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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/18/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Hata fails to disclose using the temperature sensor to determine that the liquid is boiling. This is not found persuasive because Hata teaches a cooking container having water ([0008-0011]) with a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 5, [0044, 0049]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that when the temperature sensor reads 100°C, the water is boiling. Therefore, Groups I and II lack unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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:
“mounting elements” in claim 10, invoking 112(f), and according to the instant specification [0042], mounting elements may be used with or in place of the magnets, including adhesive layers, mechanical couplings and the like, or 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “determine a difference between at least one of the first output and a temperature according to the at least one step” which is unclear what “the at least one step” means.
Claim 10 recites “the fire prevention system” which lacks a prior antecedent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stipe (US 20200367692 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Stipe discloses a boil detection system (detecting messes like boiling over 152, Fig 6, [0078 top]) for detecting a boil profile of liquid (boiling liquid in pot 150) in a utensil (150) on an appliance (12) generating heat (heater 18) towards the utensil (150) the system comprising:
a contactless temperature sensor (infrared sensor 78 being a thermal sensor to determine local temperature being contactless and away from utensil 150, Fig 6, [0082 bottom]) arranged with the appliance (12) within the temperature sensor's field of view (view of utensil 150), the temperature sensor configured to generate a first output comprising a temperature of the liquid (controller 82 coupled to infrared temperature sensor 78, [0067 top] where temperature sensor 78 senses the water temperature to determine when boiling occurs at 212°F, [0080 middle]);
a time of flight sensor (utilizing the camera 74, cooking assistance 50 can determine a height of the liquid 182, Fig 13, [0103, 0105], this indicates that camera 74 is a time of flight sensor) arranged with the appliance within the time of flight sensor's field of view (appliance view 12), the tine of flight sensor configured to detect a liquid level (height of liquid 182) and generate a second output comprising the liquid level (camera 74 generates a second output being a liquid level height 182, where camera 74 is coupled to controller 82, [0063]); and
a processor (controller 82, [0063], where controller 82 operates the cooking assistance 50) arranged in communication with the temperature sensor (78) and time of flight sensor (74), the processor configured to receive the first output (temperature of water from sensor 78) and the second output (height of liquid 182 from sensor 74), determine a rate of change of the second output (cooking assistance appliance 50 can determine a rate at which the height of liquid is increasing/changing in a cooking vessel, and using the rate to predict a boil-over event, [0082 middle]), and determine the boil profile (a boil-over event, [0082 middle]) based on the first output (78), the second output (74) and the rate of change of the second output (rate at which the height of liquid is increasing/changing in the cooking vessel, [0082 middle]).
Regarding claim 3
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 1.
Stipe further discloses wherein the processor (controller 82 including cooking assistance 50, Fig 2) is further configured to:
determine whether the first output exceeds a boiling point of the liquid (Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 measuring the temperature of the liquid/first output during a boil over mess 152, [0078 top], i.e. the liquid has exceeded the boiling point);
determine whether the rate of change of the second output exceeds a depth of a liquid accommodation portion of the utensil (boil over algorithm can include generating multiple 3D images to determine a rate of increase of liquid level or liquid height in the cooking vessel, [0091 bottom], and as the water reaches a threshold level in the second image 206 Fig 15, such as 90% full or greater, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can inform the user that an over fill condition is imminent or has occurred, [0111 middle],
this indicates that the processor/cooking assistance 50 determines the rate of change of the second output/water level caused the water level to be 90% or greater, i.e. exceeding a depth of 10% or less);
determine a Boil Over boil profile when the boiling point is exceeded (Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 measuring the temperature of the liquid during a boil over mess 152, [0078 top], i.e. the liquid has exceeded the boiling point), and the depth is exceeded (as the water reaches a threshold level in the second image 206 Fig 15, such as 90% full or greater, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can inform the user that an over fill condition is imminent or has occurred, [0111 middle], in this case, a water level of 99% indicates that Boil Over profile has occurred); and
to determine an Eminent Boil Over boil profile when the boiling point is exceeded (Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 measuring the temperature of the liquid during a boil over mess 152, i.e. the liquid has exceeded the boiling point and a mess is going to happen), and the depth is not exceeded (as the water reaches a threshold level in the second image 206 Fig 15, such as 90% full or greater, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can inform the user that an over fill condition is imminent or has occurred, [0111 middle], in this case the water level is interpreted to be 90% indicating that Boil Over is imminent).
Regarding claim 4
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 3.
Stipe further discloses a communication module (cooking assistance appliance 50 can be coupled to a wireless communication module 110, [0070 top], Fig 3) in communication with the processor (50), the communication module (110) configured to enable wireless communication between the processor (50) and at least one of the appliance (12) and an external communication device (used for local communication, such as with the user, a user's smartphone, [0070 middle]).
Regarding claim 5
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 4.
Stipe further discloses wherein the processor (cooking assistance 50) is further configured to determine and store a current cooking profile for a foodstuff preparation (cooking assistance appliance can store historic information about the user's cookware to facilitate cooking vessel identification, [0103 bottom]) according to at least one step (“at least one step” is interpreted to be either a foodstuff preparation menu OR the cooking profile) of a foodstuff preparation menu (interpreted to be a menu/list of different types of cooking that cause messes such as bubbling or boiling over 152 or overfill of liquid, forming a splatter 154 or splashing, foaming 156 or bubbling, dripping 158 exterior of the pot 150, burning 160, or smoking 162, [0078 top]).
Regarding claim 9
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 1.
Stipe further discloses a digital light processor (image processor included with controller/processor 82, [0064 top]) in communication with the processor (82) and arranged to depict an image (2D images captured by the 2D camera(s) 74, [0064], Figs 8, 9, 15) on at least one of the appliance, the utensil and the liquid (appliance heater 18, utensil pot 180, and liquid inside in Figs 8, 9, 15), generated by the processor (82); and
wherein the image comprises colors and images (Figs 8, 9, 15 show black and white images) based upon an alarm (to determine if a smoke mess condition is occurring, [0086 bottom], once a smoke mess condition is determined, action can be taken, such as informing the user, audibly or visually, that a smoke mess condition is occurring, such as with an alarm [0087]) and a prevention or remedial measure (it is contemplated that the cooking assistance appliance 50 can lower the temperature of the heater 18 on the stovetop 16 to reduce the smoke or burning that is occurring on the stovetop 16, [0087]).
Regarding claim 10
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 1.
Stipe further discloses mounting elements (112f invoke, cooking assistance appliance 50 can further include an optional mount for securing the cooking assistance appliance 50 to the cooking appliance 12, and electrical connection 62 would also act to secure the cooking assistant 50 to the wall [0056 top], Figs 1-2) configured to mount the fire prevention system (112b, antecedent) (the cooking assistance 50 is interpreted to be the fire prevention system) below a microwave oven (microwave 32 in Fig 1) within a vent hood (214, Fig 19, [0123]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipe.
Regarding claim 2
Stipe discloses the boil detection system according to claim 1.
Stipe further discloses wherein the processor (controller 82 and cooking assistance 50, Fig 2) is further configured to:
determine whether the first output (temperature from sensor 78) exceeds a boiling point of the liquid (infrared sensor 78 can be used to track temperature increases to update the boiling time, [0108 middle], Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 determine a temperature/first output during a boiling over 152 event when the liquid is exceeding boiling, [0078]).
determine whether the rate of change of the second output exceeds a threshold (boil over algorithm can include generating multiple 3D images to determine a rate of increase of liquid level or liquid height in the cooking vessel, [0091 bottom], as the water reaches a threshold level in the second image 206 Fig 15, such as 90% full or greater, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can inform the user that an over fill condition is imminent or has occurred, [0111 middle], thus a liquid level of 90% or greater is the threshold);
determine a Hard Boil boil profile when the first output exceeds the boiling point (Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 measuring the temperature of the liquid/first output during a boil over mess 152, [0078 top], i.e. the liquid has exceeded the boiling point) and the rate of change exceeds the threshold (as the water reaches a threshold level in the second image 206 Fig 15, such as 90% full or greater, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can inform the user that an over fill condition is imminent or has occurred, [0111 middle], in this case, a water level of greater than 90% such as 95% indicates a Hard Boil profile); and
determine a Soft Boil boil profile when the first output exceeds the boiling point (Fig 6 shows temperature sensor 78 measuring the temperature of the liquid/first output during a boil over mess 152, [0078 top], i.e. the liquid has exceeded the boiling point) and the rate of change does not exceed the threshold (cooking assistance 50 can instruct the user or directly instruct the cooking appliance 12 to reduce heat to a simmer, i.e. Soft Boil profile, [0109 middle], and
when the volume is 90% or greater relative to a 100% capacity of the pot 180, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can emit a warning, such as an audible or visual warning to a user, to prevent overfilling [0109 bottom], in this case, a water level of less than 90% such as 80% indicates a simmer or Soft Boil profile).
Stipe is silent on the threshold is 5 millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the threshold to be 5 millimeters because generally, differences in the rate of change of the water level will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such rate of change of 5 millimeter is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In this case, Stipe discloses that a rate of change of 90% or greater resulting in a Hard Boil event. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hui (US 20170219215 A1) teaches a boil detection system with water level sensor
Luckhardt (US 20100128755 A1) teaches a contactless sensor
Lee (US 9497378 B1) teaches to detect boiling based on a water height
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights