DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Broccotti et al. (PGPub# US 2003/0389136 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Boccotti teaches both a cooktop (claim 1) and system (claim 9) (abstract, figures 1-3) comprising: a base panel 10 including an outer surface (surface pots sit on), an inner surface (surface opposite of pots) that is opposite the outer surface and a transparent first viewing region (par. 33, fig. 3: Camera 34 views through countertop); a first heating element (inducive coils 14) that is secured to the inner surface in such a way as to be able to supply heat to a first heating region of the base panel (par. 31); a first camera 34 that is positioned on a side of the base panel corresponding to the inner surface at a location corresponding to the first viewing region (viewing region shown in figure 3 to image pots place on cooktop), the first camera 34 configured to collect image data from a first imaging volume, where the first imaging volume is positioned on a side of the base panel corresponding to the outer surface at a location corresponding to the first heating region and the first camera views the first imaging volume through the first viewing region (figure 3 and par. 33); and a controller that is configured to receive the image data collected by the first camera, process the image data to identify a corresponding cooking event (ex. placement of pot, or wrong article such as phone detected), and perform a response function based on the identified cooking event (par. 29:Various actions can be taken.) (par. 48: Block power to heating coils 14 when article such as phone is discovered.)
Regarding claim 6, Broccotti teaches wherein the base panel comprises a transparent second viewing region, the cook top comprises: a second heating element that is secured to the inner surface in such a way as to be able to supply heat to a second heating region of the base panel; and a second camera that is positioned on a side of the base panel corresponding to the inner surface at a location corresponding to the second viewing region, the second camera configured to collect image data from a second imaging volume, where the second imaging volume is positioned on a side of the base panel corresponding to the outer surface at a location corresponding to the second heating region and the second camera views the second imaging volume through the second viewing region. (par. 33: Broccotti teaches multiple camera can be positioned below the surface to collect imaging data of various viewing regions where a pot may be located similar to rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Broccotti teaches wherein processing the image data to identify cooking events comprises analyzing the image data to identify image contents, comparing the image contents to a pre-stored content library that includes known images of cooking events and at least one response function that is mapped to each known image of a cooking event, identifying a one of the known cooking events that most closely matches the image contents, based on the identified one of the known cooking events, performing the response function or response functions that are mapped to the one of the known cooking events (par. 48-52: Broccotti teaches comparing image data to a profile including image data in order to identify the cookware that is present on the cooktop or problem articles such as a kitchen utensil or cell phone and block alert user of issue while preventing heating from being turned on when problem articles detected that do not register to know profiles.) Note: Alternative 103 rejection could be made with respect to Spalding with appears to more explicitly teach the comparison of images by AI.
Regarding claim 15, Broccotti teaches wherein the at least one response function comprises activating at least one of an audible alarm, a visible alarm, transmission of an alert to a personal computing device via the remote network, transmission of an alert to a public safety organization via the remote network, transmission of an alert to a private security organization via the remote network. (par. 48: visual alert to HMI 60. )
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Broccotti teaches wherein the at least one response function comprises controlling the first heating element to change an amount of heat provided by the heating element (claim 16), and wherein the at least one response function comprises controlling the first heating element to change an operation state of the heating element. (claim 17) (par. 48: Block power to heating coils 14 when article such as phone is discovered. )
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.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broccotti et al. (PGPub# US 2003/0389136 A1) in view of Jun et al. (KR 20200084631).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Broccotti does not explicitly teach wherein the first imaging volume has a conical shape (claim 2) (Note: Figure 3 and disclosure may indicate that imaging volume is conical) , an apex of the conical shape being located on the camera and an axis of the conical shape extends through the first viewing region and the first imaging volume and wherein the axis of the conical shape is at an acute angle relative to a plane defined by the base panel (claim 3).
However, Jun teaches a cooktop that utilizes a camera for imaging pots on a surface of a cookpot. (abstract, par. 13, 37, and figures 1, 3,8-10) Jun teaches that the camera views at a conical shape extending past a viewing region with the apex being at the camera. (figures 8-10, par. 131) Jun teaches that the camera system allows for viewing the sides of the cooking pots to prevent the food from overflowing. (par. 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera system of Broccotti, to the shape and angle disclosed by Jun, in order to view the side of the pot and further allow the controller to assist with preventing the food from overflowing as taught by Jun.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Broccotti teaches a Bluetooth system for use in transmitting information to a remote device information relating to cooking event data (par. 42) but does not explicitly teach wherein the controller comprises a communication device that is configured to, and receive information from, a remote network.
However, Jun teaches a cooktop that utilizes a camera for imaging pots on a surface of a cookpot. (abstract, par. 13, 37, and figures 1, 3,8-10) Jun teaches that a communication network can be utilized to transmit and receive information. (par. 233)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Broccotti, to include the communication device disclosed by Jun, in order to allow for information to be sent and received for use in generating warnings or communicating thermal images as taught by Jun (par. 91).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broccotti et al. (PGPub# US 2003/0389136 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Broccotti does not explicitly teach wherein the first viewing region has a circular shape when the base panel is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the outer surface (claim 4) and wherein the first viewing region has a circular sector shape when the base panel is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the outer surface (claim 5).
However, examiner takes official notice that the viewing region of the camera is known to include a circular/circular sector shape and would have been obvious to have included such a shape in Broccotti to correspond to the viewing region of cooktop and viewing boundary of camera. Further, Changes in size or shape and in sequence of adding ingredients are not patentably distinct from prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claims 7 -8, Broccotti does not explicitly teach wherein the first imaging volume and the second imaging volume partially overlap.(claim 7), and wherein the controller is configured to receive the image data collected by each of the first camera and the second camera, process the collected image data including using data from one of the first camera or the second camera to compensate for or supplement data from the other of the first camera and the second camera, and identifying a corresponding cooking event, and perform a response function based on the identified cooking event.
However, Broccotti does teach a multitude of cameras positioned beneath the cooktop with the intention that the cameras cover the entire area of the cooktop in which a pot may be placed. (par. 33)
Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to overlap camera regions in order to supplement/compensate for viewing region issues to ensure complete coverage of a target area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera system of Broccotti to have included overlapping regions in order to ensure the entire coverage of the cooktop from the multiple cameras. The resulting system would supplement of compensate for image data to ensure a complete “picture” of the target area is received to allow the controller to process the image for the desired control method of Broccotti.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broccotti et al. (PGPub# US 2003/0389136 A1) in view of Spalding et al. (PGPub# US 2022/0296037).
Regarding claim 11, Broccotti does not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the image data to identify image contents is performed using artificial intelligence algorithms.
However, Spalding teaches a cooktop that utilizes a camera for imaging pots on a surface of a cookpot. (abstract, par. 40, and figures 2, 4, and 5) Spalding teaches utilizing the camera to identify images of the cooktop by comparing to stored images. Spalding teaches that AI can be used in order to identify the images. (par. 45-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Broccotti, to include the AI imaging processing technique of Spalding, in order to provide an adaptable and teachable controller that can improve in imaging processing.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broccotti et al. (PGPub# US 2003/0389136 A1) in view of Jun et al. (KR 20200084631) and Spalding et al. (PGPub# US 2022/0296037).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Broccotti and Jun does not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the image data to identify image contents is performed using an artificial intelligence algorithm stored by the controller, and information received from the remote network includes updates to the artificial intelligence algorithm that improve the function of the artificial intelligence algorithm.
However, Spalding teaches a cooktop that utilizes a camera for imaging pots on a surface of a cookpot. (abstract, par. 40, and figures 2, 4, and 5) Spalding teaches utilizing the camera to identify images of the cooktop by comparing to stored images. Spalding teaches that AI can be used in order to identify the images. (par. 45-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Broccotti, to include the AI imaging processing technique of Spalding, in order to provide an adaptable and teachable controller that can improve in imaging processing. The combination of Broccotti, Jun, and Spalding does not explicitly teach information received from the remote network includes updates to the artificial intelligence algorithm that improve the function of the artificial intelligence algorithm.
However, examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide over the air network updates to a controller to keep the controller up to date and improved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761