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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP19189871.7, filed on 08/02/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further cooking region”, as recited in claim 11; and “an item of cookware”, as recited in claim 17, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for determining that the user is present” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for detecting placement of cookware in the cooking regions” in claim 15.
A review of the instant specification failed to provide sufficient details regarding the corresponding structure for the “means for detecting placement of cookware”, as recited in claim 15. The entire specification is completely silent in regards to the structure corresponding to the “means for detecting placement of cookware”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 15-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of means for detecting placement of cookware. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function of “means for detecting placement of cookware” because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6-8, 15-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the predetermined time interval". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrases "preferably" and “preferred” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “ a command” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is the same/different from the previously introduced “control commands”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “ a voice signal” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is the same/different from the previously introduced “voice signal”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “ a data signal” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is the same/different from the previously introduced “data signal”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “ a control command” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is the same/different from the previously introduced “control command”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “means for detecting placement of cookware” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what structure Applicant intends to correspond with the “means for detecting placement of cookware”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “ a user” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is the same/different from the previously introduced “user”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a remote control device” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this element is same/different from the previously introduced “remote control device”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “a code signal” and “a spoken code” are unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if these elements are same/different from the previously introduced “code”.
The term “proximate” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 7-8, 16, and 19-21 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200411001A1 (hereinafter Ennen) with an effective filing date of 06/25/2019.
Regarding claim 1, Ennen discloses a cooking device (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Ennen) with a cooking region (cooking chamber, paragraph [0042], Ennen). Ennen discloses “inventive method can also be used for other kitchen appliances, such as, for example, a steam cooker, a baking oven, a microwave oven, or the like” (paragraph [0038]).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ennen discloses the cooking device (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, Ennen) comprising a control unit configured to be coupled with a communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen) for receiving voice signals as control commands from a user (“voice-controlled personal assistant is ‘Amazon Echo’ of Amazon.com Inc.”, paragraphs [0004] and [0112], Ennen) or data signals as control commands from a remote control device (“Tablet 3 is also connected in signal communication with steam cooker 1 and with voice-controlled personal assistant 2”, paragraph [0113] and Fig. 1, Ennen). Ennen discloses “[e]xamples of other voice-controlled personal assistants currently widely used include ‘Siri’ of Apple Inc. as part of an iPhone, as well as ‘Cortana’ of the Microsoft Corporation as a software for computers with Microsoft operating system” (paragraph [0005]).
Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured for controlling a power supply to the cooking region (“a cooktop may only be turned on or set to a higher power level when the available voice control systems are in unambiguous agreement”, paragraph [0081], Ennen), and wherein the control unit is configured to accept commands from the communication interface (“steam cooker 1 activates 200 voice-controlled personal assistant 2”, paragraph [0116] and Fig. 2, reproduced below, Ennen) only upon detection of a presence of the user (“detects 100 a control action performed by user 4 on steam cooker 1”, paragraph [0115] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to accept voice signals from the communication interface only within a predetermined time interval between the detection of the presence of the user and the receipt of the said voice signals (“the wireless signal transmission from voice-controlled personal assistant 2 to steam cooker 1 may be delayed by voice-controlled personal assistant 2 in order to wait and see if user 4 makes further inputs that would also have to be taken into account. It is also possible to wait and see if user 4 corrects or repeats his or her voice input in response to the feedback provided by voice-controlled personal assistant 2 on the voice input in case the voice input has not been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2 and therefore needs to be corrected by user 4”, paragraph [0122], Ennen). Ennen discloses “wherein execution, by the voice control system, of a user control action on the appliance occurs after a predetermined time delay” (claim 8).
Regarding claim 4, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to accept said voice signals from the communication interface (“voice-controlled personal assistant 2 may execute 700 a user control action on steam cooker 1 in accordance with the recognized information and/or instruction. To this end, voice-controlled personal assistant 2 may send corresponding information or instructions by wireless signal transmission to steam cooker 1 so that steam cooker 1 can proceed accordingly”, paragraph [0121] and Fig. 2, reproduced below, Ennen) only upon recognition of a code by the communication interface (“[i]n order to allow user 4 to check whether his or her voice input has been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2, feedback about the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, which claim 5 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses comprising a memory (buffer, paragraph [0092], Ennen) for storing said code (“the captured voice inputs may initially be stored in a buffer”, paragraph [0092], Ennen).
Regarding claim 6, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to prompt the user to input a code perceptible at the cooking device (“[i]n order to allow user 4 to check whether his or her voice input has been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2, feedback about the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) and to compare a received signal representative of the user’s input (“a user control action on steam cooker 1 in accordance with the recognized information and/or instruction”, paragraph [0121], Ennen) with the code (output 600, Fig. 2, Ennen). Ennen discloses “result of the voice recognition performed by the voice control may be indicated to the user using, for example, a display or icons on the appliance, for example by the message” (paragraph [0056]).
Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to cause a command from the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen) to be executed if the received signal (“a user control action on steam cooker 1 in accordance with the recognized information and/or instruction”, paragraph [0121], Ennen) is representative of and/or can be assigned to the code (output 600, Fig. 2, reproduced below, Ennen) and not to be executed if the received signal is neither representative of nor assignable to the code (“a delay may be inserted before the execution of the voice command so as to provide the user with an option for abortion or correction in the event that his or her voice command has been incorrectly recognized by the voice recognition system”, emphasis added, paragraph [0058] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ennen discloses wherein the code is a randomized code (“the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600” will be randomized because people are random, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) and/or the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is Ennen) as a command from the user or a data signal as a control command from the remote control device and accepting that command only upon recognition of the presence of the user (“[i]n order to allow user 4 to check whether his or her voice input has been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2, feedback about the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
Regarding claim 7, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, which claim 7 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the code (“the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) is a password, wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to prompt the user to voice the password (“voice-controlled personal assistant 2 may send corresponding information or instructions by wireless signal transmission to steam cooker 1 so that steam cooker 1 can proceed accordingly”, paragraph [0121], Ennen), and wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to receive the signal representative of the user’s input from the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen).
Regarding claim 8, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, which claim 8 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses further comprising a display (“Tablet 3 is also connected in signal communication with steam cooker 1 and with voice-controlled personal assistant 2”, paragraph [0113] and Fig. 1, Ennen), wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to cause the code to be displayed on the display (“[d]epending on the configuration, the first built-in appliance displays these parameters to the user for conformation”, paragraph [0063], Ennen).
Regarding claim 9, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to access a list of passwords (“a display to allow a user 4 different ways to control the operation the steam cooker 1, e.g., through the selection of programs and parameterization thereof, or by manual setting of, e.g., a cooking time, a cooking temperature, and the like, and to control the food cooking process”, paragraph [0111], Ennen), and to select one of said list of passwords (“[i]f the food recognition system proposes several options, a selection can be made via voice control”, paragraph [0043], Ennen) at a time in a randomized manner (selection by the user is considered to read on the randomized manner) from said list of passwords and to display said password (“[i]f the food recognition system proposes several options, a selection can be made via voice control”, paragraph [0043], Ennen) on a display (control panel 12 has a display, paragraph [0111], Ennen) of the cooking device (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, Ennen) to the user.
Regarding claim 10, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to display said password (“[i]f the food recognition system proposes several options, a selection can be made via voice control”, paragraph [0043], Ennen) for a predetermined time period (“the assistance system integrates the display of the initiated cooking process with a countdown timer”, paragraph [0063], Ennen).
Regarding claim 11, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, which claim 11 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to compare a signal (“a user control action on steam cooker 1 in accordance with the recognized information and/or instruction”, paragraph [0121], Ennen), received from the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen), with said password (“[i]f the food recognition system proposes several options, a selection can be made via voice control”, paragraph [0043], Ennen) and, if the received signal (“a user control action on steam cooker 1 in accordance with the recognized information and/or instruction”, paragraph [0121], Ennen) is representative and/or can be assigned to said displayed selected password of the list of passwords (“[i]f the food recognition system proposes several options, a selection can be made via voice control”, paragraph [0043], Ennen), a respective command to change correction in the event that his or her voice command has been incorrectly recognized by the voice recognition system”, emphasis added, paragraph [0058] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
Regarding claim 14, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses comprising means for determining that the user is present that further comprises a proximity sensor, a motion sensor (“a capacitive sensor, an IR sensor, a camera, a ultrasonic sensor, or a similar touch-free sensor technology may also be used to detect actuation of the sensor surface by the user”, paragraph [0046], Ennen) and/or a touch sensitive element (“a sensor may also be integrated into the handle of an appliance”, paragraph [0048], Ennen).
Regarding claim 15, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses further comprising cookware detection means for detecting placement of cookware in the cooking regions (“a system for recognizing food items inserted into the appliance may propose a cooking program based on a camera image or on other sensor systems”, paragraph [0043], Ennen), wherein the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) is configured to control the power supply to the cooking regions based on the detection of a change in placement of cookware in the cooking region (“In the case of a cooktop, the user action may, for example, consist in placing a pot, a pan, or any other cooking vessel, or another appliance to be powered via the cooktop, onto the cooktop or changing the position thereof”, paragraph [0042], Ennen) and subsequent (“[t]he following voice command may include, for example, the desired cooking program”, paragraph [0042], Ennen) signals by the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen).
Regarding claim 16, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, which claim 16 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses configured such that acceptance of voice signals or data signals is triggered by the placement or movement of cookware onto or within the cooking region (“voice control can now be activated even automatically by an input from the user instead of by an additional, special user action. A user operation that is part of a normal intended use of the appliance, such as, for example, the insertion of a food item into the cooking chamber”, paragraph [0042], Ennen).
Regarding claim 17, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, which claim 17 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses comprising multiple said cooking regions (“a cooktop having a plurality of cooking zones”, paragraph [0036], Ennen) and configured such that, upon an item of cookware (cookware item, paragraph [0084], Ennen) having been detected by the cookware detection means (“a system for recognizing food items inserted into the appliance may propose a cooking program based on a camera image or on other sensor systems”, paragraph [0043], Ennen), a timed input interval is triggered in which a user can provide voice signals (“maintaining the activated voice control system for a predetermined period of time”, claim 11, Ennen) or the remote control device can provide data signals as control commands.
Ennen discloses wherein the cooking region to which the voice signals or data signals (“if a particular cooking zone of a cooktop is activated by the cookware item located thereon, it may be recognized therefrom that in order to select a power setting for this cooking zone, a numerical value is to be expected as a captured voice input”, emphasis added, paragraph [0084], Ennen) are applied is determined by the cookware detection means (“a system for recognizing food items inserted into the appliance may propose a cooking program based on a camera image or on other sensor systems”, paragraph [0043], Ennen).
Regarding claim 18, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 18 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses Ennen) configured for communication with the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) via the communication interface.
Regarding claim 19, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, which claim 19 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses comprising an external voice recognition device (“in order to increase the voice recognition reliability of the plurality of voice control systems, such as Siri on the smartphone, Amazon Alexa cloud service in communication with a microphone in a kitchen appliance, and Google Home Nest Hub, which can be selectively activated and operated in parallel, the respective voice recognition results may be merged, for example, in a cloud or in the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0080], Ennen).
Regarding claim 20, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 19, which claim 20 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the external voice recognition device is a mobile phone or a device that is part of or communicates with a smart home system or a remote control station (“in order to increase the voice recognition reliability of the plurality of voice control systems, such as Siri on the smartphone, Amazon Alexa cloud service in communication with a microphone in a kitchen appliance, and Google Home Nest Hub, which can be selectively activated and operated in parallel, the respective voice recognition results may be merged, for example, in a cloud or in the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0080], Ennen).
Regarding claim 21, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, which claim 21 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the communication interface comprises a microphone that is provided at the cooking device (“voice control systems, such as Siri on the smartphone, Amazon Alexa cloud service in communication with a microphone in a kitchen appliance”, paragraph [0080], Ennen).
Regarding claim 22, Ennen discloses computer program product (“‘Voice control’ may be understood to refer to a voice control unit, which may be implemented as hardware and/or software and adapted to perform a voice control function”, paragraph [0029], Ennen) comprising instructions (“outputting information and/or an instruction to another device”, paragraph [0060], Ennen) which, when executed by a control unit (“the voice control may be integrated as a unit and/or as software into the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0071], Ennen) in a cooking device (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Ennen) having a cooking region (cooking chamber, paragraph [0042], Ennen) and comprising the control unit. Ennen discloses “inventive method can also be used for other kitchen appliances, such as, for example, a steam cooker, a baking oven, a microwave oven, or the like” (paragraph [0038]).
Ennen discloses cause the control unit to be receptive to voice signals from a communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen) as control commands from a user (“voice-controlled personal assistant is ‘Amazon Echo’ of Amazon.com Inc.”, paragraphs [0004] and [0112], Ennen) or data signals as control commands from a remote control device (“Tablet 3 is also connected in signal communication with steam cooker 1 and with voice-controlled personal assistant 2”, paragraph [0113] and Fig. 1, Ennen), to control a power supply to the cooking region (“a cooktop may only be turned on or set to a higher power level when the available voice control systems are in unambiguous agreement”, paragraph [0081], Ennen), and to accept commands from the communication interface (“steam cooker 1 activates 200 voice-controlled personal assistant 2”, paragraph [0116] and Fig. 2, reproduced below, Ennen) only upon detection of a presence of the user (“detects 100 a control action performed by user 4 on steam cooker 1”, paragraph [0115] and Fig. 2, Ennen). Ennen discloses “[e]xamples of other voice-controlled personal assistants currently widely used include ‘Siri’ of Apple Inc. as part of an iPhone, as well as ‘Cortana’ of the Microsoft Corporation as a software for computers with Microsoft operating system” (paragraph [0005]).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200411001A1 (hereinafter Ennen), with an effective filing date of 06/25/2019, in view of US20190372902 (hereinafter Piersol).
Regarding claim 3, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses predetermined time interval (“wherein execution, by the voice control system, of a user control action on the appliance occurs after a predetermined time delay”, claim 8, Ennen).
However, Ennen does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined time interval is between 5 s and 60 s.
Piersol is directed toward automated assistants that allow users to interact with devices or systems using natural language in spoken form (paragraph [0003], Piersol). Piersol teaches wherein the predetermined time interval is between 5 s and 60 s (“response threshold may correspond, for example, to an unacceptably long time period for a response to a user request. For example, an unacceptably long time period may correspond to two seconds, three seconds, five seconds, or longer”, paragraph [0263], Piersol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Ennen’s predetermined time delay with Piersol’s “five seconds or longer”, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of providing an upper limit that reduces the time for listening and reduces the processing load for the voice-controlled assistant. It is well understood that the reduction of the processing load also reduces the power consumption. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200411001A1 (hereinafter Ennen), with an effective filing date of 06/25/2019, in view of US 20190089550 (hereinafter Rexach).
Regarding claim 12, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses wherein the presence of the user is controlled by the control unit (software inside the circuitry of the voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Ennen) that is configured to prompt the user (“activation of the voice control system may be audibly and/or visually and/or haptically indicated to the user on the appliance and/or on a separate component of the voice control system”, paragraph [0053], Ennen) to interact with (“a control action that the user performs anyway during the normal intended use of the appliance is additionally used to activate voice control”, paragraph [0041], Ennen) the cooking device (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, Ennen) and to check whether an interaction can be detected within a predetermined time interval (“after executing, by the voice control, a user control action on the appliance, maintaining the activated voice control system for a predetermined period of time”, claim 11, Ennen). Ennen discloses “the appliance has a proximity sensor” (paragraph [0049]).
However, Ennen does not explicitly disclose a light barrier.
Rexach is directed to virtual assistants that receive voice commands. Rexach teaches a light barrier (“proximity sensor may emit and/or detect a beam of light (e.g., infrared light). Breaking the beam of light or interrupting the beam of light signals that the user is present”, paragraph [0177], Rexach).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Ennen’s proximity sensor with Rexach’s proximity sensor that utilizes light, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of detecting the presence of a user near a home appliance. It is well understood that use of proximity sensors improves hygiene. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 23, Ennen discloses a cooking system (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, reproduced below, Ennen) comprising a cooking region (cooking chamber, paragraph [0042], Ennen), a control unit (“the voice control may be integrated as a unit and/or as software into the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0071], Ennen) configured to operate the cooking region based on cooking settings (“Control panel 12 has various input elements as well as a display to allow a user 4 different ways to control the operation the steam cooker 1, e.g., through the selection of programs and parameterization thereof, or by manual setting of, e.g., a cooking time, a cooking temperature, and the like, and to control the food cooking process”, paragraph [0111], Ennen), and detection means to detect a presence of a user in line-of-sight proximity to the cooking region (“if the appliance has a proximity sensor, an approach of the user to the appliance may also activate the voice control system”, paragraph [0049], Ennen); the control unit (“the voice control may be integrated as a unit and/or as software into the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0071], Ennen) being configured to execute changes to the cooking settings for operating the cooking region based on a command signal (“a delay may be inserted before the execution of the voice command so as to provide the user with an option for abortion or correction in the event that his or her voice command has been incorrectly recognized by the voice recognition system”, emphasis added, paragraph [0058], Ennen) received from a communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen) that corresponds to a voice signal received by the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ennen discloses wherein the control unit (“the voice control may be integrated as a unit and/or as software into the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0071], Ennen) is further configured to execute said changes based on said command signal only if the detection means detect that the user (“detects 100 a control action performed by user 4 on steam cooker 1”, paragraph [0115] and Fig. 2, Ennen) is in line-of-sight proximity to the cooking region (“if the appliance has a proximity sensor, an approach of the user to the appliance may also activate the voice control system”, paragraph [0049], Ennen) within a predetermined time interval before or after receiving the command signal (“[i]t is also possible to maintain 900 b voice-controlled personal assistant 2 for a predetermined period of time in order to allow user 4 to make further voice inputs”, paragraph [0125], Ennen).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ennen discloses said detection means (“if the appliance has a proximity sensor, an approach of the user to the appliance may also activate the voice control system”, paragraph [0049], Ennen) comprising said control unit (“the voice control may be integrated as a unit and/or as software into the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0071], Ennen) being further configured to: prompt the user to speak a code (“[i]n order to allow user 4 to check whether his or her voice input has been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2, feedback about the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) selected by the control unit and displayed on a display (“Control panel 12 has various input elements as well as a display”, paragraph [0111], Ennen) of the cooking system (steam cooker 1, Fig. 1, Ennen) within said predetermined interval (“the assistance system integrates the display of the initiated cooking process with a countdown timer”, paragraph [0063], Ennen), and to compare a code signal (output 600, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) from the communication interface (voice-controlled personal assistant 2, Fig. 1, Ennen), which corresponds to a spoken code input (“also possible to require the user to provide confirmation by making another voice input or a different input prior to the execution of the recognized voice command”, paragraph [0057], Ennen) received by said communication interface, to the prompted code (output 600, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen).
Ennen discloses detect a placement of a cookware on or within the cooking region (“voice control can now be activated even automatically by an input from the user instead of by an additional, special user action. A user operation that is part of a normal intended use of the appliance, such as, for example, the insertion of a food item into the cooking chamber”, paragraph [0042], Ennen) via a sensor signal (“a system for recognizing food items inserted into the appliance may propose a cooking program based on a camera image or on other sensor systems”, paragraph [0043], Ennen); wherein said prompted code (output 600, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen) Ennen)
Ennen discloses wherein said communication interface is a mobile device in communication with the control unit via a wireless network (“in order to increase the voice recognition reliability of the plurality of voice control systems, such as Siri on the smartphone, Amazon Alexa cloud service in communication with a microphone in a kitchen appliance, and Google Home Nest Hub, which can be selectively activated and operated in parallel, the respective voice recognition results may be merged, for example, in a cloud or in the appliance to be controlled”, paragraph [0080], Ennen), said display (“Control panel 12 has various input elements as well as a display”, paragraph [0111], Ennen) being fixed proximate to the cooking region (cooking chamber, paragraph [0042], Ennen) so as to ensure line-of-sight with the cooking region through observation of said prompted code (“[i]n order to allow user 4 to check whether his or her voice input has been correctly recognized by voice-controlled personal assistant 2, feedback about the recognized voice input from user 4 may be output 600”, paragraph [0120] and Fig. 2, Ennen)
However, Ennen does not explicitly disclose prompt the user to interrupt a light barrier one or more times according to a predetermined sequence, and to compare a sequence of breaks in said light barrier to the prompted sequence.
Rexach is directed to virtual assistants that receive voice commands. Rexach teaches prompt the user to interrupt a light barrier (“proximity sensor may emit and/or detect a beam of light (e.g., infrared light). Breaking the beam of light or interrupting the beam of light signals that the user is present”, paragraph [0177], Rexach) one or more times according to a predetermined sequence (“gestures include pointing handwaving, or directional movements such as raising or lowering a hand to change a setting”, paragraph [0110], Rexach), and to compare a sequence of breaks in said light barrier to the prompted sequence (“the analysis may include comparing the position to a lookup table that lists device functions that are activated when the user is at certain positions”, paragraph [0122], Rexach).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Ennen’s proximity sensor with Rexach’s proximity sensor that utilizes light, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of detecting the presence of a user near a home appliance. It is well understood that use of proximity sensors improves hygiene. PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the substitution with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200411001A1 (hereinafter Ennen), with an effective filing date of 06/25/2019, in view of US 20190327791 (hereinafter Baldo).
Regarding claim 13, Ennen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends upon, as discussed above. Additionally, Ennen discloses the cooking region (cooking chamber, paragraph [0042], Ennen). Ennen discloses “[i]n the case of a cooktop, the user action may, for example, consist in placing a pot, a pan, or any other cooking vessel, or another appliance to be powered via the cooktop, onto the cooktop or changing the position thereof”, (paragraph [0042], Ennen)
However, Ennen does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooking region is a variable assignment of one or more induction coils.
Baldo is directed toward cooktops. Baldo teaches wherein the cooking region is a variable assignment of one or more induction coils (“the controller 18 may activate the induction coils 14 that are covered by the cooking utensil 22”, paragraph [0024], Baldo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ennen to incorporate the teachings of Baldo to include wherein the cooking region is a variable assignment of one or more induction coils, because doing so provides flexible cooking zones (paragraph [0024]). It is well understood that this flexibility allows “simpler and less expensive switching devices may be utilized” in construction (paragraph [0044], Baldo). PHOSITA would have known of these advantages and would have performed the modification with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7896. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/WILLIAM C. GIBSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JIMMY CHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights