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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are pending and examined as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 15-17 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 2 recites the limitation “detects at least one property of the cooking hob device, of at least one generator device, and/or of at least one induction device” which is indefinite. It is unclear what is being detected and what is being used to perform the detection.
Claim 15 reciters the limitation “adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal” are indefinite. The limitation does not refer to a function of a claimed element. The adjusting step does not limit what of the apparatus is being adjusted to cause the cooking process to be changed. Claims 16 and 17 have dependency on claim 15 and would be rejected as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 references claim 15 but does not further limit any part. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geshua et al (JP6659561B2) in view of Ahmet et al (WO2015028076A1).
With regards to claim 1, Geshua et al discloses a method for operating a cooking system (method for searching and tracking cooking utensils with communication function on table, Title), comprising:
providing at least one cooking hob device (providing a cooking table 1, Fig. 12), at least one kitchen utensil (electronic cooking appliances 20,21,22 Fig. 11), and at least one evaluator (control unit 6 and communication device 7, Fig. 12), the cooking hob device comprising at least one placement surface on which to place kitchen utensils (heating zone 2,3,4 and 5 where appliances 20 ,21 and 22 can be placed, Fig. 12) and at least one generator device having at least two induction devices for heating the kitchen utensil placed on the placement surface (left side of table has two main coils 122 and right side of table has two main coils 12 wherein each side constitutes a generator device, Fig. 12), and the kitchen utensil being suitable and designed for being configured to be heated by means of at least one induction device (electronic cooking utensils 20,21 and 22 being suitable and designed for being used with main coils 12, Fig. 12) ;
assigning at least one transmitter being assigned to each of the at least two induction devices of the cooking hob device (assigning presence sensors 8,9,10,11 being assigned to each of the heating zones 2,3,4,5 which each hold main coils 12 and 13, Fig. 12) ,and the kitchen utensil comprising at least one receiver (electronic cooking utensil 20 has a communication module 24 and magnetic field measurement device, Fig. 1), the each transmitters device of the at least one transmitter each emitting at least one electromagnetic signal (presence sensors 8,9,10,11 can send a signal to control unit 6, Fig. 12), at least intermittently, which signal is received by the receiver of the kitchen utensil when the kitchen utensil is heated by the corresponding induction device (magnetic field measuring device 25 measures a magnetic field and sends that signal to communication module 24 when heating is present at heating zones 2,3,4 and 5, Fig. 1 and 12); using at least one sequence of electromagnetic signals to encode a signature for a specific induction device as assignment signals, so that the kitchen utensil is assignable to at least one induction device (the sequence of electromagnetic signals would be the signal from the specific presence sensor 8,9,10,11 wherein electronic cookware 20,21,22,23 are sensed to be present in a respective heating zone 2,3,4,5 which each have a main coil 12, Fig. 12), wherein the evaluator assigns the assignment signals detected by the receiver to the individual induction devices, and carries out an assignment of the kitchen utensil to at least one induction device (presence sensors 8, 9, 10, 11 are located in the immediate vicinity of any heating zone 2,3,4,5 and have electronic cooking utensils 20,21,22,23, wherein the presence can be detected and communicated to the control unit 6).
Geshua et al does not disclose emitting that at least one further electromagnetic signal is emitted as an information signal at a predetermined temporal distance from at least one of the assignment signals, the predetermined temporal distance from the assignment signal encoding a specific property and adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal.
Ahmet et al teaches emitting that at least one further electromagnetic signal is emitted as an information signal at a predetermined temporal distance from at least one of the assignment signals (a receiver induction coil of a wireless kitchen appliance configured to sense a time-varying electromagnetic field produced by an induction coil of an induction cooking appliance, an energy measurement unit configured to measure a temporal regime of energy transmitted by the sensed time-varying magnetic field from said induction coil to said receiver coil, page 2, lines 3-7), the predetermined temporal distance from the assignment signal encoding a specific property (a wireless control unit configured to decode an information transferred via the induction coil to the receiver induction coil , through analyzing the measurement result by using a decoding scheme corresponding to the encoding scheme implemented by the induction cooking appliance, through this the presence of the wireless kitchen appliance is established as a property , page 2, lines 7-10) and wherein a cooking process is adjusted based on at least one property detected from at least one information signal (normal mode is generated in an operation state when induction coil of the cooking appliance is in magnetic contact with the coil of wireless kitchen appliance and allows for the cooking process to take place while if magnetic contact is not in normal mode, a maloperation can be executed by the appliance, page 3, lines 32-36 and page 2, lines 40-42).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geshua et al and Ahmet et al before him or her, to modify the sequence of signals of Geshua et al to include the temporal nature of sequence of signals of Ahmet al because the combination allows for reliable signal processing for an induction cooktop.
With regards to claim 2, Ahmet al teaches wherein the electromagnetic signals of the individual transmitters are emitted with a predetermined temporal offset (interval T1, TP1 and T2 are offset from each other, Fig. 9).
With regards to claim 3, Ahmet et al teaches wherein at least one interval of the transmission of electromagnetic signals depends at least intermittently on at least one property detected from at least one information signal (transmissions in normal mode are dependent on if the normal mode is generated in an operation state when induction coil of the cooking appliance is in magnetic contact with the coil of wireless kitchen appliance and allows for the cooking process to take place, page 2, lines 40-42).
With regards to claim 6, Ahmet et al teaches wherein the assignment signals of the individual induction devices comprise same predetermined sequences of electromagnetic excitations which are distinguished via the temporal offset (the control unit is further configured to generate, in the communication mode, for the duration of the communication interval, in accordance with said transferred information, the altered driving signal with at least one of a plurality of discretely separated pulse periods, each being different than the specified pulse period, respectively for at least one of a plurality of interval T3 of a similarly shaped uniform pulse train with said different pulse period and with equal pulse width and pulse pause within the interval Tp1,page 2, lines 4-9).
With regards to claim 7, Ahmet et al teaches wherein the at least one generator device comprises at least two generator devices are provided (induction coil 2 and 6, Fig. 1), and wherein in that the assignment signals of the individual induction devices each comprise a predetermined sequence of at least three electromagnetic signals as a signature (plurality of discretely separated pulse periods, Fig. 9), a first distance between the first electromagnetic signal (interval T1, Fig. 9) and the second electromagnetic signal encoding a corresponding generator device (interval Tp1 supply commands to the wireless communication and define the encoding scheme, page 4, lines 36-39), and a second distance between the second electromagnetic signal and the third electromagnetic signal encoding the induction device of the corresponding generator device (the driving signal has an interval T1 of a uniform pulse train with a specified pulse period and a void interval T2 which alternatingly follow each other for regulating a power transmission from the induction coil to the active or passive appliance, page 2, lines 11-15).
With regards to claim 8, Ahmet et al teaches wherein the first distance increases between each generator device wherein the second distance decreases from induction device to induction device of a corresponding generator device (T1 has a section T3 that has increased distance between pulses and after T1 returns and decreases distance between pulses, Fig. 7,8).
With regards to claim 9, Ahmet et al teaches wherein the information signal as a fourth electromagnetic signal is at a third distance from the third electromagnetic signal, the third distance encoding a property of the cooking hob device of at least one generator (interval T3” is a different command used in the wireless communication and define the encoding scheme which is the operational state input at the user interface 4, page 4, lines 39-45).
With regards to claim 10, Geshua et al discloses wherein at least two induction devices of at least one generator simultaneously emit at least one electromagnetic signal at least once (if both presence sensors of 8 and 11 are actuated then they are multiplexed by multiplexer 60 at the same time to control unit 6, Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 11, Geshua et al discloses wherein the received electromagnetic signals are translated into an unambiguous identification number which corresponds to covering of specific induction devices (presence sensors 8,9,10 and 11 correspond to heating zones 2,3,4,5, Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 12, Geshua et al discloses wherein the received predetermined sequences of electromagnetic signals of the corresponding induction devices are input into a common time curve (time curves described based on user action in Fig. 10), and wherein the unambiguous identification number is determined based on a signal pattern (identification is based on what presence sensor 8,9,10,11 is actuated, Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 13, Geshua et al discloses wherein an intensity of at least one electromagnetic signal is considered (presence sensors 8,9,10,11 send a signal if actuated and the intensity of that signal is either on or off, Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 14, Geshua et al discloses wherein an intensity of the electromagnetic signals considered in order to infer a covering of individual induction devices by a kitchen utensil (presence sensor 8,9,10,11 send a signal if actuated and the intensity of that signal is either on or off, Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 15, Geshua et al discloses a cooking system (induction cooking table 1, Fig. 12), comprising: at least one kitchen utensil configured to be heated by at least one induction device (electronic cooking utensils 20,21,22, 23 configured to be heated by at least one main coil 12, Fig. 11,12) and comprising at least one receiver configured to receive an electromagnetic signal when the at least one kitchen utensil is heated by a corresponding induction device (electronic cooking utensils 20,21,22,23 has a communication module 24 that receives/sends a signal from table 1 via communication device 1 which is connected to coils 12, Fig. 1);at least one cooking hob device (cooking table 1, Fig. 12); comprising at least one placement surface on which to place kitchen utensils and at least two induction devices configured to heat the at least one kitchen utensil placed on the placement surface (heating zone 2,3,4 and 5 where appliances 20,21,22 can be placed, Fig. 11,12); at least one evaluator (control unit 6 and communication device 7, Fig. 12); at least one transmitter assigned to each induction device of the at least two induction devices of the cooking hob device (presence sensors 8,9,10,11 being assigned to each of the heating zones 2,3,4,5 which each hold main coils 12 and 13, Fig. 12), each transmitter of the at least one transmitter being configured to emit at least one electromagnetic signal at least intermittently (presence sensors 8,9,10,11 emit a signal to the control unit 6 that determines presence by communication-enabled electronic cookware 20,21,22, paragraph 0099, lines 3-6), wherein the evaluator is configured to detect a signature for a specific induction device from at least one sequence of electromagnetic signals as assignment signals (presence sensors 8, 9, 10, 11 are located in the immediate vicinity of any heating zone 2,3,4,5 and have electronic cooking utensils 20,21,22,23, wherein the presence can be detected and communicated to the control unit 6), so that the at least one kitchen utensil is assignable to a corresponding induction device (the sequence of electromagnetic signals would be the signal from the specific presence sensor 8,9,10,11 wherein electronic cookware 20,21,22,23 are sensed to be present in a respective heating zone 2,3,4,5 which each have a main coil 12, Fig. 12).
Geshua et al does not disclose wherein the evaluator is configured to detect at least one property of the corresponding induction device as an information signal from at least one further electromagnetic signal at a predetermined temporal distance from at least one of the assignment signals and adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal.
Ahmet et al teaches wherein the evaluator is configured to detect at least one property of the corresponding induction device as an information signal from at least one further electromagnetic signal at a predetermined temporal distance from at least one of the assignment signals (a receiver induction coil configured to sense a time-varying electromagnetic field produced by an induction coil of an induction cooking appliance, an energy measurement unit configured to measure a temporal regime of energy transmitted by the sensed time-varying magnetic field from said induction coil to said receiver coil, page 2, lines 3-7) and adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal (normal mode is generated in an operation state when induction coil of the cooking appliance is in magnetic contact with the coil of wireless kitchen appliance and allows for the cooking process to take place while if magnetic contact is not in normal mode, a maloperation can be executed by the appliance, page 3, lines 32-36 and page 2, lines 40-42).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geshua et al and Ahmet et al before him or her, to modify the sequence of signals of Geshua et al to include the temporal nature of sequence of signals of Ahmet al because the combination allows for reliable signal processing for an induction cooktop.
Claim(s) 4,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geshua et al and Ahmet et al as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Nam et al (US20180176997).
With regards to claim 4, Geshua et al and Ahmet et al does not teach wherein at least one interval of the transmission of electromagnetic signals depends at least intermittently on an energy state of at least one energy store.
Nam et al teaches wherein at least one interval of the transmission of electromagnetic signals depends at least intermittently on an energy state of at least one energy store (cooktop 110 has an inverter 100 can be controlled to operate in a plurality of charging phases wherein induction heating coil 110 stores energy, and in a plurality of resonant phases wherein energy stored during the previous charging phase oscillates between induction heating coil 110 and resonant capacitor 104 to generate an alternating current signal, paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geshua et al, Ahmet et al and Nam et al before him or her, to modify the component producing signals of Geshua et al and Ahmet al to include the energy store capabilities of Nam et al because the combination allows for improve controllability of heating in an induction cooktop.
With regards to claim 16, Geshua et al and Ahmet et al teaches a cooking utensil having hardware installed (cooking utensils 20 having a storage device 31, Fig. 3).
Geshua et al and Ahmet et al does not teach the kitchen utensil comprises at least one energy store.
Nam et al teaches an energy store used for an induction cooktop (cooktop 110 has an inverter 100 can be controlled to operate in a plurality of charging phases wherein induction heating coil 110 stores energy, and in a plurality of resonant phases wherein energy stored during the previous charging phase oscillates between induction heating coil 110 and resonant capacitor 104 to generate an alternating current signal, paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geshua et al, Ahmet et al and Nam et al before him or her, to modify the cooking utensil of Geshua et al and Ahmet al to include the energy store capabilities of Nam et al because the combination allows for improve controllability of heating in an induction cooking utensil.
With regards to claim 17, Nam et al teaches wherein at least one interval of an emission of the electromagnetic signals depends on an energy state of the at least one energy store (cooktop 110 has an inverter 100 can be controlled to operate in a plurality of charging phases wherein induction heating coil 110 stores energy, and in a plurality of resonant phases wherein energy stored during the previous charging phase oscillates between induction heating coil 110 and resonant capacitor 104 to generate an alternating current signal, paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Response to Amendment
Amendments to drawings submitted on 3/6/2026 overcome the previous drawing objection of the final office action of 1/12/2026.
The amendment to claim 1 to include “adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal” overcomes the previous 101 rejection of final office action of 1/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach amended limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Claim 1 and 15 has been amended to include “adjusting, by the kitchen utensil, a cooking process based on at least one property of the at least one information signal”.
Geshua et al discloses presence sensors 8,9,10,11 being assigned to each of the heating zones 2,3,4,5 which each hold main coils 12 and 13 (Fig. 12). The presence of cookware sensed by presence sensors 8,9,10,11 is considered a property of the information signal sent to the control unit 6. Ahmet et al teaches a receiver induction coil of a wireless kitchen appliance configured to sense a time-varying electromagnetic field produced by an induction coil of an induction cooking appliance, an energy measurement unit configured to measure a temporal regime of energy transmitted by the sensed time-varying magnetic field from said induction coil to said receiver coil (page 2, lines 3-7), a wireless control unit configured to decode an information transferred via the induction coil to the receiver induction coil , through analyzing the measurement result by using a decoding scheme corresponding to the encoding scheme implemented by the induction cooking appliance, through this the presence of the wireless kitchen appliance is established as a property (page 2, lines 7-10) and normal mode is generated in an operation state when induction coil of the cooking appliance is in magnetic contact with the coil of wireless kitchen appliance and allows for the cooking process to take place while if magnetic contact is not in normal mode, a maloperation can be executed by the appliance (page 3, lines 32-36 and page 2, lines 40-42). The combination of sensing the presence of the cookware of Geshua et al combined with the normal mode of Ahmet provides the adjusting of the cooking process by the presence of cookware.
Conclusion
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights