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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and/or examination burden because searching each group would involve a similar search strategy because the groups include common elements . This is not found persuasive because establishing that the inventions are classified in different classes and/or subclasses establishes that a serious burden exists on the examiner if restriction is not required. Further, it is noted that the search required for Group I (apparatus) is not required for Group II (method) as neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. And further, it is noted that the search required for Group III is not required for Group I, since group I requires a computer program, which Group I does not require. Therefore, there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction was not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/20/205.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 1 recites “an identifier” in line 5. It is unclear whether “an identifier” of line 5 is the same or different as “an identifier” as recited in lines 3-4 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “an identifier” in line 8. It is unclear whether “an identifier” of line 8 is the same or different as “an identifier” as recited in lines 3-4 and/or line 5 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “at least one identifier from a database” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether “at least one identifier” of lines 8-9 is the same or different as “an identifier” as recited in lines 3-4 and/or line 5 and/or line 8 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “an identifier from the database” in line 10. It is unclear whether “an identifier” of line 10 is the same or different as “an identifier” as recited in lines 3-4 and/or line 5 and/or line 8 and/or lines 8-9 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detection means" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detected identifier" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “an identifier” in line 3. It is unclear whether “an identifier” of claim 3 is the same or different as any one of the multiple “an identifier” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a quick start mode” in line 5. It is unclear whether “a quick start mode” of claim 3, line 5 is the same or different as “a quick start modes” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a quick start mode” in line 6. It is unclear whether “a quick start mode” of claim 4 is the same or different as “a quick start modes” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a quick start mode” in line 9. It is unclear whether “a quick start mode” of claim 4, line 9 is the same or different as “a quick start modes” as recited in claim 1 and/or line 6 of claim 4. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a detected identifier” in line 6. It is unclear whether “a detected identifier” is the same or different as “the detected identifier” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 4 recites “an accessory” in line 7. It is unclear whether “an accessory” of line 7 is the same of different as “an accessory” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation a high priority rank, and the claim also recites preferably the highest priority rank which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 10 recites “a quick start mode” in line 3. It is unclear whether “a quick start mode” of claim 10 is the same or different as “a quick start modes” as recited in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Staun (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0298530).
Regarding claim 1, Staun discloses a kitchen appliance system (title), wherein the kitchen appliance system comprises a base unit (reference #100, 500) having a housing (reference #105, 505), a controller (figure 8, reference #40) and a communication interface (figures 3A, 3B and 8, reference #120; figure 5, reference #520), and at least one accessory (figure 1, reference #205; figure 2, reference # 210; figure 5, reference #550; figure 6, reference #600) having an identifier (figure 4B, reference #150);
wherein a detector configured to detect an identifier of at least one accessory is provided (figure 4A, reference #140; [0037]);
wherein the controller is configured to compare an identifier detected by the detection means with at least one identifier from a database, and provide at least one operation mode associated with an identifier from the database matching the detected identifier via the communication interface as a quick start mode (figure 7, reference #700, 705, 710, 715, 720, 740, 745; figure 8, reference #40, 42, 44, 115, 140 and 615; [0008]-[0009]; [0015]; [0020]; [0021]; [0040]; [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform any identifier comparison provide any operation mode. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a database or operation mode or quick start mode have been claimed to interface with the controller to control any provision of operation modes and database comparisons. The controller is structurally capable to compare and provide operation in response to an input (figure 7, reference #700, 705, 710, 715, 720, 740, 745; figure 8, reference #40, 42, 44, 115, 140 and 615; [0008]-[0009]; [0015]; [0020]; [0021]; [0040]; [0050]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 2, as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the quick start mode is not a positively recited structures of the claims since it is an intended operation of the controller, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 2 which further limit the quick start mode are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim. However, in order to further prosecution, Staun discloses wherein the quick start mode comprises at least one item from the list: a pre-set adapted to the accessory, a preparation instruction corresponding to a preparation operation which can be carried out with the accessory, a setpoint for a preparation parameter, a user request for a parameter setting, and a user request for a confirmation to start a preparation operation (figure 7, reference #715, 720, 740 and 745; [0041]; [0051]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Staun discloses wherein the controller is configured to in response to detecting an identifier, switch the communication interface from an idle mode to an active mode; and provide a quick start mode corresponding to the detected identifier via the communication interface when switching to active mode (figure 7, reference #740 and 745; figure 8, reference #40; [0048]).
Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform any detection and provide any operation mode. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of types of modes have been claimed to interface with the controller to control any provision of operation modes. The controller is structurally capable to perform the steps as recited (figure 7, reference #740 and 745; figure 8, reference #40; [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Staun discloses wherein a position detector is provided and is configured to detect an assembly or removal of at least one accessory with respect to the base unit and/or with respect to a further accessory and to forward this to the controller (figure 4A, reference #140; figure 7, reference #705, 740 and 745), and
wherein the controller is configured to provide a quick start mode in dependence of a detected identifier and of a detected assembly of an accessory, and/or terminate the provision of a quick start mode in dependence on a detected identifier and of a detected removal of an accessory (figure 7, reference #705, 710, 740 and 745; figure 8, reference #40, 115 and 515; [0037]; [0041]; [0048]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
Regarding claim 5, Staun discloses wherein the controller assigns a high priority rank, preferably the highest priority rank, to the quick start mode for being made available, and wherein the controller provides information via the communication interface according to a prioritized arrangement (figure 8, reference #40, 115, 120 and 615; [0012]-[0023]; [0045]; [0052]-[0053]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Staun discloses wherein the controller provides information via the communication interface in an order of descending priority rank (figure 8, reference #40, 115, 120 and 615; [0012]-[0023]; [0045]; [0052]-[0053]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
Regarding claim 7, Staun discloses wherein the quick start mode has at least one user request ([0053] (as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the quick start mode is not a positively recited structures of the claims since it is an intended operation of the controller, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 7 which further limit the quick start mode are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim); and wherein the controller is configured to control functional parts of the kitchen appliance system according to indications from the quick start mode in dependence on a detected user response to the user request (figure 8, reference #40; [0015]; [0053]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
Regarding claim 8, Staun discloses wherein the quick start mode has at least one indication of a preparation process ([0052]-[0053] (as stated above in the rejection to claim 1, the quick start mode is not a positively recited structures of the claims since it is an intended operation of the controller, and therefore the limitations as recited in claim 8 which further limit the quick start mode are not positive structural limitations that are part of the claim); and wherein the controller is configured to control functional parts of the kitchen appliance system according to indications from the quick start mode in dependence on a detected user response to the user request (figure 8, reference #40; [0015]; [0052]-[0053]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
Regarding claim 9, Staun discloses wherein the controller is configured to compare multiple detected identifiers with identifiers from a database, and provide, as quick start modes, modes of operation which are each associated with all identifiers from the database matching a detected identifier (figure 8, reference #40, 42 and 44; [0004]; [0009]; [0040]; [0050]-[0053]). Again, it is noted that the performance steps within the controller are a method of operation and the controller is fully capable in its structure to perform the steps as recited.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staun in view of Wulf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0176320).
Regarding claim 10, Staun discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, to the extend, Staun does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to save a quick start mode already provided in the past as a favourite, and make the quick start mode saved as a favourite available separately when the same identifier is detected again, Wulf et al. teaches another kitchen appliance system with accessory identification (title; figure 2 and 38). The reference teaches wherein the controller is configured to save a quick start mode already provided in the past as a favourite, and make the quick start mode saved as a favourite available separately when the same identifier is detected again ([0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the controller of Staun to include a saved favorite mode as taught by Wulf et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach kitchen appliance systems with accessory identification . One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because it creates an easy and efficient storage of information based on the most commonly selected functions or programs to present a user (Wulf et al. [0121]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774