Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 4/22/26 response to the Office Action dated 2/23/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are amended.
Claims 6 and 8-10 remain withdrawn.
Claims 11 and 13-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth objections so those objections are withdrawn accordingly.
NOTE: If the claims being examined are ever in condition for allowance, it’s noted that withdrawn claims must be cancelled or eligible for rejoinder before the application is in a state for allowance.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims 1 and 12 (and their dependents) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
NOTE: The patent version of Melink (US7048199 B2) was used in the rejection to claim 19 of the final rejection dated 2/23/26. It’s noted the PGPUB version of Melink (US 20050156053 A1) is used in this office action instead.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Melink discloses a hood system (Fig. 1, kitchen exhaust system 32) that is installable above a cooktop (Fig. 1 and Par. 0029, “commercial cooking units 18 such as one or more stoves, ovens, griddles and the like”) of a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, commercial cooking units 18), the hood system comprising:
a main body (Fig. 1, exhaust hood 34, exhaust assembly 36, and exhaust duct 38) comprising an exhaust duct (Fig. 1, exhaust duct 38);
a fan (Fig. 1, fan 51) configured to generate airflow in the exhaust duct (Fig. 1 and Par. 0030, “kitchen exhaust system 32 including an exhaust hood 34 situated over the cooking units 18 and communicating with an exhaust assembly 36 through a duct 38…Exhaust assembly 36 may include a fan motor 50 and associated fan 51 as is well understood by which to expel air from assembly 36 at a volume rate”);
a sensor module (Fig. 1, sensor 73) that, when the hood system is installed above the cooktop, is positioned higher than the cooktop (Fig. 1) and is configured to sense an ambient temperature of the hood system (Par. 0031, “sensor 73 is a temperature sensor for the ambient environment of the kitchen 12”); and
However, Melink does not disclose an arm comprising an intake port, the arm configured to allow air to be sucked into the intake port so as to pass through the arm and thereafter into the exhaust duct; and
a processor configured to perform control to move the arm based on the sensed ambient temperature to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed ambient temperature.
Dahan discloses a hood system (Par. 0030) similar to the present invention and Dahan further discloses it is known to have an arm (Fig. 3, split ducts 18 and inlet means 2. An arm is a slender part of a structure projecting from a main part, therefore split ducts 18 and inlet means 2 comprise ‘arms’ because they comprise slender parts projecting from case 3) comprising an intake port (Fig. 3, inlet means 2), the arm configured to allow air to be sucked into the intake port so as to pass through the arm and thereafter into an exhaust duct (Fig. 3, case 3); and
a processor (Par. 0040, control unit) configured to perform control to move the arm based on the sensed ambient temperature to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed ambient temperature (Par. 0040, “an air-temperature sensor…signals to a control to change the distance of the relevant hood unit from the active cooking site”).
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 hood system of Melink to include the arms and processor as taught by Dahan in order to conserve energy and decrease noise (As suggested by Par. 0031 of Dahan: “By installing the kitchen split hood, not only odor and other side products of the cooking activity are removed, but importantly, energy is saved, and the noise of the working hood is substantially reduced”).
Regarding claim 2, Melink, as modified above, discloses the hood system of claim 1, wherein
the main body (Melink: Fig. 1, exhaust hood 34, exhaust assembly 36, and exhaust duct 38) comprises a fixed intake port on a surface of the main body (Dahan: Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, “valves (5) and (6) which enable to selectively open and close the split ducts, thereby enabling sucking the air through split ducts (18) via the opened valves (6) to the main duct (7) behind case (3)”. Note that in order for air to flow from split ducts 18 to main duct 7, there must necessarily be a fixed intake port on a surface of case 3), and
the exhaust duct (Melink: Fig. 1, exhaust duct 38 and Dahan: Fig. 3, split ducts 18) comprises a first duct communicating with the intake port of the arm (Dahan: Fig. 3, split ducts 18, which communicate with inlet means 2) and a second duct communicating with the fixed intake port (Melink: Fig. 1, exhaust duct 38. Note the exhaust duct 38 of Melnick communicates with the fixed intake port of Dahan in modified Melnick).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and further in view of Scalf et al (US10697647B1, hereafter Scalf).
Regarding claim 3, Melink, as modified above, discloses the hood system of claim 2, wherein the main body (Melink: Fig. 1, exhaust hood 34, exhaust assembly 36, and exhaust duct 38) comprises:
an exhaust port (Melink: Fig. 1, exhaust duct 38) to discharge the air passing into the exhaust duct to outside of the hood system (Melink: Par. 0030, “Hood 34…communicates with exhaust assembly 36 via exhaust duct 38…Exhaust duct 38 extends upwardly through the roof 22 of enclosure 20 and terminates in exhaust assembly 36 by which to exhaust air from volume 46 to the outside environment 26”. Note that in order for air to flow from exhaust hood 34 to exhaust assembly 36, there must necessarily be an exhaust port in exhaust hood 34), and
a fan housing (Melink: Fig. 1, fan 51 is covered or housed within the walls forming exhaust assembly 36, therefore the walls forming exhaust assembly 36 comprise a ‘fan housing’) communicating with the exhaust port and housing the fan (Melink: Fig. 1, fan 51).
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose a wall partitioning an interior of the exhaust duct into the first duct from the second duct.
Scalf discloses a venting appliance (Fig. 1A, venting appliance 100) similar to the present invention and Scalf further discloses it is known to have a wall (Fig. 1A, wall or material layer enclosing exhaust conduit 106) partitioning an interior of the exhaust duct (Fig. 1A, exhaust conduit 104) into the first duct (Fig. 1A, exhaust conduit 106) from the second duct (Fig. 1A, portion of exhaust conduit 104 outside exhaust conduit 106. It’s noted exhaust conduit 106 is a ‘first duct’).
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 device of Melink, as modified above, to have the wall as taught by Scalf in order to have a pipe-in-pipe configuration that allows the arm to retract when it is not in use (as suggested by Col. 5, lines 65-Col. 6, line 3 of Scalf: “a pipe-in-pipe configuration where a housing 102 may be coupled to an exhaust conduit 104 with an associated fan 114, into which another focused exhaust conduit 106 (a portion of a repositionable vent arm 105) with an associated focused fan 116 may retract when not in use.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and further in view of Heo et al (US11466866B2, hereafter Heo).
Regarding claim 4, Melink, as modified above, discloses the hood system of claim 2, further comprising a state in which the fixed intake port is open (Dahan: Fig. 3 and Par. 0034, “valves (5) and (6) which enable to selectively open and close the split ducts, thereby enabling sucking the air through split ducts (18) via the opened valves (6) to the main duct (7) behind case (3)”. Note that in order for air to flow from split ducts 18 to main duct 7, there must necessarily be an open fixed intake port on a surface of case 3).
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose a door configured to selectively open and close the intake port of the arm.
Heo discloses a kitchen hood (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Heo further discloses it is known for a door (Fig. 12, damper 660) to be configured to selectively open and close (Col. 11, lines 51-54, “damper 660 may be configured to open and close a suction passage defined between the steam cleaning assembly 600 and left and right sides of the second housing 200”) an intake port (“suction passage”) of an arm (Col. 11, lines 52-54, “suction passage defined between the steam cleaning assembly 600 and left and right sides of the second housing 200” An arm is a movable slender part of a structure projecting from a main part, therefore second housing 200 is an ‘arm’ because it is a slender part of the kitchen hood projecting from first housing 100).
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 hood system of Melink, as modified above, to include a door as disclosed by Heo in order to selectively control the opening of the intake port (As suggested by Heo: “a damper 660 closest to the cookware may be opened or at least partially opened, while a damper 660 furthest from the cookware may be closed or at least partially closed”) and thereby increase suction action closer to the cookware (As suggested by Heo: “a damper 660 closest to the cookware may be opened or at least partially opened, while a damper 660 furthest from the cookware may be closed or at least partially closed so as to increase a suction action closer to the cookware”) for increased suction effectiveness and/or efficiency.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and further in view of Castwall (EP0443301A1).
Regarding claim 5, Melink, as modified above, discloses the hood system of claim 1.
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose the arm comprises:
a first arm comprising a first end portion connected to the main body and a second end portion opposite to the first end portion,
a second arm comprising a third end portion connected to the second end portion of the first arm and a fourth end portion opposite to the third end portion,
a first joint configured to connect the main body and the first end portion to allow the first arm to rotate within a predetermined angle range, and
a second joint configured to connect the second end portion and the third end portion to allow the second arm to rotate within a predetermined angle range.
Castwall discloses a kitchen ventilator (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Castwall further discloses an arm (Fig. 1, inlet member 16) that comprises:
a first arm (Fig. 1, first link arm 16a) comprising a first end portion (Fig. 1, right end of first link arm 16a) connected to a main body (Fig. 1, housing 10) and a second end portion (Fig. 1, left end of first link arm 16a) opposite to the first end portion,
a second arm (Fig. 1, second link arm 16b) comprising a third end portion (Fig. 1, right end of second link arm 16b) connected to the second end portion of the first arm and a fourth end portion (Fig. 1, left end of second link arm 16b) opposite to the third end portion,
a first joint (Fig. 1 and Claim 2, “first link arm (16a) pivotally connected to the housing (10)”) configured to connect the main body and the first end portion (See Fig. 1) to allow the first arm to rotate within a predetermined angle range (Fig. 1 and Col. 1, lines 50-55, “The link arms can be adjusted and latched in any preferred position between the shown lower position in which they are mutually aligned, and the upper position in which they are mutually perpendicular”), and
a second joint (Fig. 1 and Claim 2, “second link arm (16b) pivotally connected to said first link arm”) configured to connect the second end portion and the third end portion (See Fig. 1) to allow the second arm to rotate within a predetermined angle range (Fig. 1 and Col. 1, lines 50-55, as quoted above).
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 device Melink, as modified above, with the teachings of the first and second arm of Castwall in order to pivotally connect the intake port of the arm to the main body (As suggested by Castwall: “the inlet member is pivotally connected to the housing.”) and thereby increase the effectiveness of the hood system (As suggested by Castwall: “The object of the present invention is to provide a kitchen ventilator which ensures a more effective catching of cooking fumes than has been possible by the constructions used hitherto. This has been achieved by means of a kitchen ventilator of the kind mentioned in the introductory, which according to the invention is characterized in that the inlet member is pivotally connected to the housing.”).
Regarding claim 7, Melink, as modified above, discloses the hood system of claim 5, wherein the intake port (Castwall: Fig. 1, openings 17 and Par. 0008, “Air and vapour entering through openings 17”) is on a surface of the arm (Castwall: Fig. 1, inlet member 16) extending from the third end portion (Castwall: Fig. 1, right end of second link arm 16b) to the fourth end portion (Castwall: Fig. 1, left end of second link arm 16b) and longitudinally extends in a direction from the third end portion to the fourth end portion (Castwall: Fig. 1, which shows inlet opening 17 longitudinally extends in a direction from the third end portion to the fourth end portion).
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose the intake port is on a side surface of the arm.
Heo discloses a kitchen hood (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Heo further discloses it is known to have an intake port (Fig. 9, suction grill 210) to be on a side surface of an arm (Fig. 9, second housing 200 and Col. 20, lines 18-21, “Adjustments of the height of the second housing 200 via the driving assembly 450…may be implemented in various ways by a controller”. An arm is a movable slender part of a structure projecting from a main part, therefore second housing 200 is an ‘arm’ because it is a slender part of the kitchen hood projecting from first housing 100).
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 device of Battersby, as modified above, to have an intake port on a side surface of an arm as disclosed by Heo in order to create left and right section passages that can be controlled independently (As suggested by Heo: “The left suction passage may be configured to be selectively opened and closed and the right suction passage may be configured to be selectively opened and closed. An opening and closing of the left and right suction passages may be controlled independently”) and thereby control the volume of suctioned air based on the position of an object to the left or right of the arm (As suggested by Heo: “A volume of suctioned air passing through the left and right passages may be controlled based on a left-right position of an object below the housing.”) for increased suction effectiveness and/or efficiency.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and Gagas et al. (US 20080029081 A1, hereafter Gagas).
Regarding claim 12, Melink, as modified above, discloses a method of controlling a hood system (Fig. 1, kitchen exhaust system 32) installed above a cooktop (Fig. 1 and Par. 0029, “commercial cooking units 18 such as one or more stoves, ovens, griddles and the like”) of a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, commercial cooking units 18), the hood system including a main body (Fig. 1, exhaust hood 34, exhaust assembly 36, and exhaust duct 38) comprising an exhaust duct (Fig. 1, exhaust duct 38) and a sensor module (Fig. 1, sensor 73) positioned higher than the cooktop (Fig. 1) and configured to sense an ambient temperature of the hood system (Par. 0031, “sensor 73 is a temperature sensor for the ambient environment of the kitchen 12”).
However, Melink does not disclose a movable arm including an intake port, and a sensor module positioned higher than the cooktop and configured to sense an ambient temperature of the hood system, the method comprising:
sensing the ambient temperature of the hood system by the sensor module;
moving the arm based on the sensed ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed ambient temperature;
causing air to be sucked into the intake port, so that the air sucked into the intake port passes through the arm and into the exhaust duct;
sensing a change in the
moving the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature.
Dahan discloses a hood system (Par. 0030) similar to the present invention and Dahan further discloses it is known to have a movable arm (Fig. 3, split ducts 18 and inlet means 2. An arm is a slender part of a structure projecting from a main part, therefore split ducts 18 and inlet means 2 comprise ‘arms’ because they comprise slender parts projecting from case 3) including an intake port (Fig. 3, inlet means 2),
sensing an ambient temperature of the hood system (Par. 0040, air-temperature) by the sensor module (Par. 0040, air-temperature sensor. See also Par. 0040, “In one embodiment, the electronic control comprises heat sensors from which the control unit obtains feedback…The feedback of measured parameters optimizes the hood performance”);
moving the arm based on the sensed ambient temperature, to thereby position an intake port (Fig. 3, inlet means 2) based on the sensed ambient temperature (Par. 0040, “an air-temperature sensor…signals to a control to change the distance of the relevant hood unit from the active cooking site”);
causing air to be sucked into the intake port (Par. 0040, “The feedback of measured parameters optimizes the hood performance. The split kitchen hood of the invention, in one embodiment, comprises sensors within the split ducts, on the split ducts or near to the split ducts, and enables to increase or decrease the evacuating intensity (expressed in liter of sucked air per minute) separately for each evacuation unit according to the values of the measured parameters near to the inlet of the evacuation units, including measured temperature”), so that the air sucked into the intake port passes through the arm and into the exhaust duct (Fig. 3, case 3. Air sucked into inlet means 2 passes through split ducts 18 and into case 3).
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 method for controlling a hood system of Melink to include the arms and processor as taught by Dahan in order to conserve energy and decrease noise (As suggested by Par. 0031 of Dahan: “By installing the kitchen split hood, not only odor and other side products of the cooking activity are removed, but importantly, energy is saved, and the noise of the working hood is substantially reduced”).
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose sensing a change in the
moving the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature.
Gagas discloses a downdraft ventilator (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Gagas further discloses causing air to be sucked into an intake port (Fig. 1, intake opening 34), so that the air sucked into the intake port passes through an arm (Fig. 1, inner member 30. An arm is a slender part of a structure projecting from a main part, therefore inner member 30 is an ‘arm’ because it is a slender part projecting from housing 20) and into an exhaust duct (Fig. 1 and Par. 0066, “Air may be discharged through discharge body 63, e.g., through an exit opening, and preferably into an exhaust vent.”),
sensing a change in a temperature (Par. 0140, “control and operation response to sense temperatures on the range or on the surface”) by a sensor module (Par. 0140, temperature sensor 92, which can be mounted on a wall and therefore be reasonably expected to measure ambient temperatures); and
moving the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature (Par. 0140, “a sensor 92, e.g., an AC or DC electronic temperature sensor, located inside the inner member 30 or at a remote location such that the temperature of the appliance can be detected accurately. This may provide control and operation response to sense temperatures on the range or on the surface and then have the electronic control board 80 control the exhausting functions for height of inner member 20”. Note attributing element number 20 to the ‘inner member’ appears to be a typo. It appears it should be element number 30).
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 method for controlling a hood system of Melink to include the teachings of Gagas in order to sense a change in the ambient temperature by the sensor module and move the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature and thereby increase the accuracy of removal of contaminated air with precise control of functions/operations (As suggested by Par. 0023 of Gagas: “better accuracy in removal of contaminated air with precise control of functions/operations”)
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that the limitations “sensing a change in the ambient temperature by the sensor module; and moving the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature” (emphasis added) is necessarily met by modified Melink. To elaborate, Melink in view of Dahan controls the arm based on the ambient temperature, so adding sensing a change in temperature and moving the arm to position the intake port based on the sensed change in temperature as disclosed by Gagas necessarily means modified Melink reads on sensing a change in the ambient temperature by the sensor module; and moving the arm based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature, to thereby position the intake port based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 18, Melink, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the hood system (Melink: Fig. 1, kitchen exhaust system 32) includes a fan (Melink: Fig. 1, fan 51) configured to generate airflow in the exhaust duct (Melink: Fig. 1 and Par. 0030, “kitchen exhaust system 32 including an exhaust hood 34 situated over the cooking units 18 and communicating with an exhaust assembly 36 through a duct 38…Exhaust assembly 36 may include a fan motor 50 and associated fan 51 as is well understood by which to expel air from assembly 36 at a volume rate”).
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose the method further comprising: controlling a driving force of the fan based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature.
Gagas further discloses controlling a driving force of a fan (Fig. 3, fan 64) based on the sensed change in the temperature (Par. 0140, “sensor 92, e.g., an AC or DC electronic temperature sensor...This may provide control and operation response to sense temperatures on the range or on the surface and then have the electronic control board 80 control the exhausting functions for…whether the fan 64 should be turned on, and the speed of fan 64”).
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 method for controlling a hood system of Melink to include the teachings of Gagas in order to control a driving force of the fan based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature and thereby increase the accuracy of removal of contaminated air with precise control of functions/operations (As suggested by Par. 0023 of Gagas: “better accuracy in removal of contaminated air with precise control of functions/operations”).
NOTE: It’s the Examiner’s position that the limitations “controlling a driving force of the fan based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature” (emphasis added) is necessarily met by modified Melink. To elaborate, Melink in view of Dahan controls the arm based on the ambient temperature, so adding controlling a driving force of the fan based on the sensed change in the temperature as disclosed by Gagas necessarily means modified Melink reads on controlling a driving force of the fan based on the sensed change in the ambient temperature.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and Gagas et al. (US 20080029081 A1, hereafter Gagas) and further in view of Khan et al (US 20200027009 A1, hereafter Khan).
Regarding claim 19, Melink, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
acquiring additional data on an environment state of the hood system (Melink: Par. 0047, “Thus, in step 170, the control system operates the exhaust, and possibly the make-up fan, at an appropriate speed as explained above. While, the fans are operating, the control system monitors one or more of the environmental parameters of the facility 10, in step 172. These parameters may include the outside temperature, the kitchen temperature, the exhaust air temperature, and the presence of cooking effluents. Furthermore, for these parameters, in addition to instantaneous monitoring, historical data can be gathered, stored, and analyzed by the control system 72.”);
comparing the additional data to pre-stored data and detecting a change (Melink: Pars. 0052-0053, “In step 184, the control system 72 analyzes the exhaust temperature to determine if it has exceeded the maximum temperature for the current temperature span for a particular time period. For example, the control system 72 determines if the maximum temperature of the current temperature span has been exceeded by more than 5° F. for at least ten minutes. If so, then the control system 72 decides, in step 186, to raise the temperature span by one level.
If not, then the control system 72 might still decide that the temperature span should be changed if other criteria are met. In step 188, the control system determines if the average fan speed at the end of an operating day was more than a particular threshold such as, for example, 90%. If so, then the control system 72 returns to step 186 to decide to raise the temperature span”);
Updating the pre-stored data (Melink: Par. 0054, “If, however, the preset minimum speed was exceeded, then the control system 72 determines, in step 192, if the fan speed exceeded 90% at any time during the day. If so, then the full temperature span is being utilized and the control system decides the current temperature span is optimal. If not, then the control system decides, in step 194, that the temperature span should be changed to one having a lower maximum temperature in order to more fully utilize the entire temperature span.”)
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose transmitting the change to a server; and
receiving new data from the server and updating the pre-stored data.
Khan discloses a solution to the problem of how to use sensed environmental data to control an operational mode of an operating environment (Par. 0043, “These devices 102, 104, and 106 are configured to record environmental data, which includes various components (e.g., temperature, humidity and/or pollutant levels, such as TVOC, CO2, PM2.5), and send the recorded levels of the components of the environmental data to a local server/database 110. This local server/database 110 may: i) analyze the data, ii) determine if all levels contained within environmental data are within predefined threshold ranges, and iii) may recommend that the IAQ system 10 take certain steps (e.g., turn ON/OFF various appliances) to bring certain levels of the components within the predetermined threshold range. The IAQ system 10 can then carry out these steps by controlling the operational mode (e.g., ON/OFF and/or the speed of the fan) of various appliances 106 contained within the operating environment 98.”) similar to the problem of how to use sensed environmental data to control operation of the hood system in the present invention. Khan further discloses it is known to acquire additional data on the environment state of a domestic device based on a sensing result (Fig. 3, step 302 and Par. 0087);
update pre-stored data (Fig. 3, step 304 and Par. 0046, “A model may receive input data of a particular form and provide a result (an output) based on the data. The result may be predictive and/or indicative of the state of a device or system or environment etc. The input data may comprise at least one measurement of a physical parameter and/or an operating parameter and/or a device parameter etc” and Par. 0048, “The electronic device 202 includes a memory resource which stores the local model M1. The local model M1 is obtained by the use of a machine learning process. The first processor in the electronic device 202 is configured to obtain the raw data at the electronic device 202 and apply the local model to the raw data to obtain a local model result.”);
transmit additional data and pre-stored data to a server (Fig. 3, step 308 and Par. 0058, “Thus, the first processor of the electronic device 202 is configured to send the data, further data derived from the data and/or the local model result in dependence on a comparison between the confidence in the local model result and the confidence threshold. An algorithm may be used to automatically compare the confidence score and the threshold and determine when data should be sent to the computer server 210.”); and
receive new data from the server and updating the pre-stored data (Fig. 3, step 310).
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 hood system of Melink, as modified above, to include transmitting a change to a server and receiving new data from the server and updating the pre-stored data as disclosed by Khan in order to allow informed decisions to be made regarding when to update electronic device local models (As suggested by Khan: “allows informed decisions to be made regarding when to update electronic device local models”) and thereby improve model accuracy, decrease training times and reduce communication overheads (As suggested by Khan: “Model accuracy is improved when compared to having a single model. Less time in training is required compared to the approach in which models are trained frequently, without a significant drop in model accuracy. Further advantages also include reduced communication overheads required for re-training models compared against a baseline.”) for increased cost-savings.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melink (US 20050156053 A1) in view of Dahan (US 20160265790 A1) and Gagas et al. (US 20080029081 A1, hereafter Gagas) and further in view of Scalf et al (US10697647B1, hereafter Scalf).
Regarding claim 20, Melink, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 12.
However, Melink, as modified above, does not disclose receiving information indicating a driving state of an Internet-of-things (loT) device through a network, and
moving the arm based on the received information indicating the driving state of the loT device.
Scalf discloses a venting appliance (Fig. 1A, venting appliance 100) similar to the present invention and Scalf further discloses receiving information indicating a driving state (Figs. 4 and 5, cooking element 16 and Col. 8, lines 36-39, “where the thermal sensor 125 detects that a particular cooking element 16 is on and thus heat is emanating, the repositionable vent arm 105 may be positioned over, or closer to, that particular cooking element.” and “Col. 10, lines 14-17, Controller 42 may also be interfaced with the repositionable vent arm 105 and fan 116, via a wired or wireless connection, in order to control their operation”. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would understand cooking element is at least capable of being off/on and is therefore capable of different driving or operational states) of an Internet-of-things (IoT) device (Fig. 4, cooking appliance 10 and Col. 10, lines 27-38, “controllers 42, 142 may also be coupled to one or more network interfaces 60, e.g., for interfacing with external devices via wired and/or wireless networks such as Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, cellular and other suitable networks, collectively represented in FIG. 4 at 62. Network 62 may incorporate in some embodiments a home automation network, which may be used to communicate control signals between cooking appliance 10, venting appliance 100, and various non-cooking external devices, e.g. one or more smartphone, tablet, etc. devices 66.” Examiner notes a cooking appliance is an Internet-of-things devices in accordance with Par. 0058 of the applicant’s as-filed specification) through a network (Fig. 4, network 52. Examiner notes thermal sensor 125 is part of appliance 100, not cooking device 10), and
moving the arm (Fig. 4, controller 42 and fan 116 and Col. 10, lines 14-20, “Controller 42 may also be interfaced with the repositionable vent arm 105 and fan 116, via a wired or wireless connection, in order to control their operation. In some embodiments, such as illustrated in FIG. 4, controller 42 may be interfaced with the repositionable vent arm 105 and fan 116 via a network connection with controller 142 in the venting appliance”) based on the received information indicating the driving state (Figs. 4 and 5, cooking element 16 and Col. 8, lines 36-42, “where the thermal sensor 125 detects that a particular cooking element 16 is on and thus heat is emanating, the repositionable vent arm 105 may be positioned over, or closer to, that particular cooking element.” and Col. 10, lines 14-17, “Controller 42 may also be interfaced with the repositionable vent arm 105 and fan 116, via a wired or wireless connection, in order to control their operation”. Examiner notes controller 42 moves repositionable vent arm 105 closer to cooking element 16 when cooking element 16 has been activated) of the IoT device (Fig. 4, cooking appliance 10).
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 hood system of Melink, as modified above, to include the internet-of-things device as taught by Scalf so a user can control the hood system from another room for increased user convenience and/or comfort. For example, a user could remotely position the arm closer to the cooking element if they started to smell cooking fumes from another room to mitigate the spread of cooking fumes throughout the house.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Momose (JP2001074287A) discloses a hood system that is installable above a cooktop of a cooking appliance, the hood system comprising: a main body comprising an exhaust duct; a fan configured to generate airflow in the exhaust duct; an arm comprising an intake port, the arm configured to allow air to be sucked into the intake port so as to pass through the arm and thereafter into the exhaust duct.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights