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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 9 and 16 are amended. Claims 10-15 are as previously presented. Claims 21-32 are newly added. Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 9-16 and 21-32 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection to claims 10-16 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b for claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 9 is not anticipated by Richardson (EP 3107428 B1) as Richardson does not disclose applicant’s claimed association process. Applicant states that Richardson uses preprogrammed magnetic codes from a fixed listing, where applicant’s invention uses a dynamic association process.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s claim 9 does not include any limitations regarding a “dynamic association process” and as a result finds the applicant’s argument to not be persuasive.
Claim 9 states that a controller receives a signal from a detector that includes a characteristic of the cooking article and then associates that characteristic with a first profile from memory. The definition of “associate” is taken to be “closely connected or joined with some other” from dict.org and therefore the signal from detector is connected with a first profile from memory through matching the logic values received to a lookup table. As a result, it is the Examiner’s position that Richardson meets the limitations of claim 9.
The word “dynamic” is also not mentioned within claim 9 or applicant’s Specification from 05/31/2022 and the limitation that the first profile is stored in a memory requires that the first profile already be present within the system in order to be retrieved for association.
Further, the cooking profiles are prestored within memory and then retrieved, so it is unclear how applicant’s system performs a dynamic association process without a mechanism like the static lookup table. Are the cooking profiles continuously changing in applicant’s invention? Nevertheless, language regarding any potential dynamic association process is not disclosed within claim 9.
Applicant also argues that Richardson requires manual programming through a USB memory stick which contradicts the controller-based association process from applicant’s claim 9, where the controller performs the association.
It is the Examiner’s position that the USB memory stick in Richardson is used to insert new cooking profiles into the system, from Richardson, Para. 0064, “a characteristic of a new appliance can be programmed into the cooking hob 400 by use of a USB memory stick or by any other appropriate means. The characteristics Ch typically, either directly or indirectly, identifies the type of cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000 and relates to a cooking profile of the cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000. The characteristic is therefore used by the controller 602 to control the power output of a driver 604 that powers the inductive coil 410 of the hob 400.”, where the associating of the characteristic with a detector signal would be done by the controller as Richardson states that the characteristic is used by the controller. As a result, it is the Examiner’s position that the controller still does the association process and that applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that for claim 12, Richardson does not compare measurable characteristics with stored cooking article profiles.
Richardson has a magnetic field code that is decoded into a logic value, which is then sent to the controller, and where that logic value is matched with a characteristic from a static look up table. It is the Examiner’s position that the controller finding the logic value within the static lookup table is a comparing step. The controller must go through the lookup table and find if the logic value exists and that process compares the different logic values within the table to the one it has received. It is for this reason that the Examiner finds applicant’s argument to not be persuasive.
Applicant argues that for claim 11, there would be no motivation to use the imager from Wilkinson as Richardson already includes predetermined associations.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Wilkinson discloses that multiple methods of cookware detection can be used, Section 11, lines 29-35, “finding a profile with an identifier corresponding to the tag or token, by scanning a barcode on the cookware item and finding a profile with a code corresponding to some or all of the barcode, by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”.
As a result, Wilkinson shows that an identifier/barcode that have completely accurate detection along with photos can all be methods of cookware detection. It is the Examiner’s position that the addition of multiple detection methods allows for an improved cookware detection system, where the detector does not fail if a magnetic code is not properly obtained and can instead rely on other methods of detection. These additional sources of cookware identification allow the system to be more accurate in determining the cookware.
Applicant argues that for claims 21-31, Corwin has foreign objection detection but does not includes any profile comparison.
Applicant’s argument is true, however for a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the rejection is a combination of references and one reference does not need to have all the limitations. It is the Examiner’s position that Richardson includes profile comparison and Corwin adds a benefit to the profile comparison process of Richardson in being able to detect if there are foreign objects to avoid interference with heating, Corwin, Para. 0052, “if the foreign object is near a heated cookware object, the notification may recommend that the user move the foreign object to avoid interference with heating or undesirable heating of the foreign object.”. Thus, when a foreign object doesn’t have an inductive resistance within a tolerance range of compatible cookware, Richardson would lack a magnetic field code and Corwin would realize that the inductive resistance falls below a tolerance range and a user would be alerted that an object is a non-cooking object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson).
Regarding claim 9, Richardson discloses an induction cooktop (Para. 0001, “cooking appliances, cooking hobs”), comprising:
a cooktop surface (Para. 0047, “The cooking hob 400 (for induction cooking) in this embodiment includes a cooking appliance support surface 402”);
a detector operably associated with the cooktop surface (Para. 0032, “a magnetic decoder for a cooking hob, said magnetic decoder capable of decoding a magnetic code of a cooking appliance, said magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the south pole, said magnetic code determined by the orientation of said poles of said plurality of magnets”); and
a controller (Para. 0018, “a magnetic decoder coupled to the controller”):
receiving a signal from the detector including information associated with at least one detectable characteristic of a first cooking article positioned on the cooktop surface (Para. 0018, “a magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the South Pole, the magnetic code determined by the orientation of poles of said plurality of magnets, is placed over the magnetic decoder, the magnetic decoder provides said code to the controller, said code being indicative of at least one characteristic of a cooking appliance associated with said code.”); and
associating the at least one measureable characteristic of the first cooking article with a first profile associated with the first cooking article stored in a memory accessible by the controller (Para. 0075, “The characteristic CH is determined from table 1, which is stored in a memory of the controller 602, and the method 1400, at a controlling block 1430, performs a controlling the power output of driver 604. The controlling is dependent on the characteristic Ch which can be: the type of appliance; the type of cooking provided by the appliance; the required cooking profile of the appliance; a default cooking time for the appliance; or the required inductive power to be supplied to the appliance (the power output requirement of the driver 604).”, where the measureable characteristic is the magnetic field code from Table 1, where that code is associated with a cookware characteristic that has a cooking profile associated with it; where additional cooking profiles can be added for specific cookware, Para. 0064, “a characteristic of a new appliance can be programmed into the cooking hob 400 by use of a USB memory stick or by any other appropriate means. The characteristics Ch typically, either directly or indirectly, identifies the type of cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000 and relates to a cooking profile of the cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000. The characteristic is therefore used by the controller 602 to control the power output of a driver 604 that powers the inductive coil 410 of the hob 400.”).
Regarding claim 12, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein the controller associates the at least one measureable characteristic of the first cooking article in the first profile associated with the first cooking article by comparing the at least one measureable characteristic of the first cooking article with a plurality of stored cooking article profiles stored in the memory (Richardson, Para. 0063, “The set of cooking appliances SCA can comprise up to 31 such appliances where the characteristic represented by the magnetic field code MC uniquely identifies each of the appliances from the other appliances in the set of cooking appliances SCA. For example, a first cooking appliance in the set of cooking appliances SCA may have a magnetic field code from the magnets 106 of SSSSN which is decoded by the magnet decoder 412 as 00001 which may identify the characteristic CH of the cooking appliance 100 as a shallow frying pan.”, where the magnetic field code is associated with a specific cookware, but where that determination is made through comparing that magnetic field code to a Table 1, which is comparing the measureable characteristics of multiple cookware to the one being detected) and one of:
determines that the detectable characteristic corresponds with one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles and associates the first cooking article with the one of the plurality of stored cooking profiles (Richardson, Para. 0063, “The full set of magnetic field codes, decoded logic values by the magnet decoder 412 and the meaning of the logic values as determined by the controller 602 is shown in table 1 below.”, where if the magnetic field code matches a code in the Table 1, the characteristic associated with the specific cookware is used); or
determines that the detectable characteristic does not correspond with any of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles and associates the first cooking article with a new stored cooking profile added to the memory (Richardson, Para. 0064, “In table 1 magnetic field codes NSSNN to NNNNN have yet to be assigned a characteristic, however, when required a characteristic of a new appliance can be programmed into the cooking hob 400 by use of a USB memory stick or by any other appropriate means.”, where if the characteristic is NSSNN to NNNNN, it would not correspond to any stored profile; where the cookware would then be associated with a new stored cooking profile added to the memory through a USB stick or any other means).
Regarding claim 15, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein: the at least one measureable characteristic of the first cooking article includes at least one of a cooking article size, a cooking article shape, a cooking article type, an induction heating calibration profile, a cooking article material composition, a thermal absorption profile, and an acoustic profile (Richardson, Para. 0041, “These magnets 106 provide a magnetic field code MC that identifies at least one characteristic of the cooking appliance. This characteristic can typically be: the type of appliance; the type of cooking provided by the appliance; the required cooking profile of the appliance; a default cooking time for the appliance; or the required inductive power to be supplied to the appliance.”, where the cooking article type and profile of the cookware are supplied through the measureable characteristic); and
the controller further heats the first cooking article to a first heating level by inductive coupling with at least a first one of the plurality of power delivery coils, the controller deriving a driving signal for the first one of the power delivery coils using the at least one measureable characteristic of the first profile (Richardson, Para. 0076, “If the characteristic Ch is a cooking profile, the controller 602 determines that the characteristic Ch provided from the binary code from the magnet decoder 412 or decoder 1312 is a cooking profile identifier…decoded logic value is 00011 then the characteristic CH is an egg boiler which has a specific cooking profile and thus the driver 604 is set to provide a suitable power output to heat the ferrous based inductive heating member 302. In some embodiments the controlling can be such that the driver provides power for a pre-defined time, or a pre-defined time once the egg boiler has reached a required temperature, measured by a temperature sensor (such sensors are a well know feature of induction hobs).”, where the controller can control the driver, Para. 0070, “The cooking hob circuit 1300 includes the inductive coil or coils 410 coupled to an output of a driver 604. A controller 602 is coupled to the driver 604 and there is also an appliance detector 606 having an output (or outputs) coupled to the controller 602.”, where the controller users the measureable characteristic or magnetic field code to drive the driver of the power delivery coils; where in the case of the egg boil, the temperature is inductively raised to a first heating level or required temperature).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 10-11, 21-22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein:
a first temperature sensor directed toward the cooktop surface and adjacent the at least one of the plurality of power delivery coils (Para. 0076, “characteristic CH is an egg boiler which has a specific cooking profile and thus the driver 604 is set to provide a suitable power output to heat the ferrous based inductive heating member 302. In some embodiments the controlling can be such that the driver provides power for a pre-defined time, or a pre-defined time once the egg boiler has reached a required temperature, measured by a temperature sensor (such sensors are a well know feature of induction hobs).”, where this temperature sensor measures the temperature of the cookware, meaning that it would be located next to the power coils in order to measure the cookware only).
Richardson does not disclose:
where the detector can include a temperature sensor and
the signal from the detector further includes temperature information from the first temperature sensor for determining at least one of the induction heating calibration profile and the thermal absorption profile.
However, Wilkinson discloses, in the similar field of induction cooktops (Section 5, lines 42-43, “for example, an electric or induction range”), where a cookware detection system can include a temperature sensor to measure a cookware (Section 5, lines 65-end, “a temperature measurement device for measuring heat output by a heat source and accompanying calibration software or information to determine how the output temperature by the heat source translates to cooking temperature”) for induction heating calibration information (Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”) and thermal absorption (Section 6, lines 34-37, “system may calibrate a cooking process to account for the type of cooking utensil being used, adjusting for material type (including inherent properties associated with material type such as heat transfer properties)”) when a new cookware is added (Section 11, lines 20-23, “The remote computing device may create a profile for each cookware item that includes the weight of the cookware item and/or other data sensed during the calibration process, and it may store the profile data in a memory.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature sensor in Richardson to be able to supply the detector with calibration information regarding the intrinsic heating properties of the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow the detector to have a more complete understanding of the intrinsic properties of the cookware being used, where the calibration process using the temperature sensor can allow for unique characteristics of the cookware to be found, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”.
Regarding claim 11, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the detector includes an image sensor capturing image data from a field of view including the cooktop surface and outputting the image data in the signal; and
the least one detectable characteristic of the first cooking article positioned on the cooktop surface includes at least one of a cooking article size, a cooking article shape, and a cooking article type, as determined by the image data in the signal received from the image sensor.
However, Wilkinson discloses where the cookware detector can include an image sensor that can capture a field of view that includes the cooktop surface (Section 8, lines 56-60, “underside view of the smart cooking device 300, in this case with a camera 322 attached to the heat transfer housing 304 and positioned to capture images of food and cooking actions within cookware when the cookware is placed on top of the housing.”) and output that image data as a signal (Section 16, lines 21-23, “capture one or more images 1225 of the cooking action and save the images along with detected force and vibration signatures to a data store of cooking activity data”), where a detectable characteristic that can include the cookware type is determined from the image data (Section 11, lines 29-35, “finding a profile with an identifier corresponding to the tag or token, by scanning a barcode on the cookware item and finding a profile with a code corresponding to some or all of the barcode, by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system in Richardson to include the ability to use image recognition of the cookware for detection as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to use multiple methods of cookware identification so that the system is more accurate in being able to determine what cookware is being used, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 26-35, “The system may identify the cookware item based on user input… by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”.
Regarding claim 21, Richardson discloses an induction cooktop (Para. 0001, “cooking appliances, cooking hobs”), comprising:
a cooktop surface (Para. 0047, “The cooking hob 400 (for induction cooking) in this embodiment includes a cooking appliance support surface 402”);
a plurality of power delivery coils in an array beneath the cooktop surface (Para. 0047, “Each of the cooking rings 404 have an inductive coil or coils 410 (shown in phantom) under the cooking appliance support surface 402 and the coils 410 are positioned within the perimeter markings 408.”);
a detector operably associated with the cooktop surface (Para. 0032, “a magnetic decoder for a cooking hob, said magnetic decoder capable of decoding a magnetic code of a cooking appliance, said magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the south pole, said magnetic code determined by the orientation of said poles of said plurality of magnets”); and
a controller (Para. 0018, “a magnetic decoder coupled to the controller”): receiving a signal from the detector including information associated with at least one detectable characteristic of a first cooking article positioned on the cooktop surface, wherein the at least one detectable characteristic includes at least one of a cooking article size, a cooking article shape, or a cooking article type (Para. 0018, “a magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the South Pole, the magnetic code determined by the orientation of poles of said plurality of magnets, is placed over the magnetic decoder, the magnetic decoder provides said code to the controller, said code being indicative of at least one characteristic of a cooking appliance associated with said code.”, where the characteristic from the table is a cooking article type, Para. 0064, “The characteristics Ch typically, either directly or indirectly, identifies the type of cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000 and relates to a cooking profile of the cooking appliance 100, 800, 900 or 1000.”);
comparing the at least one detectable characteristic of the first cooking article with a plurality of stored cooking article profiles stored in a memory accessible by the controller (Para. 0074, “At a decoding block 1420 the method 1400 perform a process of decoding the magnetic field code MC to identify a characteristic CH of a cooking appliance 100 seated on the cooking hob 400.”, and Para. 0076, “If the characteristic Ch is a cooking profile, the controller 602 determines that the characteristic Ch provided from the binary code from the magnet decoder 412 or decoder 1312 is a cooking profile identifier.”, where the controller compares the characteristic from the magnetic field code to stored profiles in a lookup table within the memory of the system);
determining that the at least one detectable characteristic corresponds with one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles (Para. 0076, “If the characteristic Ch is a cooking profile, the controller 602 determines that the characteristic Ch provided from the binary code from the magnet decoder 412 or decoder 1312 is a cooking profile identifier.”, where the controller compares the characteristic to the characteristics within the lookup table in memory and determines if there is a cooking profile);
associating the first cooking article with the one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles to retrieve a first profile (Para. 0076, “For example, if the decoded logic value is 00011 then the characteristic CH is an egg boiler which has a specific cooking profile and thus the driver 604 is set to provide a suitable power output to heat the ferrous based inductive heating member 302.”, where the controller determines that there is a cooking profile, the logic value received by the controller is then associated or connected to the stored cooking article profile that matches the logic value, then cooking profile is retrieved and used); and
heating the first cooking article to a first heating level by inductive coupling with at least a first one of the plurality of power delivery coils, the controller deriving a driving signal for the first one of the power delivery coils using at least one cooking parameter from the first profile (Para. 0076, “In some embodiments the controlling can be such that the driver provides power for a pre-defined time, or a pre-defined time once the egg boiler has reached a required temperature”, where a first heating level is accomplished by heating the cookware to a required temperature or heating level, where this heating is accomplished through the inductive coils, where the driving signal for power delivery comes from the cooking profile, where the cooking profiles can be based on a cooking parameter, Para. 0075, “the type of cooking provided by the appliance; the required cooking profile of the appliance; a default cooking time for the appliance”, where a parameter can be the type of cooking done by the cookware).
Richardson does not disclose:
the detector including at least one of an image sensor or a multi-touch detector.
However, Wilkinson discloses where the cookware detector can include an image sensor that can capture a field of view that includes the cooktop surface (Section 8, lines 56-60, “underside view of the smart cooking device 300, in this case with a camera 322 attached to the heat transfer housing 304 and positioned to capture images of food and cooking actions within cookware when the cookware is placed on top of the housing.”) and output that image data as a signal (Section 16, lines 21-23, “capture one or more images 1225 of the cooking action and save the images along with detected force and vibration signatures to a data store of cooking activity data”), where a detectable characteristic that can include the cookware type is determined from the image data (Section 11, lines 29-35, “finding a profile with an identifier corresponding to the tag or token, by scanning a barcode on the cookware item and finding a profile with a code corresponding to some or all of the barcode, by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system in Richardson to include the ability to use image recognition of the cookware for detection as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to use multiple methods of cookware identification so that the system is more accurate in being able to determine what cookware is being used, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 26-35, “The system may identify the cookware item based on user input… by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”.
Regarding claim 22, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above.
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the at least one cooking parameter includes at least one of an induction heating calibration profile, a cooking article material composition, or a thermal absorption profile.
However, Wilkinson discloses, in the similar field of induction cooktops (Section 5, lines 42-43, “for example, an electric or induction range”), where a cookware detection system can include a temperature sensor to measure a cookware (Section 5, lines 65-end, “a temperature measurement device for measuring heat output by a heat source and accompanying calibration software or information to determine how the output temperature by the heat source translates to cooking temperature”) for induction heating calibration information (Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”) and thermal absorption (Section 6, lines 34-37, “system may calibrate a cooking process to account for the type of cooking utensil being used, adjusting for material type (including inherent properties associated with material type such as heat transfer properties)”) when a new cookware is added (Section 11, lines 20-23, “The remote computing device may create a profile for each cookware item that includes the weight of the cookware item and/or other data sensed during the calibration process, and it may store the profile data in a memory.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature sensor in Richardson to be able to supply the detector with calibration information regarding the intrinsic heating properties of the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow the detector to have a more complete understanding of the intrinsic properties of the cookware being used, where the calibration process using the temperature sensor can allow for unique characteristics of the cookware to be found, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”.
Regarding claim 24, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above, discloses wherein the image sensor captures image data from a field of view including the cooktop surface (Teaching from Wilkinson, Section 8, lines 56-60, “underside view of the smart cooking device 300, in this case with a camera 322 attached to the heat transfer housing 304 and positioned to capture images of food and cooking actions within cookware when the cookware is placed on top of the housing.”) and outputs the image data in the signal (Section 16, lines 21-23, “capture one or more images 1225 of the cooking action and save the images along with detected force and vibration signatures to a data store of cooking activity data”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above, discloses a first temperature sensor directed toward the cooktop surface and adjacent the first one of the plurality of power delivery coils (Para. 0076, “characteristic CH is an egg boiler which has a specific cooking profile and thus the driver 604 is set to provide a suitable power output to heat the ferrous based inductive heating member 302. In some embodiments the controlling can be such that the driver provides power for a pre-defined time, or a pre-defined time once the egg boiler has reached a required temperature, measured by a temperature sensor (such sensors are a well know feature of induction hobs).”, where this temperature sensor measures the temperature of the cookware, meaning that it would be located next to the power coils in order to measure the cookware only).
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
where the detector can include a temperature sensor; and
the signal from the detector further includes temperature information from the first temperature sensor.
However, Wilkinson discloses, in the similar field of induction cooktops (Section 5, lines 42-43, “for example, an electric or induction range”), where a cookware detection system can include a temperature sensor to measure a cookware (Section 5, lines 65-end, “a temperature measurement device for measuring heat output by a heat source and accompanying calibration software or information to determine how the output temperature by the heat source translates to cooking temperature”) for induction heating calibration information (Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”) and thermal absorption (Section 6, lines 34-37, “system may calibrate a cooking process to account for the type of cooking utensil being used, adjusting for material type (including inherent properties associated with material type such as heat transfer properties)”) when a new cookware is added (Section 11, lines 20-23, “The remote computing device may create a profile for each cookware item that includes the weight of the cookware item and/or other data sensed during the calibration process, and it may store the profile data in a memory.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature sensor in Richardson to be able to supply the detector with calibration information regarding the intrinsic heating properties of the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow the detector to have a more complete understanding of the intrinsic properties of the cookware being used, where the calibration process using the temperature sensor can allow for unique characteristics of the cookware to be found, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 5-14, “a more advanced calibration process may be used the first time a particular cookware item is used. For example, a user may add a temperature sensor of a known weight to the cookware and cycle the system through a heating and cooling process…Such a process could allow for standardization of surface temperatures for a set of cookware items as well as identify any unique characteristics for a particular cookware item the first time that the cookware is used.”.
Regarding claim 26, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above, discloses wherein the controller further:
compares the at least one detectable characteristic of the first cooking article with the plurality of stored cooking article profiles (Richardson, Para. 0074, “At a decoding block 1420 the method 1400 perform a process of decoding the magnetic field code MC to identify a characteristic CH of a cooking appliance 100 seated on the cooking hob 400.”, and Para. 0076, “If the characteristic Ch is a cooking profile, the controller 602 determines that the characteristic Ch provided from the binary code from the magnet decoder 412 or decoder 1312 is a cooking profile identifier.”, where the controller compares the characteristic from the magnetic field code to stored profiles in a lookup table within the memory of the system).
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
receives a signal from the detector including information associated with a second detectable characteristic of a second cooking article positioned on the cooktop surface;
determines that the second detectable characteristic of the second cooking article does not correspond with any of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles;
associates the second cooking article with a new stored cooking profile added to the memory; and
prompts a user to provide an information entry regarding the second cooking article for an additional association with the new stored cooking profile.
However, Wilkinson discloses where another cooking article can send a signal and if there is no matching association with the cookware in memory, the system prompts the user to entry a new profile for the cookware and that profile is associated with the new cookware (Section 16, lines 58-62, “If the system detects a known cookware item 1306, it may retrieve a profile of the cookware item and use the profile to continue playback of the recipe 1308. If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”, and Section 15, lines 43-49, “If not, then the system may prompt the user to manually input data about the cookware and/or perform a calibration process 1203 for the cookware such as the calibration processes described above. The system may save a profile for the cookware using data collected during the calibration process and/or manually entered data.”, where a profile is associated with the new cookware and saved in memory). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller system in modified Richardson to include the new cookware profile addition by a user if the system does not recognize the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the cooktop system to continue with cooking operations even when the cookware device is not known, where Wilkinson does not need to wait for a USB memory stick like in Richardson to be able to receive new information, where the direct user interface entry addition benefits a user with directly inputting new information without additional devices, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 16, lines 60-62, “If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”.
Claims 13 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Casanova et al. (EP 2211591 A1, hereinafter Casanova) and Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, as set forth above, discloses further including a user interface in electronic communication with the controller (Richardson, Para. 0070, “A decoder 1312 and user interface 608 are also coupled to the controller 602, where the user interface 608 includes a visual display and user controls.”),
Richardson does not disclose:
the controller: prompts a user to confirm a correct association of the first cooking article with the one of the plurality of stored cooking profiles, when the controller determines that the detectable characteristic corresponds with the one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles; and
prompts the user to provide an information entry regarding the first cooking article for an additional association with the new stored cooking profile, when the controller determines that the detectable characteristic does not correspond with any of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles.
However, Casanova discloses, in the similar field of cooktops (Page 1, Para. 2 from end, “cooktops”), where the controller prompts a user to confirm that specific parameters associated with the cookware are correct (Page 3, Para. 4, “user can select by an input in the user interface, whether the set operating parameters or the set operating parameters for the relocated heating zone to be adopted or not. The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”), where the controller can determine that there is an operating characteristic for the cookware and be unsure until a user confirms (Page 3, Para. 5, “control unit assign the process to one of at least three cases…In a second case, the assignment or classification of the process is unclear and the operating parameters or the operating parameters are only accepted for the relocated heating zone if the user by a corresponding input confirmed. The user may be prompted by a plain text display on the user interface to make such an entry.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller being able to detect a cookware and operating characteristics in Richardson to include the user confirmation step to ensure that the operating characteristic is correct as taught by Casanova.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the confirmation step allowing the system to prevent misinterpretation of the cookware, which could upset the user, as stated by Casanova, Page 3, Para. 4, “The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”.
Further, Wilkinson discloses where if there is no matching association with the cookware in memory, the system prompts the user to entry a new profile for the cookware (Section 16, lines 58-62, “If the system detects a known cookware item 1306, it may retrieve a profile of the cookware item and use the profile to continue playback of the recipe 1308. If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller system in modified Richardson to include the new cookware profile addition by a user if the system does not recognize the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the cooktop system to continue with cooking operations even when the cookware device is not known, where Wilkinson does not need to wait for a USB memory stick like in Richardson to be able to receive new information, where the direct user interface entry addition benefits a user with directly inputting new information without additional devices, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 16, lines 60-62, “If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”.
Regarding claim 23, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, as set forth above, discloses further including a user interface in electronic communication with the controller (Richardson, Para. 0070, “A decoder 1312 and user interface 608 are also coupled to the controller 602, where the user interface 608 includes a visual display and user controls.”).
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein: the controller prompts a user to confirm a correct association of the first cooking article with the one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles.
However, Casanova discloses, in the similar field of cooktops (Page 1, Para. 2 from end, “cooktops”), where the controller prompts a user to confirm that specific parameters associated with the cookware are correct (Page 3, Para. 4, “user can select by an input in the user interface, whether the set operating parameters or the set operating parameters for the relocated heating zone to be adopted or not. The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”), where the controller can determine that there is an operating characteristic for the cookware and be unsure until a user confirms (Page 3, Para. 5, “control unit assign the process to one of at least three cases…In a second case, the assignment or classification of the process is unclear and the operating parameters or the operating parameters are only accepted for the relocated heating zone if the user by a corresponding input confirmed. The user may be prompted by a plain text display on the user interface to make such an entry.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller being able to detect a cookware and operating characteristics in Richardson to include the user confirmation step to ensure that the operating characteristic is correct as taught by Casanova.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the confirmation step allowing the system to prevent misinterpretation of the cookware, which could upset the user, as stated by Casanova, Page 3, Para. 4, “The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Casanova et al. (EP 2211591 A1, hereinafter Casanova) and Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1) and Suzuki (WO 2021038790 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the controller, after prompting the user to provide the information entry regarding the first cooking article, uses a predetermined information entry with the additional association with the new stored cooking profile after one of:
the user declining to enter the information entry regarding the first cooking article; or completion of a timeout interval.
However, Wilkinson discloses where after a user inputs new information about a cookware, the system can proceed with a predetermined information entry to create a new stored cooking profile using a calibration process (Section 15, lines 43-47, “If not, then the system may prompt the user to manually input data about the cookware and/or perform a calibration process 1203 for the cookware such as the calibration processes described above.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Richardson to have an automatic calibration process occur after a manual input is performed as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to have enough information to create a new cooking profile through the calibration process, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 15, lines 47-49, “The system may save a profile for the cookware using data collected during the calibration process and/or manually entered data.”.
Further, Suzuki discloses, in the field of manual and automatic inputs through a user interface (Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “switching the parking mode from the manual mode to the automatic mode is output to the display 13.”, where the manual and automatic modes can correspond to the user input and calibration process from the teaching of Wilkinson), where manual input is done until a timeout occurs, then the system switches to an automatic mode (Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “Further, even if the occupant does not perform any operation within a certain period of time after the guidance information for switching the parking mode is output to the display 13, the occupant gives an instruction to switch the parking mode to the automatic mode due to the timeout.”), where it is also possible that after manual operation failure to switch to automatic control (Page 9, Para. 5, “it is determined that parking has failed, the parking support device 100 does not output confirmation displays 31, 32, 33, posts guidance information for switching the parking mode, and then does not give an instruction from the occupant. The parking mode may be switched to the automatic mode to assist parking.”, where manual failure would correspond to a user to not supplying enough cookware information or declining to submit information from Wilkinson). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the manual input and automatic calibration of a cookware profile in modified Richardson to switch to automatic after a timeout or manual input failure as taught by Suzuki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage using an automatic process after a manual process has either timed out or not been successful, where the automatic process can assist a user, as stated by Suzuki, Page 9, Para. 5, “parking has failed, the parking support device 100 does not output confirmation displays 31, 32, 33, posts guidance information for switching the parking mode, and then does not give an instruction from the occupant. The parking mode may be switched to the automatic mode to assist parking.”, where from the combined system of modified Richardson, if a user fails to provide enough information or declines to provide information regarding the cookware in a manual input process, the system can then proceed with an automatic calibration in order to allow the new cookware to be tailored for use within the induction cooktop.
Claims 16 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Corwin et al. (WO 2021142108 A1, hereinafter Corwin) and Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Richardson does not disclose:
wherein, when the controller does not determine that the information associated with at least one detectable characteristic indicates that the at least one detected object is the first detected cooking article and alerts the user that the at least one detected object is a non-cooking object.
However, Corwin discloses, in the similar field of induction cooktops (Abstract, “An inductive cooktop system”), where a cookware detection system can include position data (Para. 0051, “The sensor system 180 may use a variety of sensors to detect or aid in the detection of the location of an object on or near the cooktop surface 110.”) and when the controller determines that the position data indicates that the detected object placed on the cooktop surface is not a cooking object, alerts the user that the object is a non-cooking object (Para. 0052, “In some examples, the sensor system 180 may also use these sensors to detect or aid in the detection of foreign objects (i.e., non-cookware objects, such as electronic devices, cooking ingredients, utensils and the like) placed on the cooktop surface… The detection of such a foreign object may be communicated to the user, such as via a displayed notification or graphic or audible sound to alert the user of the presence of the foreign object.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system in Richardson to be able to detect position and use that data to determine non-cooking objects as taught by Corwin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow a user to avoid undesirable heating with foreign objects that were not intended to receive heating, as stated by Corwin, Para. 0052, “For instance, if the foreign object is near a heated cookware object, the notification may recommend that the user move the foreign object to avoid interference with heating or undesirable heating of the foreign object.”.
Further, Wilkinson discloses where the cookware detection system can include image data that would include the size of the object for determining what the cookware is (Section 11, lines 29-35, “finding a profile with an identifier corresponding to the tag or token, by scanning a barcode on the cookware item and finding a profile with a code corresponding to some or all of the barcode, by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-cooking object detection sensors in modified Richardson to be able to further use imaging data that includes size data as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of using size determination from the image data can assist with determining if there are non-cooking objects present, where being able to use multiple methods of cookware identification allows the cookware detection system to be more accurate in determining what cookware or non-cooking object is present, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 26-35, “The system may identify the cookware item based on user input… by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”, where if the image does not correspond with existing profiles, then this reinforces the idea that the object might be a non-cooking object.
Regarding claim 30, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, as set forth above.
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the detector includes an image sensor capturing image data from a field of view including the cooktop surface.
However, Wilkinson discloses where the cookware detector can include an image sensor that can capture a field of view that includes the cooktop surface (Section 8, lines 56-60, “underside view of the smart cooking device 300, in this case with a camera 322 attached to the heat transfer housing 304 and positioned to capture images of food and cooking actions within cookware when the cookware is placed on top of the housing.”) and output that image data as a signal (Section 16, lines 21-23, “capture one or more images 1225 of the cooking action and save the images along with detected force and vibration signatures to a data store of cooking activity data”), where a detectable characteristic that can include the cookware type is determined from the image data (Section 11, lines 29-35, “finding a profile with an identifier corresponding to the tag or token, by scanning a barcode on the cookware item and finding a profile with a code corresponding to some or all of the barcode, by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system in Richardson to include the ability to use image recognition of the cookware for detection as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to use multiple methods of cookware identification so that the system is more accurate in being able to determine what cookware is being used, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 11, lines 26-35, “The system may identify the cookware item based on user input… by taking a photograph of the cookware item and using image processing to find a profile having an image that corresponds to the captured image, or by other methods.”.
Claims 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Corwin et al. (WO 2021142108 A1, hereinafter Corwin).
Regarding claim 27, Richardson discloses an induction cooktop (Para. 0001, “cooking appliances, cooking hobs”), comprising:
a cooktop surface (Para. 0047, “The cooking hob 400 (for induction cooking) in this embodiment includes a cooking appliance support surface 402”);
a plurality of power delivery coils in an array beneath the cooktop surface (Para. 0047, “Each of the cooking rings 404 have an inductive coil or coils 410 (shown in phantom) under the cooking appliance support surface 402 and the coils 410 are positioned within the perimeter markings 408.”);
a detector operably associated with the cooktop surface (Para. 0032, “a magnetic decoder for a cooking hob, said magnetic decoder capable of decoding a magnetic code of a cooking appliance, said magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the south pole, said magnetic code determined by the orientation of said poles of said plurality of magnets”); and
a controller (Para. 0018, “a magnetic decoder coupled to the controller”): receiving a signal from the detector including information associated with at least one detectable characteristic of a first cooking article positioned on the cooktop surface (Para. 0018, “a magnetic code comprising a plurality of magnets each said magnet having a north pole at the South Pole, the magnetic code determined by the orientation of poles of said plurality of magnets, is placed over the magnetic decoder, the magnetic decoder provides said code to the controller, said code being indicative of at least one characteristic of a cooking appliance associated with said code.”);
determining, based on the at least one detectable characteristic, whether the first cooking article corresponds with one of a plurality of stored cooking article profiles stored in a memory accessible by the controller (Para. 0076, “If the characteristic Ch is a cooking profile, the controller 602 determines that the characteristic Ch provided from the binary code from the magnet decoder 412 or decoder 1312 is a cooking profile identifier.”, where the controller compares the characteristic to the characteristics within the lookup table in memory and determines if there is a cooking profile);
when the first cooking article corresponds with one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles, associating the first cooking article with a first profile (Para. 0076, “For example, if the decoded logic value is 00011 then the characteristic CH is an egg boiler which has a specific cooking profile and thus the driver 604 is set to provide a suitable power output to heat the ferrous based inductive heating member 302.”, where the controller determines that there is a cooking profile, the logic value received by the controller is then associated or connected to the stored cooking article profile that matches the logic value, then cooking profile is retrieved and used) and
heating the first cooking article by inductive coupling with at least a first one of the plurality of power delivery coils using the first profile (Para. 0076, “In some embodiments the controlling can be such that the driver provides power for a pre-defined time, or a pre-defined time once the egg boiler has reached a required temperature”, where a first heating level is accomplished by heating the cookware to a required temperature or heating level, where this heating is accomplished through the inductive coils, where the driving signal for power delivery comes from the cooking profile, where the cooking profiles can be based on a cooking parameter, Para. 0075, “the type of cooking provided by the appliance; the required cooking profile of the appliance; a default cooking time for the appliance”, where a parameter can be the type of cooking done by the cookware).
Richardson does not disclose:
when the controller determines that the information associated with the at least one detectable characteristic indicates that an object on the cooktop surface does not correspond with any of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles and does not satisfy criteria for a cooking article, alerting a user that the object is a non-cooking object.
However, Corwin discloses, in the similar field of induction cooktops (Abstract, “An inductive cooktop system”), where a cookware detection system can include position data (Para. 0051, “The sensor system 180 may use a variety of sensors to detect or aid in the detection of the location of an object on or near the cooktop surface 110.”) and when the controller determines that the position data indicates that the detected object placed on the cooktop surface is not a cooking object and that criteria for being a cooking article is not met (Para. 0052, “induction coils may be used to sense foreign objects that do not have an inductive resistance within a tolerance range for compatible cookware.”), alerts the user that the object is a non-cooking object (Para. 0052, “In some examples, the sensor system 180 may also use these sensors to detect or aid in the detection of foreign objects (i.e., non-cookware objects, such as electronic devices, cooking ingredients, utensils and the like) placed on the cooktop surface… The detection of such a foreign object may be communicated to the user, such as via a displayed notification or graphic or audible sound to alert the user of the presence of the foreign object.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system in Richardson to be able to detect position and use that data to determine non-cooking objects as taught by Corwin; where Richardson includes the corresponding stored cooking article profiles, where when an object does not have an inductive resistance to be a compatible cookware is placed on the cooktop, there would be no magnetic field code to match the stored profiles in Richardson and the tolerance range for inductive resistance from Corwin would also not be met, and then the user would be alerted as taught by Corwin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow a user to avoid undesirable heating with foreign objects that were not intended to receive heating, as stated by Corwin, Para. 0052, “For instance, if the foreign object is near a heated cookware object, the notification may recommend that the user move the foreign object to avoid interference with heating or undesirable heating of the foreign object.”.
Regarding claim 28, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, as set forth above, discloses wherein the criteria for a cooking article includes at least one of a minimum size threshold, a shape characteristic, or an inductive coupling response (Teaching from Corwin, Para. 0052, “induction coils may be used to sense foreign objects that do not have an inductive resistance within a tolerance range for compatible cookware.”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, as set forth above, discloses wherein the at least one detectable characteristic includes at least one of a cooking article size, a cooking article shape, a cooking article type, a cooking article material composition, or an acoustic profile (Richardson, Para. 0041, “These magnets 106 provide a magnetic field code MC that identifies at least one characteristic of the cooking appliance. This characteristic can typically be: the type of appliance; the type of cooking provided by the appliance; the required cooking profile of the appliance; a default cooking time for the appliance; or the required inductive power to be supplied to the appliance.”, where the cooking article type and profile of the cookware are supplied through the measureable characteristic).
Claims 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Corwin et al. (WO 2021142108 A1, hereinafter Corwin) in further view of Casanova et al. (EP 2211591 A1, hereinafter Casanova) and Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, as set forth above, discloses further including a user interface in electronic communication with the controller (Richardson, Para. 0070, “A decoder 1312 and user interface 608 are also coupled to the controller 602, where the user interface 608 includes a visual display and user controls.”).
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the controller: when the first cooking article corresponds with one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles, prompts the user to confirm a correct association of the first cooking article with the one of the plurality of stored cooking article profiles; and
when the controller determines that the information associated with the at least one detectable characteristic does not correspond with one of the plurality of stored article profiles, prompts the user to provide an information entry regarding the first cooking article.
However, Casanova discloses, in the similar field of cooktops (Page 1, Para. 2 from end, “cooktops”), where the controller prompts a user to confirm that specific parameters associated with the cookware are correct (Page 3, Para. 4, “user can select by an input in the user interface, whether the set operating parameters or the set operating parameters for the relocated heating zone to be adopted or not. The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”), where the controller can determine that there is an operating characteristic for the cookware and be unsure until a user confirms (Page 3, Para. 5, “control unit assign the process to one of at least three cases…In a second case, the assignment or classification of the process is unclear and the operating parameters or the operating parameters are only accepted for the relocated heating zone if the user by a corresponding input confirmed. The user may be prompted by a plain text display on the user interface to make such an entry.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller being able to detect a cookware and operating characteristics in Richardson to include the user confirmation step to ensure that the operating characteristic is correct as taught by Casanova.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the confirmation step allowing the system to prevent misinterpretation of the cookware, which could upset the user, as stated by Casanova, Page 3, Para. 4, “The intervention of the user in cases of doubt, a misinterpretation of the process, which could upset the user, can be avoided.”.
Further, Wilkinson discloses where if there is no matching association with the cookware in memory, the system prompts the user to entry a new profile for the cookware (Section 16, lines 58-62, “If the system detects a known cookware item 1306, it may retrieve a profile of the cookware item and use the profile to continue playback of the recipe 1308. If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface and controller system in modified Richardson to include the new cookware profile addition by a user if the system does not recognize the cookware as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the cooktop system to continue with cooking operations even when the cookware device is not known, where Wilkinson does not need to wait for a USB memory stick like in Richardson to be able to receive new information, where the direct user interface entry addition benefits a user with directly inputting new information without additional devices, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 16, lines 60-62, “If the cookware item is not known, the system may prompt the user to enter data about the cookware item”.
Claims 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (EP 3107428 B1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of Corwin et al. (WO 2021142108 A1, hereinafter Corwin) in further view of Casanova et al. (EP 2211591 A1, hereinafter Casanova) and Wilkinson (US 10025282 B1) and Suzuki (WO 2021038790 A1).
Regarding claim 32, modified Richardson teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Richardson does not disclose:
wherein the controller, after prompting the user to provide the information entry regarding the first cooking article, uses a predetermined information entry with a new stored cooking profile after one of the user declining to enter the information entry or completion of a timeout interval.
However, Wilkinson discloses where after a user inputs new information about a cookware, the system can proceed with a predetermined information entry to create a new stored cooking profile using a calibration process (Section 15, lines 43-47, “If not, then the system may prompt the user to manually input data about the cookware and/or perform a calibration process 1203 for the cookware such as the calibration processes described above.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Richardson to have an automatic calibration process occur after a manual input is performed as taught by Wilkinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to have enough information to create a new cooking profile through the calibration process, as stated by Wilkinson, Section 15, lines 47-49, “The system may save a profile for the cookware using data collected during the calibration process and/or manually entered data.”.
Further, Suzuki discloses, in the field of manual and automatic inputs through a user interface (Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “switching the parking mode from the manual mode to the automatic mode is output to the display 13.”, where the manual and automatic modes can correspond to the user input and calibration process from the teaching of Wilkinson), where manual input is done until a timeout occurs, then the system switches to an automatic mode (Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “Further, even if the occupant does not perform any operation within a certain period of time after the guidance information for switching the parking mode is output to the display 13, the occupant gives an instruction to switch the parking mode to the automatic mode due to the timeout.”), where it is also possible that after manual operation failure to switch to automatic control (Page 9, Para. 5, “it is determined that parking has failed, the parking support device 100 does not output confirmation displays 31, 32, 33, posts guidance information for switching the parking mode, and then does not give an instruction from the occupant. The parking mode may be switched to the automatic mode to assist parking.”, where manual failure would correspond to a user to not supplying enough cookware information or declining to submit information from Wilkinson). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the manual input and automatic calibration of a cookware profile in modified Richardson to switch to automatic after a timeout or manual input failure as taught by Suzuki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage using an automatic process after a manual process has either timed out or not been successful, where the automatic process can assist a user, as stated by Suzuki, Page 9, Para. 5, “parking has failed, the parking support device 100 does not output confirmation displays 31, 32, 33, posts guidance information for switching the parking mode, and then does not give an instruction from the occupant. The parking mode may be switched to the automatic mode to assist parking.”, where from the combined system of modified Richardson, if a user fails to provide enough information or declines to provide information regarding the cookware in a manual input process, the system can then proceed with an automatic calibration in order to allow the new cookware to be tailored for use within the induction cooktop.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
01/26/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761