UTENSIL PROFILE DETERMINATION SYSTEM

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 § 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. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim(s)1, 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unver (EP 3431881A1) in view of Bailey (US 2022/0065457A1). Unver discloses all the features of claim 1 (the references in parentheses applying to this document): A utensil profile determination system for determining a profile of a utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the system comprising: * a time of flight sensor (claim 8) arranged with the appliance within the time of flight sensor's field of view, the time of flight sensor configured to detect and communicate a message comprising: a first distance between the sensor and at least one of the heating element and the appliance cooktop; a second distance between the sensor and the utensil; and a third distance between the sensor and a level of the liquid (325, 326, 327) (figure 3, the sensor 307 is according to claim 8 a tof camera) ; and * a processor arranged in communication with the time of flight sensor to receive the message, the processor configured to determine the utensil profile, the utensil profile comprising, present or absent based upon a difference between successive first distances (i.e. paragraph 72, claim 9) Unver additionally discloses a system whereby: the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is present when the difference between successive first distances is negative; and wherein the utensil profile is absent when the difference between successive first distances not negative (implicit, claim 9). The control unit may be any type of control unit that is capable of comparing the measured content distance to the threshold distance. In case that a fixed threshold distance is used, the control unit may be as simple as an analog comparator, wherein one of the comparator inputs may be coupled to a constant voltage source that defines the threshold distance. The other comparator input may be coupled to the output of the distance sensor, in this case an analog distance sensor. However, the control unit may e.g. also be a processor based control unit, like e.g. a microcontroller or microprocessor comprising a respective program with executable instructions. The distance sensor may e.g. be coupled to the processor via an analog-to-digital converter or a digital interface. The program may then comprise the logic to acquire the measured content distance and compare the measured content distance with the threshold distance. The warning signal may e.g. be provided to the user via a sound source, e.g. a beeper that may be connected to a pin of the controller. The warning signal may be provided to the controller of the cooker e.g. via an analog or digital data connection. The warning signal may e.g. be a binary signal that only comprises two states that indicate if the measured content distance is higher or lower than the threshold distance. The warning signal may however also comprise the measured content distance. This allows the controller of the cooker a fine grained power control. The controller may e.g. reduce the power on the respective cooking hob according to the difference between the measured content distance and the threshold distance. As such, Unver can be said to disclose: 1. A utensil profile determination system for determining a profile of a utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the system comprising: a time of flight sensor 307 arranged with the appliance within the time of flight sensor's field of view, the time of flight sensor configured to detect and communicate a message comprising: a first distance 325 between the sensor and at least one of the heating element and the appliance cooktop; a second distance 326 between the sensor and the utensil; and a third distance 327 between the sensor and a level of the liquid; and a processor arranged in communication with the time of flight sensor to receive the message, the processor configured to determine vertical movement of the utensil based upon a difference between successive second distances; and/or a Dry Pot based upon a subtraction of the third distance from the first distance. Note that although Unver does not explicitly disclose the sensing of a dry pot based on the difference between the third distance 327 and the first distance 325, Unver teaches the use of the difference between measured distances to indicate an undesirable condition, specifically regarding the volume of liquid in the cooking vessel. Bailey discloses a monitored cooking appliance wherein the condition of boiling dry the cooking vessel is taught to be undesirable. Bailey teaches the use of an infrared temperature sensor to signal and/or prevent a condition of boiling dry. One of skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the measured distance method as taught by Unver to additionally provide a warning and/or preventive action regarding dry boiling of the cooking vessel. One of skill in the art could have easily understood the relationship of the first, second and third measurements and how to utilize and provide processor control of the device such that not only was boil over prevented and/or signaled, but additionally, boil dry conditions could also be prevented and/or signaled. Since one of skill is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, it can be expected that one of skill would also have common sense and knowledge which could be used to glean suggestions form the prior art, such as Unver, that go beyond the primary purpose of boil over control to include boil dry control. Similarly, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the measured distances and the comparative differences to sense and control the cooking appliance based on utensil size –gleaned from differences in the first and second distances, utensil movement, either up or down,--gleaned from the difference in successive measurements of the second distances, i.e. the distance to the top of the vessel, etc. Unver discloses in reference to claim: 3. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine whether or not the difference between successive second distances 326 is negative; and wherein the processor is configured to determine that the vertical movement of the utensil is in a direction towards the sensor when the difference between successive second distances is negative; and wherein the processor is configured to determine that the vertical movement of the utensil is in a direction away from the sensor when the difference between successive second distances is not negative. Note that Unver discloses measuring the first, second and third distances and comparing measurements to a threshold, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use such measurements to determine movement of the utensil as discussed above. 4. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine whether or not the difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance is greater than a first threshold 110; and wherein the processor is configured to determine that the Dry Pot condition when the difference of the first distance from the third distance 327 is not greater than the first threshold. Unver teaches the use of a threshold for measurements, and as such the use of thresholds for similar functionality is considered obvious under KSR rationale B for similar reasons discussed above. 5. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 4, wherein: the processor 109 is further configured to determine, when the difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance 327 is greater than a first threshold 110 , whether a rate of difference of the first distance from the third difference is greater than a second threshold 110; and wherein the processor is configured to determine an Eminently Dry Pot when the rate of difference of the first distance 325 from the third distance 327 is greater than the second threshold. Unver teaches the use of a threshold for measurements, and as such the use of thresholds for similar functionality is considered obvious under KSR rationale B for similar reasons discussed above. 6. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: a communication module in communication with the processor, the communication module configured to enable at least one of wired and wireless communication between the processor and at least one of the appliance and an external communication device; and a digital light processor positioned above the cooktop and configured to display an image on at least one of the appliance, the utensil and an interior of the utensil. Unver discloses the monitoring device may comprise a communication interface configured to couple to the cooker and receive information about active cooking hobs of the cooker. 7. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 6, wherein: the processor is further configured to initiate remedial measures, the remedial measures comprising at least one of displaying an image, generating an alarm and affecting of heat generation at the heating element; wherein the image comprises at least one of alpha-numeric character, image and color; wherein the alarm comprises at least one of an audio alarm, a visual alarm and an electronically communicable alarm; and wherein the affecting of heat generation at the heating element comprises instruction to the appliance cooktop, via the communication module, to initiate, reduce or cease heat generation at the heating element. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112. The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 8. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 7, further comprising: a contactless temperature sensor in communication with the processor and arranged with the appliance within the temperature sensor's field of view, the temperature sensor configured to generate a second output comprising a temperature of the liquid; and wherein at least one of the image and the alarm further comprise a temperature of at least one of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface. Note that the use of temperature sensing means in the art of cooking appliances is well established and the inclusion of such a temperature sensor would have been obvious to one of skill is such art under KSR rationale A. 9. The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: mounting elements configured to mount the utensil profile determination system within a microwave oven or above the appliance within at least one of a vent hood and a swing arm; and wherein the mounting elements comprise at least one of a magnetic element and an adhesive element. Unver discloses Fig. 2 shows a block diagram of a monitoring device 206. The monitoring device 206 is shown without any cooker. This is to emphasize that the monitoring device 206 may also be provided as separate device that need not necessarily be an integral part of a cooker. Instead the monitoring device 206 may e.g. be integrated into a cooker or exhaust hood that may be provided e.g. in a kitchen. Note that the use of magnetic or adhesive elements to “integrate” a component with another is a well known practice and would have been obvious under KSR rationale A. 10. A method for determining a utensil profile, the utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface, the method comprising the steps of: determining with a time of flight sensor a first distance between the cooktop surface and the sensor, a second distance between the utensil and the sensor, and a third distance between a liquid level and the sensor; and determining with a processor in communication with the flight sensor vertical movement of the utensil based on a difference in successive second distances and/or a dry pot condition based on a difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance. See the discussion regarding claims 1, 3-9 mutatis mutandis. 11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising the steps of initiating remedial measures, the remedial measures comprising at least one of displaying an image, generating an alarm and affecting of heat generation at the heating element. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112. The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 14. The method according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises determining vertical movement of the utensil based on the difference in successive second distances wherein vertical movement is in a direction towards the sensor when the difference in successive second distances is negative and the vertical movement is in a direction away from the sensor when the difference in successive second distances is not negative. See claim 3, mutatis mutandis 15. The method according to claim 14, further comprising the steps: initiating heat generation at the heating element as the utensil is moving away from the sensor; and ceasing heat generation at the heating element as the utensil is moving towards the sensor. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112. The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 16. The method according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises determining whether or not the difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than a first threshold, wherein the processor determines the Dry Pot condition when the difference of the first distance from the third distance is not greater than the first threshold. See claims 1, 3, 4, mutatis mutandis 17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising the steps of determining, when the difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than a first threshold, whether a rate of difference of the first distance from the third difference is greater than a second threshold, wherein the utensil profile is Eminently Dry Pot when the rate of difference of the first distance from the third distance is greater than the second threshold. See claim 5, mutatis mutandis 18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising the steps of: ceasing heat generation at the heating element; and displaying the message on at least one of the appliance, the utensil and the liquid, the message comprising at least one of alphanumeric characters, images and colors. Unver discloses The monitoring device 106 further comprises an optional communication interface 112. The communication interface 112 may be used to communicate data from the cooker 100, i.e. the controller 101, to the monitoring device 106, i.e. the control unit 109. The data may e.g. comprise information about active cooking hobs 102, 103, 104, 105 of the cooker 100. The data may also comprise the warning signal 111 that may be communicated to the controller 101. The controller 101 may then e.g. lower the output power of the respective cooking hob 102, 103, 104, 105. 19. The method according to claim 11, further comprising the steps of: measuring with a contactless temperature sensor at least one of a temperature of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface; and wherein at least one of the image and the alarm further comprise the temperature of at least one of the liquid, the utensil, the heating element and the cooktop surface. See claim 8, mutatis mutandis Generally, Unver is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 10, and discloses a method for determining a utensil profile, the utensil configured to accommodate and cook a liquid on a heating element of an appliance cooktop surface (claim 13), the method comprising the steps of: determining with a time of flight sensor a first distance between the cooktop surface and the sensor, a second distance between the utensil and the sensor, and a third distance between a liquid level and the sensor (claim 8, paragraph 67); and determining with a processor in communication with the flight sensor a difference in successive first distances, a difference in successive second distances, and the utensil profile based upon the difference in successive first distances, the difference in successive second distances and the difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance (implicit paragraph 67, 72, claim 9). The subject-matter of claim 10 therefore differs from this known method in that a difference of the first distance subtracted from the third distance. The distinguish features have the technical effect that the distance between appliance and liquid is calculated. The technical effect can be seen as calculating a "dry pot" as defined in claim 12. Unver is already calculating on base of these three distances an overboiling. It would therefore be obvious, to use the taken measurements to calculate a "dry pot", if needed. The subject matter of claim 10 can therefore not be seem as inventive. 20. (New) The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine vertical movement of the utensil based upon the difference between successive second distances. See the discussion regarding claims 1, 3-9 mutatis mutandis. 23. (New) The utensil profile determination system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the Dry Pot condition based upon the subtraction of the third distance from the first distance. See the discussion regarding claims 1, 3-9 mutatis mutandis. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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. /THOR S CAMPBELL/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761 tsc