Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/18/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
DE 10201711288 A1 does not have a copy in the application file but is cited in the 03/18/25 IDS. The Applicant should provide a copy of this reference in order to be considered.
The information disclosure statements filed 3/18/25 and 7/7/25 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NOTE: the aforementioned documents are placed in the application file as Non Patent Literature filed on 03/18/2025, but the information referred to therein has not been considered along with the 03/18/2025 IDS because both of these documents aren’t cited therein.
The Chinese search report for CN 202211428384.8 is not listed in the information disclosure statement.
What appears to be a search report for TK 2021/017877 is not listed in the information disclosure statement, nor does it include a concise explanation of its relevance in the English language.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 7, line 6, “the predetermine distance threshold” should read “the predetermined distance threshold” (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19, lines 1-4: “the control unit comprising: means for determining user information regarding a user of the gas-based cooking appliance using an electronic user device of the user.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a controller, as specified in claim 1, lines 4-5, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 19, lines 1, and 5-6: “the control unit comprising:… means for controlling the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the user information.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a controller, as specified in claim 1, lines 6-7, and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12, lines 2-3: control element. The nonce term “element” is modified by functional language “control” and “actuated to turn on a burner of the gas-based cooking appliance”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a knob, as specified in Par. 0017, lines 1-2, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
(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, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colston (US 20190289116 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Colston discloses a system for controlling a gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039, “Other electronically-controlled appliances 115 such as ovens…may also be controlled using the software application 106 in a manner that is the same as or similar to that used to control a grill or smoker.”; and Par. 0083, “functions may include temperature monitoring and control, gas burn rate”), the system comprising:
an electronic user device for a user (Par. 0023, “Computing systems may, for example, be mobile phones, electronic appliances, laptop computers, tablet computers, wearable devices, desktop computers, mainframes, and the like. As used herein, the term “computing system” includes any device, system, or combination thereof that includes at least one processor, and a physical and tangible computer-readable memory capable of having thereon computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor. A computing system may be distributed over a network environment and may include multiple constituent computing systems”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a wearable device is a type of remote device, especially in light of this disclosure);
a controller (Par. 0034, “remote computing systems 113 (e.g., cloud computing systems) and/or with electronically-controlled appliance 115. The remote computing systems 113 may also be able to communicate with the electronically-controlled appliance 115, either directly or through the (mobile) computer system 101” and Claim 1, “A cloud computing system for communicating with and controlling operation of a wood-pellet grill”. A controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing systems comprise a ‘controller’ because they have the power or authority to control the electronically-controlled appliance 115) configured to determine user information (Claim 1, “a location of the remote device”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand capturing the location of the remote device necessarily means capturing the location (i.e., user information) of the user that is using the remote device) regarding the user of the gas-based cooking appliance using said electronic user device (Claim 1, “cause the cloud computing system to: receive, from a remote device, one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill”); and
said controller controlling the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the user information (Claim 1, “cause the cloud computing system to: receive, from a remote device, one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, enabling the one or more instructions to be transmitted to the wood-pellet grill; and in response to determining that the location of the remote device is outside of the certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, preventing the one or more instructions from being transmitted to the wood-pellet grill”).
Regarding claim 4, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein:
said electronic user device (Par. 0023, mobile device, as explained in claim 1) has at least one sensor (Claim 14, “determined global positioning system (GPS) locations of the remote device”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand GPS is a ‘sensor’ because it responds to a physical stimulus, i.e., motion, and transmits a resulting impulse, i.e., position/location) configured to capture measurement data regarding the user (Claim 14, “locations of the remote device”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand capturing the location of the remote device necessarily means capturing the location (i.e., measurement data) of the user that is using the remote device); and
the user information (Claim 1, “determine a first location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill”) is dependent on the measurement data captured by said at least one sensor of said electronic user device (Claim 14, “determining the first location…of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill comprises determining the first location…of the remote device based on determined global positioning system (GPS) locations of the remote device”).
Regarding claim 6, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein said controller (Par. 0034 and Claim 1, remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems, as explained in claim 1) is configured to:
determine distance information regarding a distance between the gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039 and Par. 0083, as cited in claim 1) and said electronic user device (Par. 0043, mobile device, as explained in claim 1) based on the user information (Par. 0075, “The software application 106 may be configured to receive information from the one or more remote computing systems 113 and may be in continuous or continual communication with such systems”; Par. 0034, “communicate with remote computing systems 113 (e.g., cloud computing systems)” and Claim 1, “the cloud computing system to: receive, from a remote device, one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill”); and
control the gas-based cooking appliance based on the distance information (Pars. 0075 and 0034, as cited above, and Claim 1, “one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, enabling the one or more instructions to be transmitted to the wood-pellet grill; and in response to determining that the location of the remote device is outside of the certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, preventing the one or more instructions from being transmitted to the wood-pellet grill”).
Regarding claim 9, Colston discloses the system according to claim 6, wherein:
said electronic user device (Par. 0043, mobile device, as explained in claim 1) has a position sensor (Claim 14, “determined global positioning system (GPS) locations of the remote device” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand GPS is a ‘position sensor’ because it responds to a physical stimulus, i.e., motion, and transmits a resulting impulse, i.e., position/location. Examiner notes a mobile device is a type of remote device per Colston’s disclosure. See Par. 0043, “As understood herein, a “mobile device” (120b) means any computing system (including but not limited to a smart phone) that enables a user to provide remote inputs, selections, and other controls that are communicated with outdoor grill 101b from a remote location.”) and a wireless communication module (Par. 0043, “The communication between mobile device and outdoor grill 101b can occur over a network comprising a combination of wireless and hardwired connections. For example, mobile device 120b may be wirelessly connected to a network, or may be connected to the network over a network cable, such as a cable employing an Ethernet, USB, or other appropriate connection interface.”);
the distance information is determined based on position data of said position sensor of said electronic user device (Claim 14, “determining the first location…of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill comprises determining the first location…of the remote device based on determined global positioning system (GPS) locations of the remote device”).
NOTE: Examiner notes that ‘and/or’ indicates a list of alternative limitations, so only one limitation must be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein:
said controller (Par. 0034 and Claim 1, remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems, as explained in claim 1) is a central unit which is separate from the gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039 and Par. 0083, as cited in claim 1) and from said electronic user device (Par. 0023, wearable device, as explained in claim 1 and Par. 0034, “remote computing systems 113 may also be able to communicate with the electronically-controlled appliance 115, either directly or through the (mobile) computer system 101” Remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems comprise a ‘central unit’ because they control the activities of auxiliary structures such as the electronically-controlled appliance 115 and mobile device);
said central unit is configured to communicate with said electronic user device via a wireless and/or wireline communication link (Par. 0029, “The embodiments herein may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computing systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks. As such, in a distributed system environment, a computing system may include a plurality of constituent computing systems. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices”. Par. 0023, as cited above. Examiner notes remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems and the mobile device are remote computing systems and are therefore covered by the disclosure of Par. 0029 cited above); and
said central unit is configured to control the gas-based cooking appliance via the wireless and/or wireline communication link (Pars. 0032-0033, “the communications module 104 may be configured to communicate with other computing systems (e.g., remote computing systems 113). The communications module 104 may include any wired or wireless communication means that can receive and/or transmit data to or from other computing systems such as wired or wireless network interface cards. The communications module 104 may be configured to interact with databases, mobile computing devices (such as mobile phones or tablets), electronically-controlled appliances (e.g., 115), embedded computing systems or other types of computing systems.”).
Regarding claim 13, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein said controller (Par. 0034 and Claim 1, remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems, as explained in claim 1) is configured to:
determine status information (Par. 0040, “The electronically-controlled appliance 115 may send an indication 117 to the (mobile) computer system 101, indicating that it wishes to communicate with one or more remote computing systems 113 (for example, to download a recipe)”. Examiner notes status information is information or the communication of knowledge associated with a status or state, therefore the electronically-controller appliance wishing to communicate with remote computing systems 113 is ‘status information’ because it is communicating knowledge (i.e., information) that the electronically-controlled applicant 115 is ready to communicate (i.e., status)) regarding a status of the gas-based cooking appliance (Par. 0040, “The electronically-controlled appliance 115 may send an indication 117 to the (mobile) computer system 101, indicating that it wishes to communicate with one or more remote computing systems 113 (for example, to download a recipe)…the electronically-controlled appliance 115 may communicate with an access point (such as a router) that permits flow of data between the appliance 115 and the remote system 113”. As explained above, the status is that the electronically-controlled applicant 115 is ready to communicate); and
provide the status information to the user device (Pars. 0059-0060, “FIG. 4 illustrates an application workflow 400 for a software application such as application 106 of FIG. 1. The application may run on a mobile device such as a phone or tablet or wearable device…The application workflow 400 includes a home menu 401 that, on launch, shows the status of the grill (or other electronically-controlled appliance)” and Par. 0079, “The software application 106 facilitates communication between the remote computing systems 113 and the electronically-controlled appliance 115.”).
Regarding claim 14, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039 and Par. 0083, as cited in claim 1) has a gas oven (Par. 0039, “Other electronically-controlled appliances 115 such as ovens…may also be controlled using the software application 106 in a manner that is the same as or similar to that used to control a grill or smoker.”).
Regarding claim 17, Colston discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein said position sensor is a global navigation satellite system sensor (Claim 14, “determined global positioning system (GPS) locations of the remote device”, as explained in claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 18, Colston discloses a method for controlling a gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039, “Other electronically-controlled appliances 115 such as ovens…may also be controlled using the software application 106 in a manner that is the same as or similar to that used to control a grill or smoker.”; and Par. 0083, “functions may include temperature monitoring and control, gas burn rate”), which comprises the steps of:
determining user information (Claim 1, “a location of the remote device”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand capturing the location of the remote device necessarily means capturing the location (i.e., user information) of the user that is using the remote device) regarding a user of the gas-based cooking appliance using an electronic user device of the user (Par. 0043, “As understood herein, a “mobile device” (120b) means any computing system (including but not limited to a smart phone) that enables a user to provide remote inputs, selections, and other controls that are communicated with outdoor grill 101b from a remote location.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a mobile device is a type of remote device, especially in light of this disclosure); and
controlling the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the user information (Claim 1, “cause the cloud computing system to: receive, from a remote device, one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, enabling the one or more instructions to be transmitted to the wood-pellet grill; and in response to determining that the location of the remote device is outside of the certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, preventing the one or more instructions from being transmitted to the wood-pellet grill”).
Regarding claim 19, Colston discloses a control unit (Fig. 1A, computer system 101 and remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system. A control unit is designed to have power over something, therefore computer system 101 and remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system comprise a ‘control unit’ because they has control over electronically-controlled appliance 115) configured to determine user information (Fig. 1A, user input 112 is fed to computer system 101) for controlling a gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039, “Other electronically-controlled appliances 115 such as ovens…may also be controlled using the software application 106 in a manner that is the same as or similar to that used to control a grill or smoker.”; Par. 0083, “functions may include temperature monitoring and control, gas burn rate”), the control unit comprising:
means for determining user information (Par. 0034, “remote computing systems 113 (e.g., cloud computing systems) and/or with electronically-controlled appliance 115. The remote computing systems 113 may also be able to communicate with the electronically-controlled appliance 115, either directly or through the (mobile) computer system 101” and Claim 1, “A cloud computing system for communicating with and controlling operation of a wood-pellet grill”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘means for determining user information’ is a controller and equivalents thereof. Given the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system has the same or substantially the function as a controller, the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system is an equivalent thereof. To elaborate, a controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing systems comprise a ‘controller’ because they have the power or authority to control the electronically-controlled appliance 115) regarding a user of the gas-based cooking appliance using an electronic user device of the user (Claim 1, “a location of the remote device”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand capturing the location of the remote device necessarily means capturing the location (i.e., user information) of the user that is using the remote device) regarding a user of the gas-based cooking appliance using an electronic user device of the user (Par. 0043, “As understood herein, a “mobile device” (120b) means any computing system (including but not limited to a smart phone) that enables a user to provide remote inputs, selections, and other controls that are communicated with outdoor grill 101b from a remote location.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a mobile device is a type of remote device, especially in light of this disclosure); and
means for controlling the gas-based cooking appliance (Par. 0034, “remote computing systems 113 (e.g., cloud computing systems) and/or with electronically-controlled appliance 115. The remote computing systems 113 may also be able to communicate with the electronically-controlled appliance 115, either directly or through the (mobile) computer system 101” and Claim 1, “A cloud computing system for communicating with and controlling operation of a wood-pellet grill”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, a ‘means for controlling the gas-based cooking appliance’ is a controller and equivalents thereof. Given the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system has the same or substantially the function as a controller, the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing system is an equivalent thereof. To elaborate, a controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the remote computing systems 113/cloud computing systems comprise a ‘controller’ because they have the power or authority to control the electronically-controlled appliance 115) in dependence of the user information (Claim 1, “cause the cloud computing system to: receive, from a remote device, one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, enabling the one or more instructions to be transmitted to the wood-pellet grill; and in response to determining that the location of the remote device is outside of the certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, preventing the one or more instructions from being transmitted to the wood-pellet grill”).
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 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colston (US 20190289116 A1) in further view of Matti (CN 101176130 A).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Matti ‘130.
Regarding claim 2, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, Colston does not disclose the controller is configured to:
determine a state of the user of the gas-based cooking appliance based on the user information; and
control the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the state of the user.
Note: Colston discloses the software application may run on a mobile device such as a wearable device (Par. 0059).
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses it is known to for a controller (Par. 0021, “stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message before the stove is automatically turned off” A controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the stove assistant is a ‘controller’ because it has the power or authority to control the stove) to be configured to determine a state of the user (Par. 0021, “information about the user's presence or sleeping status provided by the home/away switch or bed sensor or smart wristband”) of the gas-based cooking appliance based on user information (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep”); and
control the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the state of the user (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep…the stove is automatically turned off”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Colston to include the capabilities of the controller disclosed by Matti in order to determine a state of the user of the gas-based cooking appliance based on the user information and control the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the state of the user and thereby quickly and inexpensively improve safety (As suggested by Matti: “the auxiliary device can also be installed in a few minutes and is able to detect abnormal situations without the need for more expensive automation or safety systems, and is able to independently control and monitor the operation of the appliance to which it is connected” (Par. 0009) and “Via the data transmission link, the auxiliary device 1 also automatically switches off the stove when necessary, based on the information about the user's presence or sleeping status provided by the home/away switch or bed sensor or smart wristband” (Par. 0021)) and reduce wasteful operation of the gas-based cooking appliance for increased energy savings.
Regarding claim 3, Colston, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, Colston, as modified above, does not disclose said controller is configured to determine, based on the user information, that the user is unconscious and in reaction to an unconscious user, turn off the gas-based cooking appliance and/or turn off a gas supply to the gas-based cooking appliance.
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses it is known to for a controller (Par. 0021, “stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message before the stove is automatically turned off” A controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the stove assistant is a ‘controller’ because it has the power or authority to control the stove) to be configured to determine, based on the user information (From Matti: Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep”), that the user is unconscious (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand going to sleep necessarily means the user is unconscious. Therefore, determining that the user went to sleep is analogous to determining the user is unconscious) and in reaction to an unconscious user, turn off the gas-based cooking appliance (From Matti: Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep…the stove is automatically turned off”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Colston with the capabilities of the controller of Matti in order to have a controller configured to determine, based on the user information, that the user is unconscious and in reaction to an unconscious user, turn off the gas-based cooking appliance and/or turn off a gas supply to the gas-based cooking appliance and thereby quickly and inexpensively improve safety (As suggested by Matti: “the auxiliary device can also be installed in a few minutes and is able to detect abnormal situations without the need for more expensive automation or safety systems, and is able to independently control and monitor the operation of the appliance to which it is connected” (Par. 0009) and “Via the data transmission link, the auxiliary device 1 also automatically switches off the stove when necessary, based on the information about the user's presence or sleeping status provided by the home/away switch or bed sensor or smart wristband” (Par. 0021)), especially in situations where the user is sleeping and less likely to smell burning oil and/or food, and reduce wasteful operation of the gas-based cooking appliance for increased energy savings, especially in situations where the user is sleeping and more likely to be away from the stove for a long period of time.
NOTE: Examiner notes that ‘and/or’ indicates a list of alternative limitations, so only one limitation must be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, Colston does not explicitly disclose said electronic user device has a smart wearable carried by the user.
NOTE: Colston discloses the software application may be run on a mobile device or wearable device (Par. 0059).
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses said electronic user device has a smart wearable carried by the user (Par. 0010, “a portable smart wristband that can recognize the user's presence and sleep”).
Colston and Matti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of remote control of a cooking appliance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a simple substitution of the mobile device of Colston with the portable smart wristband of Matti because both electronic devices are known to receive and transmit user information and would have obtained the predictable result of tracking resident behavior, particularly when analyzing independence in mentally ill patients (Par. 0021, last two lines) who may be more likely to misplace a mobile phone, that must be held, than a portable smart wristwatch, which is worn, to help providers determine when a mentally ill patient is not able to live alone or would benefit from additional help so they can take appropriate measures to increase the well-being of the mentally ill patient.
Regarding claim 7, Colston discloses the system according to claim 6, wherein said controller (Par. 0034 and Claim 1, remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems, as explained in claim 1) is configured to:
determine, based on the distance information (Pars. 0075 and 0034, as cited above, and Claim 1, “one or more instructions for controlling an operation of the wood-pellet grill; determine a location of the remote device relative to the wood-pellet grill; in response to determining that the location of the remote device is within a certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, enabling the one or more instructions to be transmitted to the wood-pellet grill; and in response to determining that the location of the remote device is outside of the certain distance of the wood-pellet grill, preventing the one or more instructions from being transmitted to the wood-pellet grill”), whether the distance between the gas-based cooking appliance (Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039 and Par. 0083, as cited in claim 1) and said electronic user device (Par. 0023, mobile device, as explained in claim 1) is greater than a pre-determined distance threshold (Claim 1, as cited above and Claim 2, “determining the location of the remote device based on a determined global positioning system (GPS) location of the remote device”. See Par. 0055, “In some cases, the user may even be able to ignite the smoker/grill 202 remotely, while in other cases, such functionality may be disabled unless the user is within a specified distance of the grill, as determined by a GPS or Bluetooth geofence.” A pre-determined distance threshold is a predetermined or determined in advance distance threshold or point or value above which something will take place, therefore the GPS geofence and/or determined GPS location is a ‘pre-determined distance threshold’ because it is a distance point or value that is determined in advanced and above which the user will not be able to remotely control the grill); and
in reaction to the distance information being greater than the pre- determine distance threshold, limit remote control of the gas-based cooking appliance (Claim 1 and Claim 2, as cited above. See Par. 0055. Examiner notes preventing one or more instructions from being transmitted to the grill from the remote device, such as an instruction to ignite the grill remotely, necessarily limits remote control of the grill).
However, Colston does not disclose in reaction to the distance information being greater than the pre-determine distance threshold, turn off the gas-based cooking appliance.
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0021, “stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message before the stove is automatically turned off” A controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the stove assistant is a ‘controller’ because it has the power or authority to control the stove) to be configured such that in reaction to distance information being greater than a distance threshold (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room”), a gas-based cooking appliance is turned off (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep, the stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message before the stove is automatically turned off”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Colston to include the capabilities of the controller disclosed by Matti so that in reaction to distance information being greater than a distance threshold, a gas-based cooking appliance is turned off and thereby quickly and inexpensively improve safety (As suggested by Matti: “the auxiliary device can also be installed in a few minutes and is able to detect abnormal situations without the need for more expensive automation or safety systems, and is able to independently control and monitor the operation of the appliance to which it is connected” (Par. 0009) and “Via the data transmission link, the auxiliary device 1 also automatically switches off the stove when necessary, based on the information about the user's presence or sleeping status provided by the home/away switch or bed sensor or smart wristband” (Par. 0021)) and reduce wasteful operation of the gas-based cooking appliance for increased energy and cost savings while balancing user convenience. To elaborate, if the user only stepped out of the room temporarily, the notification that the gas-based cooking appliance was turned off will conveniently allow the user to choose between 1) returning to the room to turn the gas-based cooking appliance back on and continue cooking or 2) leave the stove off to attend to their other task, rather than the user experiencing an unexpected delay in cooking times after returning to the room and finding the gas-based cooking appliance off.
NOTE: Examiner notes that ‘and/or’ indicates a list of alternative limitations, so only one limitation must be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Colston discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, Colston does not explicitly disclose said controller is configured to turn off the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the user information.
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0021, “stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message before the stove is automatically turned off” A controller has power or authority to control something, therefore the stove assistant is a ‘controller’ because it has the power or authority to control the stove) to be configured to turn off the gas-based cooking appliance (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep…the stove is automatically turned off”) in dependence of the user information (Par. 0021, “When the user leaves the room or goes to sleep”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Colston to include the capabilities of the controller of Matti in order to turn off the gas-based cooking appliance in dependence of the user information and thereby quickly and inexpensively improve safety (As suggested by Matti: “the auxiliary device can also be installed in a few minutes and is able to detect abnormal situations without the need for more expensive automation or safety systems, and is able to independently control and monitor the operation of the appliance to which it is connected” (Par. 0009) and “Via the data transmission link, the auxiliary device 1 also automatically switches off the stove when necessary, based on the information about the user's presence or sleeping status provided by the home/away switch or bed sensor or smart wristband” (Par. 0021)) and reduce wasteful operation of the gas-based cooking appliance for increased energy savings.
NOTE: Examiner notes that ‘and/or’ indicates a list of alternative limitations, so only one limitation must be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Colston discloses the system according to claim 4.
However, Colston does not disclose the measurement data regards a state of health of the user.
Matti discloses a gas range (Par. 0021) similar to the present invention and Matti further discloses it is known for measurement data (Par. 0021, “stove assistant can provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband…Stove operation data can also be used to track resident behavior”) to regard a state of health of the user (Par. 0021, “Stove operation data can also be used to track resident behavior, particularly when analyzing independence in mentally ill patients”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic user device of Colston with the electronic user device of Matti in order to collect measurement data that regards a state of health of the user and thereby track resident behavior, particularly when analyzing independence in mentally ill patients (Par. 0021, last two lines) and thereby help providers determine when a mentally ill patient is not able to live alone or would benefit from additional help so they can take appropriate measures to increase the well-being of the mentally ill patient.
Regarding claim 16, Colston, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 5, wherein said electronic user device is a smart watch (From Matti: Par. 0010, “a portable smart wristband”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colston (US 20190289116 A1) in view of Matti (CN 101176130 A) and further in view of Williams et al (US 20200378610 A1, hereafter Williams).
Regarding claim 8, Colston, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein said controller (From Colston: Fig. 1A, Par. 0034 and Claim 1, remote computing systems 133/cloud computing systems, as explained in claim 1) is configured to:
send a notification to said electronic user device (From Matti: Par. 0021, “provide a reminder of its active status on the remote operation panel or smart wristband, which can display it as a voice or text message”), if it is determined that the distance (From Colston: Pars. 0075 and 0034 and Claim 1, as cited in claim 7) between the gas-based cooking appliance (From Colston: Fig. 1A, electronically-controlled appliance 115; Par. 0039 and Par. 0083, as cited in claim 1) and said electronic user device (From Colston: Par. 0023, mobile device, as explained in claim 1) is greater than the pre-determined distance threshold (Claim 1 and Claim 2, as cited and explained in claim 7. See Par. 0055, as cited in claim 7).
However, Colston, as modified above, does not disclose the controller is configured to determine whether or not the notification is acknowledged by the user at said electronic user device; and
turn off the gas-based cooking appliance and/or turn off the gas supply to the gas-based cooking appliance, if it is determined that the notification is not acknowledged by the user.
Williams discloses a stove (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Williams further discloses it is known for the controller to be configured to determine whether or not the notification is acknowledged by the user (Par. 0089, “the main controller initially generates a notification signal for communication to the application on the user electronic device…The prompt may be a query such as a request for the user to acknowledge that they are at the location of the stove or a request for the user to confirm that the stove should be turned off. If a user responds by confirming their presence at the stove or confirming that they do not want the stove to be turned off, the system will not take further action to actively turn off the burner against the user's wishes. Alternatively, if the user responds by confirming that they are not present at the stove or by confirming that they do wish the stove to be turned off, then the system will immediately generate appropriate instruction signals for the affected knobs to turn off the affected burners of the stove. A lack of user response to the prompt generated by the a