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 § 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 Kolar (EP3285627).
Regarding claim 1, Kolar discloses a kitchen appliance system (title; figures 1-8), wherein the kitchen appliance system comprises a base unit having a housing (base 110, 210, 310, 410, 510, 610, 710, 810; [0027]), a controller (processor 304) and a communication interface (control panel 114, 226; [0027]; [0043]), and at least one accessory (container 120, 230, 330, 430, 530, 1130 ) having an identifier ([0047]);
wherein a detector configured to detect an identifier of at least one accessory is provided ([0047]-[0052]);
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 ([0046]-[0052]; [0055]),
wherein a position detector is provided (NFC component 214, 314, 414, 514, 614, 714, 1114) and is configured to detect an assembly or removal of at least one accessory with respect to the base unit and with respect to a further accessory and to forward this to the controller (see one example of figure 4 with position detector 414 detecting an assembly of at least one accessory (container 430) by sensor 434 with respect to further accessory (blade assembly 450) by sensor 432; blade assembly 122, 250, 350, 450, 850 is further accessory having a position detection 432 detected; lid 130, 460, 660, 760 is further accessory (see example in figure 4 with lid detection 464 as described in [0064]));[0026]-[0034]; [0037]; [0040]; [0041]; [0043]; [0046]-[0047]; [0061]-[0064]), 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 ([0040]; [0043]-[0050]; [0061]-[0064]; [0070]-[0072]; [0074]; [0086]-[0088]).
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 (processor 304).
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, Kolar 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 ([0040]; [0043]; [0045]-[0052]; [0068]; [0072]; [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Kolar discloses wherein the controller is configured to in response to detecting the detected identifier, switch the communication interface from an idle mode to an active mode; and provide the quick start mode corresponding to the detected identifier via the communication interface when switching to active mode (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]-[0052]; [0055]; [0068]; [0072]; [0077]).
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 (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]-[0052]; [0055]; [0068]; [0072]; [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Kolar discloses wherein the controller assigns a high 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 (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0051]; [0052];[0055]; [0068]). 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, Kolar discloses wherein the controller provides information via the communication interface in an order of descending priority rank (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0051]; [0052]; [0055]; [0068]). 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, Kolar 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 at least one user request (processor 304 and user interface 226; user device 320; [0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0051]; [0052]; [0055]). 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, Kolar discloses wherein the quick start mode has at least one indication of a preparation process ([0068] (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 start the execution of the preparation process simultaneously with the provision of the quick start mode and to control functional parts of the kitchen appliance system in dependence on the at least one indication (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]; [0046]; [0052]; [0068]). 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, Kolar 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 the multiple detected identifiers (processor 304; [0043]; [0045]-[0052]; [0055]; [0068]). 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 Kolar in view of Wulf et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0176320).
Regarding claim 10, Kolar discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, to the extent, Kolar 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). Wulf et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to save the 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 detected 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 Kolar 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights