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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, 19-23 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.
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) 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipe et al. (US2020/0367692) in view of Luis Alonso et al. (US2023/0213200).
To claim 1, Stipe teach a cooking appliance (Figs. 23-25) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the cooking appliance comprising:
a cooktop comprising a plurality of heating zones, each heating zone heated by at least one heating element (18s of Fig. 4, paragraph 0052);
an image capture device directed toward the cooktop (74 of Fig. 6, paragraph 0058; 218 of Fig. 20, paragraph 0124; 250 of Figs. 21-22, paragraph 0127); and
a controller operably connected to the image capture device and the at least one heating element (82 of Fig. 3, paragraph 0064), wherein the controller is configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising:
receiving one or more inputs relating to a feedback controlled closed-loop cooking operation, the feedback controlled closed-loop cooking operation (paragraph 0070, The closed loop communication system can provide for notifying a user of a condition of a food item as a status of the food item, as well as automatically adjusting settings on the stovetop, such as burner temperatures based upon certain conditions, such as a mess condition, cooking status of a food item, or appropriate doneness of a food item. The cooking status, for example, can be one of a liquid volume, liquid level measurement, food doneness, mess condition, food temperature, or cooking appliance temperature in non-limiting examples);
receiving an image signal of the cooktop via the image capture device after receiving the one or more inputs, the image signal comprising a cookware item (paragraph 0003, cooking vessel);
identifying, from the received image signal, a heating zone of the plurality of heating zones at which the cookware item is positioned (paragraphs 0008, 0069, 0082, 0100, claim 94 of page 20, uses the image data to determine a boundary of the cooking vessel and a location of one or more heating zones);
retrieving data of a size of a reference geometric feature (e.g., boundary, sizes, volume) within the identified heating zone; determining a size of the cookware item by calibrating a size of the cookware item in the received image signal according to the size of the reference geometric feature within the identified heating zone from the retrieved data (Figs. 7-9, paragraphs 0058, 0079, 0082-0084, 0094, 0105);
adjusting based on the determined size of the cookware item; and initiating the cooking operation based on the adjusting (paragraphs 0069-0070, 0073, 0100, temperature control based on determined boundary, size, volume).
But, Stipe do not expressly disclose comprising a set of controller gains associated with a power level of the at least one heating element, the set of controller gains comprising a proportional gain value, an integral gain value, and a derivative gain value; adjusting at least one of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, or the derivative gain value based on the determined size of the cookware item; and initiating the cooking operation based on the at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the integral gain value, or the derivative gain value.
Luis Alonso teach a food cooking unit with automatic regulation (abstract; Figs. 4A-B), comprising a feedback controlled closed-loop cooking operation comprising a set of controller gains associated with a power level of the at least one heating element, the set of controller gains comprising a proportional gain value, an integral gain value, and a derivative gain value (paragraph 0145, a proportional, integral and derivative controller configured to regulate the regulating electrovalves, adapting its flow rate, increasing it if it is below a target temperature or threshold value referenced by the food monitoring sensor, or decreasing it if it exceeds the mentioned target temperature), wherein the control device applies a regulation program adapted to detected cookware size (paragraphs 0053, 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Luis Alonso into the apparatus of Stipe, in order to further implementation of adaptive cooking control operation.
To claim 11, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach a method of operating a cooking appliance, the cooking appliance comprising a plurality of heating zones, each heating zone selectively heated by at least one heating element, and an image capture device directed toward the plurality of heating zones (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 21, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach a cooking appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claims 2 and 12. Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein the image capture device is a camera positioned above the cooktop along the vertical direction (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claims 3 and 13, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein receiving the one or more inputs relating to the cooking operation comprises: receiving at least one of a set cooking temperature input, a food item input, a recipe input, a cooking method input, or a selected heating zone input (Stipe, paragraph 0167).
To claims 4 and 14, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein determining the size of the cookware item comprises: analyzing, via one or more machine learning algorithms, the received image signal comprising the cookware item; and determining a diameter of the cookware item via the received image signal analysis (Stipe, paragraphs 0064-0065, 0071, 0104-0105, deep learning, determine a diameter or radius of the pot).
To claims 6 and 16, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein initiating the cooking operation comprises:
directing the at least one heating element of a selected heating zone according to the at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the integral gain value, or the derivative gain value (Luis Alonso, paragraph 0145).
To claims 10 and 20, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein the operation further comprises: storing the determined size of the cookware item within a memory of the controller (obvious as temporary storing for further processing, e.g., comparing).
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipe et al. (US2020/0367692) in view of Luis Alonso et al. (US2023/0213200) and Fujita et al. (WO2017033406).
To claims 9 and 19, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claims 1 and 11.
Stipe and Luis Alonso teach wherein the operation further comprises: determining a distance between the image capture device and the cooktop after receiving the one or more inputs relating to the cooking operation; and incorporating a size adjustment to the determined size of the cookware item in response to determining the distance between the image capture device and the cooktop (Stipe, obvious in paragraphs 0069, 0104-0105, 0113).
Fujita teach a cooking system having a camera installed on top of a cooking appliance (Fig. 1), comprises: determining a distance between the image capture device and the cooktop after receiving the one or more inputs relating to the cooking operation; and incorporating a size adjustment to the identified size of the cookware item in response to determining the distance between the image capture device and the cooktop (Fig. 2, page 19, distance between the camera and the top plate of the cooking appliance is adjustable, which makes it necessary to adjust an identified size of cooking object in response to calculated distance between the camera and the top plate), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus and method of Stipe and Luis Alonso, in order to calibrate size identification for high accuracy.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipe et al. (US2020/0367692) in view of Luis Alonso et al. (US2023/0213200) and Furusawa et al. (EP4050971).
To claim 22, Stipe and Luis Alonso teach claim 21.
But, Stipe and Luis Alonso do not expressly disclose wherein retrieving the data of the size of the reference geometric feature within the identified heating zone comprises: identifying a cooktop model of the cooktop from a plurality of cooktop models; and retrieving data unique to the identified cooktop model of the size of the reference geometric feature within the identified heating zone.
Furusawa teach an automated heating cooker (Figs. 1-4), wherein retrieving the data of the size of the reference geometric feature within the identified heating zone comprises: identifying a cooktop model of the cooktop from a plurality of cooktop models; and retrieving data unique to the identified cooktop model of the size of the reference geometric feature within the identified heating zone (paragraph 0090), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Stipe and Luis Alonso, in order to implement size info acquisition.
To claim 23, Stipe, Luis Alonso and Furusawa teach claim 22.
Stipe, Luis Alonso and Furusawa teach wherein the reference geometric feature comprises an area of a heating element located within the identified heating zone (Furusawa, Figs. 1-2, 5).
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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights