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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s response dated 03/18/2026, Applicant amended Claims 1 and 6; Cancelled Claims 5, 8, 13 and 15; and argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office action dated 12/18/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 4, 6 and 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 and 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuemmerle et al. (US 2017/0310810) (hereinafter, Kuemmerle) in view of Schulz et al. (US 2020/0359836) (hereinafter, Schulz) and in further view of Sorensen (US 2004/0080415) (hereinafter, Sorensen).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuemmerle teaches a method for controlling a cooking appliance on the basis of a control command transferred from a mobile device to a control device via a wireless data connection (See Kuemmerle’s Abstract), comprising the steps of:
capturing a plurality of sample values correlating to a signal strength of the wireless data connection (Kuemmerle in par 0009, teaches that a signal strength of the communication link between the communication devices of the cooking appliance and the mobile terminal at the time of the confirmation of the communication link on the cooking appliance is stored. While the communication link exists or while the cooking appliance is controlled by the mobile terminal, the current signal strength of the communication link on the cooking appliance or the signal strength of user commands that are sent by the mobile terminal by radio is then monitored);
determining a single test value on the basis of the plurality of sample values (Kuemmerle in par 0010, teaches that if a drop beyond a particular extent is identified while monitoring the current signal strength of the communication link, that is to say if the signal strength drops below a prescribed signal strength limit value. Kuemmerle in par 0033, further teaches that at the time of confirmation of the communication link, the signal strength RSSI at the hob 11 or at the communication device 21 is measured. Furthermore, a signal strength limit value RSSImax is defined, for example as no more than 50% or even no more than 20% of the signal strength at the time of confirmation of the communication link);
comparing the test value with a reference test value to determine a comparison result (Kuemmerle in par 0010, teaches that if a drop beyond a particular extent is identified while monitoring the current signal strength of the communication link, that is to say if the signal strength drops below a prescribed signal strength limit value, which can be determined from the communication link itself and/or from a received user command from the mobile terminal to the cooking appliance, then at least user commands from the mobile terminal are blocked on the cooking appliance or sometimes even the communication link between the cooking appliance and the terminal is disconnected. Kuemmerle in par 0033, further teaches that a signal change of more than preferably 5 dBm or 7 dBm can block the commands or disconnect the communication link. This signal strength is measured continuously. So long as the signal strength does not change significantly, for example because the user with the mobile phone 25 is close to the hob 11 or at least the mobile phone 25 is close to the hob 11, that is to say that the distance d is short, the communication link is maintained, and the hob 11 can be controlled using the mobile phone 25); and
wherein the reference test value is determined on the basis of the test value (Kuemmerle in par 0016, teaches that there may be provision for a signal change or signal decrease of more than 7 or 8 dBm maximum, preferably 5 dBm maximum, to block the user commands from the terminal or even to disconnect the communication link. Alternatively, there may be provision for the aforementioned signal strength limit value to be no more than 50% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link on the cooking appliance. Advantageously, the signal strength limit value is no more than 20% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link. Thus, if the signal strength falls to below 20% of the signal strength when the communication link is confirmed, then the controller steps in).
Kuemmerle teaches that the method can block the commands or disconnect.
However, Kuemmerle does not specifically disclose limiting the controllability of the cooking appliance via the mobile appliance according to the comparison result.
Schulz teaches a remote control for controlling a cooking appliance remotely (See Schulz’s Abstract).
Schulz in par 0008 – 0009, teaches that a distance control is provided for detecting the distance between the remote control or a user and the cooking appliance and the detected distance between the remote control or the user and the cooking appliance is used to control the interaction between the remote control or to control the cooking appliance itself. This leads to the benefit that e.g. the function of the remote control or the controlling of the cooking appliance by means of the remote control can be limited or turned off.
Schulz in par 0016, teaches that the attenuation of a RF signal is a function of the distance from the source. This can be used to calculate or determine the distance between the remote control and the cooking appliance. This results in the benefit that the connection between the remote control and the interface of the cooking appliance, that is used for the control of the cooking appliance by means of the remote control, in addition is used to determine the distance between the remote control and the cooking appliance.
Schulz in par 0019 – 0023, further teaches that remotely controlling the cooking appliance by means of the remote control is limited or inhibited in case the detected distance is beyond a limit. Unattended control of the cooking appliance can thus be avoided. The cooking appliance can be switched into a safe operation mode in case the detected distance is beyond the limit. The respective limit for the distance between the cooking appliance and the remote control can be adjustable so that the respective function can be adapted to specific situations (such as specific installation situations). Preferred distance limits are between 30 cm and 300 cm, more preferably between 50 and 100 cm, which assures that a user together with his remote control is in eye contact with the cooking appliance so as to assure attended cooking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Schulz with the teachings as in Kuemmerle to limit controllability of the cooking device of Kuemmerle as disclose in Schulz. The motivation for doing so would have been to limit the user from increasing heating power in an unattended cooking appliance, so as to guarantee an attended cooking (See Schulz’s par 0009).
Kuemmerle in par 0010, further teaches that If a drop beyond a particular extent is identified (single test value) while monitoring the current signal strength (plurality of samples values) of the communication link, that is to say if the signal strength drops below a prescribed signal strength limit value, which can be determined from the communication link itself and/or from a received user command from the mobile terminal to the cooking appliance, then at least user commands from the mobile terminal are blocked on the cooking appliance or sometimes even the communication link between the cooking appliance and the terminal is disconnected.
However, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz does not specifically disclose wherein determining the single test value comprises determining a sample average value of the plurality of sample values.
Sorensen teaches that signals are received by receivers, and the received signals are compared in order to detect a difference in the signals, the difference being caused by a physical change present in the signal path between transmitters and receivers (See Sorensen’s Abstract).
Sorensen in par 0056 - 0082, further teaches that in Mode 1, a set of packets is transmitted from a transceiver 1. Upon receipt of the packets by the transceiver 1, the strength, and/or other signal parameters, of each packet is detected, recorded and stored, possibly together with the information on the signal strength, or the signal parameters, by which each packet was transmitted, thereby establishing a Mode 1 vector comprising, for each package in the set, the transmitted and the received signal strengths or the signal parameters. Following this Mode 1, which may be characterised as determining a reference for comparison, Mode 2 is carried out. Basically the same steps as performed in Mode 1 are carried out, i.e. transmitting a set of packets and receiving, detecting and recording the strengths, or the signal parameters, whereby a Mode 2 vector is established comprising, for each packet in the set, the transmitted strength, and/or other signal parameters and the received strength, or the signal parameters.
Sorensen in par 0082, further teaches that the receiver detects, in Mode 1, the signal in a first time window and performs for instance an integration over time of the received signal or estimated signal parameter properties (e.g. signal strength, polarization, spectrum, etc.). In Mode 2, the same procedure is applied and the signal is integrated or the signal parameter properties (e.g. signal strength, polarization, spectrum, etc.) are estimated. The two integrated signals or the signal parameter properties are then compared to each other and if a difference is found, an indication of a change in the volume of interest is detected.
Accordingly, Sorensen discloses that the measured values over first and second mode time periods may be integrated (an averaging process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Sorensen with the teachings as in Kuemmerle and Schulz to integrate the plurality of sample values of Kuemmerle as disclosed in Sorensen. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively compare received signals and detect a difference(See Sorensen’s par 0025).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
comprising determining a scatter value of the plurality of sample values from which the test value is determined (Kuemmerle in par 0010, teaches that if a drop beyond a particular extent is identified while monitoring the current signal strength of the communication link, that is to say if the signal strength drops below a prescribed signal strength limit value, which can be determined from the communication link itself and/or from a received user command from the mobile terminal to the cooking appliance, then at least user commands from the mobile terminal are blocked on the cooking appliance or sometimes even the communication link between the cooking appliance and the terminal is disconnected. Kuemmerle in par 0016, further teaches that a signal change or signal decrease of more than 7 or 8 dBm maximum, preferably 5 dBm maximum, to block the user commands from the terminal or even to disconnect the communication link).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Schultz further teaches:
wherein the limitation of the controllability of the cooking appliance via the mobile device is carried out under the condition that the scatter value is lower than a reference scatter value (Schulz in par 0016, teaches that the attenuation of a RF signal is a function of the distance from the source. This can be used to calculate or determine the distance between the remote control and the cooking appliance. This results in the benefit that the connection between the remote control and the interface of the cooking appliance, that is used for the control of the cooking appliance by means of the remote control, in addition is used to determine the distance between the remote control and the cooking appliance. Schulz in par 0019 – 0023, further teaches that remotely controlling the cooking appliance by means of the remote control is limited or inhibited in case the detected distance is beyond a limit. Unattended control of the cooking appliance can thus be avoided. The cooking appliance can be switched into a safe operation mode in case the detected distance is beyond the limit. The respective limit for the distance between the cooking appliance and the remote control can be adjustable so that the respective function can be adapted to specific situations (such as specific installation situations). Preferred distance limits are between 30 cm and 300 cm, more preferably between 50 and 100 cm, which assures that a user together with his remote control is in eye contact with the cooking appliance so as to assure attended cooking).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Kuemmerle further teaches:
comprising discarding the test value in dependence on the scatter value (Kuemmerle in par 0010, teaches that if a drop beyond a particular extent is identified while monitoring the current signal strength of the communication link, that is to say if the signal strength drops below a prescribed signal strength limit value, which can be determined from the communication link itself and/or from a received user command from the mobile terminal to the cooking appliance, then at least user commands from the mobile terminal are blocked on the cooking appliance or sometimes even the communication link between the cooking appliance and the terminal is disconnected). Accordingly, Kuemmerle is monitoring the signal strength and comparing against a value, Kuemmerle is constantly monitoring the signal, thus, is discarding the test value in dependence on the scatter value.
Regarding Claim 6, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
wherein a calibration test value is determined as a test value at a preset distance between the control device and the mobile device (Kuemmerle in par 0019, teaches that a communication link needs to be disconnected in any case when there is a distance of more than 10m and a clear view between the cooking appliance and the mobile terminal, for example, for safety reasons. Kuemmerle in par 0027, further teaches that the controller 17 is connected to a communication device 21 along with the antenna 22, which operates according to the Bluetooth standard. This serves the purpose of a type of distance determination or determination of a particular minimum distance or limit distance in the range of a few meters, for example 5 m to 10 m, being better possible by virtue of monitoring of the signal strength), wherein the reference test value is determined on the basis of the calibration test value (Kuemmerle in par 0016, further teaches that alternatively, there may be provision for the aforementioned signal strength limit value (reference test value) to be no more than 50% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link on the cooking appliance (Calibration test value). Advantageously, the signal strength limit value is no more than 20% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link. Thus, if the signal strength falls to below 20% of the signal strength when the communication link is confirmed, then the controller steps in).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
wherein the determination of the reference test value is triggered by an initial establishment of the wireless data connection between the control device and the mobile device (Kuemmerle in par 0016 – 0017, further teaches that alternatively, there may be provision for the aforementioned signal strength limit value (reference test value) to be no more than 50% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link on the cooking appliance (Calibration test value). Advantageously, the signal strength limit value is no more than 20% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link. Thus, if the signal strength falls to below 20% of the signal strength when the communication link is confirmed, then the controller steps in. The prescribed confirmation time for confirming the set-up of a communication link may be no more than 10 sec, it advantageously being no more than 3 sec. This means that a user cannot wait too long until he has to confirm the set-up of the communication link on the cooking appliance following a request from the mobile terminal).
Regarding Claim 10, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
comprising manually determining the reference test value according to a user input (Kuemmerle in par 0010, teaches that prescribed signal strength limit value, which can be determined from the communication link itself and/or from a received user command from the mobile terminal to the cooking appliance).
Regarding Claim 11, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
comprising automatically extending the controllability of the cooking appliance via the mobile device in dependence on the comparison result (Kuemmerle in par 0034 – 0035 and Fig. 1, further teaches that maintaining the communication link while simultaneously blocking user commands has the advantage that it is then a simple matter for the communication link to be restored or for user commands no longer to be blocked. This then merely requires the user element 18 to be operated again as “P”, for example again for a time of shorter than 5 sec. In this way, the user signals that he is now close to the hob 11 again and has control again).
Regarding Claim 12, Kuemmerle in view of Schulz and in further view of Sorensen teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Kuemmerle further teaches:
wherein an extension of the controllability of the cooking appliance via the mobile device is carried out in dependence on a switching period over which the controllability of the cooking appliance was restricted (Kuemmerle in par 0034 – 0035 and Fig. 2, further teaches that maintaining the communication link while simultaneously blocking user commands has the advantage that it is then a simple matter for the communication link to be restored or for user commands no longer to be blocked. This then merely requires the user element 18 to be operated again as “P”, for example again for a time of shorter than 5 sec. In this way, the user signals that he is now close to the hob 11 again and has control again. On such blocking of user commands owing to a drop below the signal strength limit value RSSImax, the method returns from the box at the bottom far right to the box at the bottom far left (See figure 2). As a result of the described fresh operation of the user element 25 as “P” for a time shorter than 3 sec, which may also be necessary as a further safety function within 5 min, 10 min or 20 min, for example, the method again moves to the box at the bottom far right and hence to the previous controllability of the hob 11 by means of the mobile phone 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on 03/18/2026, pages 1 – 2, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sorensen (US 2004/0080415).
Regarding dependent Claim 6:
(1) Applicant argues: that dependent claim 6 recites “the reference test value is determined on the basis of the calibration test value” which according to claim 6 is “determined as a test value at a preset distance between the control device and the mobile device.”
This feature increases reliability and accuracy, as well as user comfort. More specifically, in order to position the mobile device at a specific distance, the decrease in signal strength depending on the distance, which can be influenced by various unknown conditions such as furniture, electrical appliances, wall construction, electrical wiring etc., can be taken into account when determining the test value. By measuring the test value at a preset distance, the range in which controllability should be possible can be determined with particular precision. Kuemmerle, on the other hand, teaches that a Bluetooth connection is configured for communication distances in the range of 5 – 1o meters. This disclosure, however, cannot reasonably be equated to the claimed calculation. Therefore, Claim 6 is allowable over the cited art, irrespective of its dependency on base claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., increases reliability and accuracy, as well as user comfort. More specifically, in order to position the mobile device at a specific distance, the decrease in signal strength depending on the distance, which can be influenced by various unknown conditions such as furniture, electrical appliances, wall construction, electrical wiring etc., can be taken into account when determining the test value. By measuring the test value at a preset distance, the range in which controllability should be possible can be determined with particular precision) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Kuemmerle in par 0019, teaches that a communication link needs to be disconnected in any case when there is a distance of more than 10m. Kuemmerle in par 0027, further teaches that the controller 17 is connected to a communication device 21 along with the antenna 22, which operates according to the Bluetooth standard. This serves the purpose of a type of distance determination or determination of a particular minimum distance or limit distance in the range of a few meters, for example 5m to 10m, being better possible by virtue of monitoring of the signal strength.
Accordingly, Kuemmerle teaches the monitoring of the connection and disconnecting the connection if the distance is more than 10m.
Thus, Kuemmerle teaches or suggests “wherein a calibration test value is determined as a test value at a preset distance between the control device and the mobile device” as claimed in claim 6.
Kuemmerle in par 0016, further teaches that alternatively, there may be provision for the aforementioned signal strength limit value (reference test value) to be no more than 50% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link on the cooking appliance (calibration test value). Advantageously, the signal strength limit value is no more than 20% of the signal strength at the time of the confirmation of the communication link. Thus, if the signal strength falls to below 20% of the signal strength when the communication link is confirmed, then the controller steps in.
Furthermore, Kuemmerle in par 0027, further teaches that the controller 17 is connected to a communication device 21 along with the antenna 22, which operates according to the Bluetooth standard. This serves the purpose of a type of distance determination or determination of a particular minimum distance or limit distance in the range of a few meters, for example 5m to 10m, being better possible by virtue of monitoring of the signal strength.
Therefore, Kuemmerle is clearly monitoring the connection, wherein the monitoring can be based on the distance from the cooking device and determining based on a preset value and the measured distance if is necessary to disconnect. Thus, Kuemmerle teaches or suggest “wherein the reference test value is determined on the basis of the calibration test value” as claimed in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118