired cooking operation can be performed without overheating or risk of injury as the desired target temperature is predictably achieved.
With respect to claim 2, Has shows classifying based on changes in temperature (i.e., exceeding of a certain temperature value). Pippia also discloses for classifying based on a selected temperature or changes in temperature (para 0087).
With respect to claim 4, Has shows providing one or more predetermined responses wherein the region meets its relevant criteria (e.g., no alarming signal if the relevant criteria are met; also, see par 0039).
With respect to claim 5, Has shows the characteristic of a relevant criteria that includes at least a presence of a cookware/lid forming a hot area 52 and a presence of objects/deviation from the hot area 52’ as illustrated in Figure 6b, and a presence of cooking hob surface above a threshold temperature (e.g., a certain temperature value; para 0042). Pippia also discloses for the characteristic that includes a position or presence of a cookware (para 0077)
With respect to claim 9, Has shows storing a history (i.e., record and evaluate a sequence of images; para 0009 and para 0041) of cooking operations performed with the cookware and ascribing the characteristic (e.g., acceptable or unintentional application situation) based on the history of cooking operations.
With respect to claims 10-12, Has shows the nature of the cooking operations that is determined by use of a classifier (pre-stored criteria; para 0010; 0016 and 0041) to infer nature of cooking operations by temperature, or by information concerning a type of cooking process (intentional or unintentional cooking process; para 0041) which is based on and directed by a user input information (para 0041). Pippia also discloses the type of cooking operations that is determined by information concerning the type of cooking process including its associated cooking temperature based on a user input (para 0088).
With respect to claim 15, Has shows the relevant criteria that includes at least acceptable temperature (within a certain temperature value) of the region that is classified or monitored. Pippia also discloses for the relevant criteria that is based on acceptable temperature/time associated with the type of cooking (para 0088).
With respect to claim 20, Has shows the predetermined response includes at least a provision of an audible or visual output signal (para 0039).
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Has shows the sensor that senses or detects a presence of the user (para 0037-0039) in which the predetermined response is varied (as an unintentional situation) wherein the predetermined response (audible or visual output signal of the predetermined response) can be varied or confirmed by a user (para 0041).
With respect to claim 30, Has shows the system claimed including at least one thermal/heat imaging sensor (28/36), at least one data processor (shown by an evaluation unit 30 having a microprocessor 46; para 0031 and 0034) that performs the method claimed, and at least one memory storage device (48).
With respect to claim 35, Has shows the data processor (evaluation unit 30) that is in communication with a cooking hob and controls heating sources (20).
With respect to claim 36, Has shows the system that is configured to transmit data (from the sensor 28) to a specified communication device (to the evaluation unit 30; para 0031).
Claim(s) 23 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has in view of Pippia as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 20-22, 30, 35 and 36 above and further in view of Sharpe (US 2004/0016348).
With respect to claims 23 and 44, Has in view of Pippia discloses the method claimed including a history/use of user responses that is stored as Has discloses for a user response whose confirmation is received (e.g., confirmation of the user is received by an output unit 54 that confirms a deviated or potentially unintentional condition as intentional condition; para 0041) which would no longer trigger an audible or visual signal response for the unintentional or hazardous conditions as the heating condition continues. But, Has does not show further predetermined responses that are varied according to the history of the user responses.
Sharpe shows it is known to provide a cooking operation that is monitored based on a user of pre-programmed temperature settings for food types, and Sharpe further discloses for an “advance” button that is used to adjust or vary from the pre-programmed settings (para 0041 and 0042) that can better meet the user’s cooking operations.
In view of Sharpe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Has, as modified by Pippia, with the processor that allows the history/use of the user’s response (i.e., confirming an unintentional pre-stored condition as intentional condition) to be stored and adjusted to vary the pre-store/pre-programmed condition as further predetermined responses can better serve the user’s intended cooking/heating conditions that is known to vary depending on the size of a cookware/pan.
Claim(s) 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has in view of Pippia as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 20-22, 30, 35 and 36 above and further in view of Cha et al (US 2018/0372332).
Has in view of Pippia discloses the method and system claimed except for a display screen.
Cha discloses it is known to provide a cooking hob with a display screen that displays output visual feedback corresponding to photographing of a cooking process including a state of a cook top/hob through a camera (para 0108).
In view of Cha, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Has, as modified by Pippia, with a display screen that visually displays the state/condition of the cook top/hob including the claimed region that would predicably allow a user to conveniently assess the state or condition of the cooking operations.
With respect to claim 31, Has further shows an audible output unit (54) wherein a user input device would have been provided with the output unit as the user is instructed to provide an input/confirmation when requested (para 0041), and Cha also shows a user input device (para 0054 and 0058) for inputting various selections by a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761