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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matarazzi (US 20150285513 A1), hereinafter Matarazzi, in view of Kim (WO 2020222561 A1), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Sones (US 20100290665 A1), hereinafter Sones.
Regarding claims 1-3, Matarazzi discloses a cooking appliance comprising:
a main body (“an oven 101” paragraph [0028]);
a cooking chamber provided with an open surface inside the main body and including a plurality of stages supporting a position of a rack configured to accommodate a cooking food (“the shelf 105, also referred to as dripping pan 105 or baking pan 105, can be inserted into the cavity 102 at five different heights, defined by respective horizontal guides 103 on the left and right sides of the cavity 102” paragraph [0031]);
a door installed on the open surface of the main body (“Of course, the oven 101 is provided with a door that can be opened/closed to allow access to the inside of the confined volume of the heated cavity 102” paragraph [0037]);
a camera module provided above the cooking chamber and including a camera configured to photograph the position of the rack on which the cooking food is accommodated inside the cooking chamber (“the three-dimensional scanning system 106 comprises at least one image sensor” paragraph [0041]);
a sliding part provided between the cooking chamber and the rack and configured to support the rack so as to be movable between a first position outside the cooking chamber and a second position inside the cooking chamber (“The oven 101 comprises, inside the heated cavity 102, a plurality of supporting means 103, i.e. a plurality of horizontal guides 103, which define support planes for a shelf 105 that can be inserted into the cavity 102” paragraph [0030]); and
a controller configured to measure a volume of the cooking food using a first captured image (“the processing means 401 incorporate three-dimensional scan processing means for the information acquired by the three-dimensional scanning system 106. The processing means 401 are further operationally connected to a memory 402” paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and “The memory 402 comprises reference three-dimensional scan information, which allows the three-dimensional scan processing means to obtain information about the shape and/or volume of the food 201, as previously described with reference to the sensor 106” paragraph [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
350
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matarazzi does not disclose the controller configured to measure volume using a first captured image taken at the first position outside the cooking chamber and a second captured image taken at the second position inside the cooking chamber using the camera module, wherein the first position is a position at which the sliding part is extended farthest from the main body, wherein the second position is a position at which the rack is accommodated inside the cooking chamber.
However, Kim teaches the controller configured to measure volume using a first captured image taken at the first position and a second captured image taken at the second position using the camera module (“In some embodiments, when photographing the dishes 500 moving along the conveyor belt 270, the photographing unit 250 of the food measuring apparatus 200 may acquire depth data in addition to image data, even if it includes a single camera. I can. Using a single photographing unit 250, when the dishes 500 are in the first position on the conveyor belt 270 and when the dishes 500 are moved on the conveyor belt 270 and are in the second position, respectively This is because it is possible to obtain the same effect as that of photographing the stopped dishes 500 using the photographing unit 250 including a plurality of cameras” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image3.png
428
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the controller configured to measure volume using a first captured image taken at the first position and a second captured image taken at the second position using the camera module as is taught in Kim, in the cooking appliance disclosed by Matarazzi because Kim teaches that the process will enable a single camera to accomplish the measurement typically requiring a plurality of cameras. Matarazzi states “The three-dimensional scanning system 106 preferably uses two monochromatic infrared (IR) cameras” (paragraph [0043]). Therefore, including the teachings of Kim will reduce the number of required cameras to carry out the measurement.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein the first position is a position at which the sliding part is extended farthest from the main body outside the cooking chamber, wherein the second position is a position at which the rack is accommodated inside the cooking chamber.
However, Sones teaches wherein the first position and second position are well separated (“The accuracy of the height calculation may be increased by, for example, increasing the offset distance between the cameras” paragraph [0060]).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Sones, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the first position and second position are well separated as is taught in Sones, in the cooking appliance as presently modified because Sones teaches that the offset distance between measurements improves accuracy of the calculation of dimension. In the case of Matarazzi as modified, maximizing the distance between measurements would involve measurement at an outermost position outside of the oven and an innermost position within the oven.
Regarding claim 4, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, disclose the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the controller estimates a height of the cooking food using the first captured image (“the photographing unit 250 capable of obtaining depth data, height information (three-dimensional distance data) for each pixel is included in the food image data as depth data. It can be used to calculate the volume of each food” taught by Kim) based on the door being open and the sliding part being positioned at the first position (As modified).
Regarding claim 8, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, disclose the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the controller measures the volume based on an image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image (“calculating the volume of food by calculating the volume of food by using height information of each pixel of an image photographed through a stereo camera” taught by Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Matarazzi discloses a cooking appliance comprising:
a main body (“an oven 101” paragraph [0028]);
a cooking chamber provided with an open surface inside the main body and including a plurality of stages supporting a position of a rack configured to accommodate a cooking food (“the shelf 105, also referred to as dripping pan 105 or baking pan 105, can be inserted into the cavity 102 at five different heights, defined by respective horizontal guides 103 on the left and right sides of the cavity 102” paragraph [0031]);
a door installed on the open surface of the main body (“Of course, the oven 101 is provided with a door that can be opened/closed to allow access to the inside of the confined volume of the heated cavity 102” paragraph [0037]);
a camera module provided above the cooking chamber and including a camera configured to photograph the position of the rack on which the cooking food is accommodated inside the cooking chamber (“the three-dimensional scanning system 106 comprises at least one image sensor” paragraph [0041]);
a sliding part provided between the cooking chamber and the rack and configured to support the rack so as to be movable between a first position outside the cooking chamber and a second position inside the cooking chamber (“The oven 101 comprises, inside the heated cavity 102, a plurality of supporting means 103, i.e. a plurality of horizontal guides 103, which define support planes for a shelf 105 that can be inserted into the cavity 102” paragraph [0030]); and
a display configured to display a cooking process of the cooking food, wherein a volume of the cooking food is displayed in the display or transferred to a smartphone (“the device 602 may be a processing and display device through which all or some of the information can be processed as described with reference to the processing means 401, while also displaying the information provided by the oven 101, preferably in the form of an “app”. In this embodiment, the processing means 401 are at least partially external to the oven 101, in particular at least partially comprised in the device 602” paragraph [0072]), and wherein the volume of the cooking food is measured by using a first captured image taken at a first position using the camera module (“the processing means 401 incorporate three-dimensional scan processing means for the information acquired by the three-dimensional scanning system 106. The processing means 401 are further operationally connected to a memory 402” paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and “The memory 402 comprises reference three-dimensional scan information, which allows the three-dimensional scan processing means to obtain information about the shape and/or volume of the food 201, as previously described with reference to the sensor 106” paragraph [0053]).
Matarazzi does not disclose wherein the volume of the cooking food is measured by using a first captured image taken at the first position outside the cooking chamber and a second captured image taken at the second position inside the cooking chamber using the camera module.
However, Kim teaches wherein the volume of the cooking food is measured by using a first captured image taken at the first position and a second captured image taken at the second position using the camera module (“In some embodiments, when photographing the dishes 500 moving along the conveyor belt 270, the photographing unit 250 of the food measuring apparatus 200 may acquire depth data in addition to image data, even if it includes a single camera. I can. Using a single photographing unit 250, when the dishes 500 are in the first position on the conveyor belt 270 and when the dishes 500 are moved on the conveyor belt 270 and are in the second position, respectively This is because it is possible to obtain the same effect as that of photographing the stopped dishes 500 using the photographing unit 250 including a plurality of cameras” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the volume of the cooking food is measured by using a first captured image taken at the first position and a second captured image taken at the second position using the camera module as is taught in Kim, in the cooking appliance disclosed by Matarazzi because Kim teaches that the process will enable a single camera to accomplish the measurement typically requiring a plurality of cameras. Matarazzi states “The three-dimensional scanning system 106 preferably uses two monochromatic infrared (IR) cameras” (paragraph [0043]). Therefore, including the teachings of Kim will reduce the number of required cameras to carry out the measurement.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, does not disclose wherein the first position is outside the cooking chamber, wherein the second position is inside the cooking chamber.
However, Sones teaches wherein the first position and second position are well separated (“The accuracy of the height calculation may be increased by, for example, increasing the offset distance between the cameras” paragraph [0060]).
In view of the teachings of Sones, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the first position and second position are well separated as is taught in Sones, in the cooking appliance as presently modified because Sones teaches that the offset distance between measurements improves accuracy of the calculation of dimension. In the case of Matarazzi as modified, maximizing the distance between measurements would involve measurement at an outermost position outside of the oven and an innermost position within the oven.
Regarding claim 17, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 16, wherein the measurement of the cooking food is performed by a controller (“the processing means 401 incorporate three-dimensional scan processing means for the information acquired by the three-dimensional scanning system 106. The processing means 401 are further operationally connected to a memory 402” paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and “The memory 402 comprises reference three-dimensional scan information, which allows the three-dimensional scan processing means to obtain information about the shape and/or volume of the food 201, as previously described with reference to the sensor 106” paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 17, wherein the controller measures the volume based on an image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image (“calculating the volume of food by calculating the volume of food by using height information of each pixel of an image photographed through a stereo camera” taught by Kim).
Claims 5-7, 10, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matarazzi, in view of Kim, in view of Sones, and further in view of Wynn (US 20200151861 A1), hereinafter Wynn.
Regarding claims 5-7, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, disclose the cooking appliance of claim 4.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose:
wherein the height of the cooking food is estimated using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module at a position at which the sliding part is extended out farthest from the main body;
wherein the controller estimates an area of the cooking food based on the sliding part being accommodated inside the cooking chamber, and closing of the door being detected after the height is estimated;
wherein the controller measures the volume using the estimated height and area of the cooking food.
However, Wynn teaches:
wherein the height is estimated using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module (“the captured images from different cameras positioned at different angles, may be combined with trigonometric formulae to determine a height profile of the applied adhesive” paragraph [0049] and “In some embodiments, the second camera is the first camera, where the first camera can capture an additional image when the component is at a second position (e.g., the component may move along an assembly line) so that the additional image is taken from a different angle than the first image” paragraph [0060]);
wherein the controller estimates an area (“the image analysis module may determine the aforementioned fluorescence characteristics (e.g. location, fluorescence level, shape, area)” paragraph [0043]);
wherein the controller measures the volume using the estimated height and area (“the height profile may be integrated with the dimensions of the adhesive to determine a volume of applied adhesive” paragraph [0049]).
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose using the images of the height and area of the object to estimate volume. Wynn teaches using the images of height and area of the object to estimate volume. The substitution of one known process (the volume estimation process of Matarazzi or Kim) for another (the volume estimation process of Wynn) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the process taught in Wynn would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing an estimation of volume Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Matarazzi discloses a control method of a cooking appliance including a main body (“an oven 101” paragraph [0028]) including a cooking chamber in which a door is installed (“Of course, the oven 101 is provided with a door that can be opened/closed to allow access to the inside of the confined volume of the heated cavity 102” paragraph [0037]), a camera module provided above the cooking chamber and including a camera (“the three-dimensional scanning system 106 comprises at least one image sensor” paragraph [0041]) configured to photograph a position of a rack on which a cooking food is accommodated inside the cooking chamber (“the shelf 105, also referred to as dripping pan 105 or baking pan 105, can be inserted into the cavity 102 at five different heights, defined by respective horizontal guides 103 on the left and right sides of the cavity 102” paragraph [0031]), and a sliding part provided between the cooking chamber and the rack and configured to support the rack so as to be movable between a first position outside the cooking chamber and a second position inside the cooking chamber (“The oven 101 comprises, inside the heated cavity 102, a plurality of supporting means 103, i.e. a plurality of horizontal guides 103, which define support planes for a shelf 105 that can be inserted into the cavity 102” paragraph [0030]), the method comprising:
obtaining a first captured image taken at the first position using the camera module;
estimating the volume of the cooking food (“the processing means 401 incorporate three-dimensional scan processing means for the information acquired by the three-dimensional scanning system 106. The processing means 401 are further operationally connected to a memory 402” paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and “The memory 402 comprises reference three-dimensional scan information, which allows the three-dimensional scan processing means to obtain information about the shape and/or volume of the food 201, as previously described with reference to the sensor 106” paragraph [0053]).
Matarazzi does not disclose:
obtaining the first captured image taken at the first position outside the cooking chamber;
obtaining a second captured image taken at the second position inside the cooking chamber using the camera module;
estimating a height of the cooking food using the first captured image, estimating an area of the cooking food using the second captured image, and estimating the volume of the cooking food;
wherein estimating the height of the cooking food includes estimating the height using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module at a position at which the sliding part is extended out farthest from the main body.
However, Kim teaches, the method comprising:
obtaining the first captured image taken at the first position;
obtaining a second captured image taken at the second position using the camera module;
estimating a height of the cooking food using the first captured image, and estimating the volume of the cooking food (“In some embodiments, when photographing the dishes 500 moving along the conveyor belt 270, the photographing unit 250 of the food measuring apparatus 200 may acquire depth data in addition to image data, even if it includes a single camera. I can. Using a single photographing unit 250, when the dishes 500 are in the first position on the conveyor belt 270 and when the dishes 500 are moved on the conveyor belt 270 and are in the second position, respectively This is because it is possible to obtain the same effect as that of photographing the stopped dishes 500 using the photographing unit 250 including a plurality of cameras” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include:
obtaining the first captured image taken at the first position;
obtaining a second captured image taken at the second position;
estimating a height of the cooking food using the first captured image, and estimating the volume of the cooking food as is taught in Kim, in the method disclosed by Matarazzi because Kim teaches that the process will enable a single camera to accomplish the measurement typically requiring a plurality of cameras. Matarazzi states “The three-dimensional scanning system 106 preferably uses two monochromatic infrared (IR) cameras” (paragraph [0043]). Therefore, including the teachings of Kim will reduce the number of required cameras to carry out the measurement.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, does not disclose:
the first position outside the cooking chamber;
the second position inside the cooking chamber;
estimating an area of the cooking food using the second captured image, wherein estimating the height of the cooking food includes estimating the height using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module at a position at which the sliding part is extended out farthest from the main body.
However, Sones teaches wherein the first position and second position are well separated (“The accuracy of the height calculation may be increased by, for example, increasing the offset distance between the cameras” paragraph [0060]).
In view of the teachings of Sones, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the first position and second position are well separated as is taught in Sones, in the cooking appliance as presently modified because Sones teaches that the offset distance between measurements improves accuracy of the calculation of dimension. In the case of Matarazzi as modified, maximizing the distance between measurements would involve measurement at an outermost position outside of the oven and an innermost position within the oven.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose estimating an area of the cooking food using the second captured image, wherein estimating the height of the cooking food includes estimating the height using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module at a position at which the sliding part is extended out farthest from the main body.
However, Wynn teaches estimating an area using the second captured image, wherein estimating the height includes estimating the height using trigonometric function calculation based on an angle from the camera module at the first position (“In some embodiments, the second camera is the first camera, where the first camera can capture an additional image when the component is at a second position (e.g., the component may move along an assembly line) so that the additional image is taken from a different angle than the first image” paragraph [0060] and “the image analysis module may determine the aforementioned fluorescence characteristics (e.g. location, fluorescence level, shape, area)” paragraph [0043] and “the height profile may be integrated with the dimensions of the adhesive to determine a volume of applied adhesive” paragraph [0049]).
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose using the images of the height and area of the object to estimate volume. Wynn teaches using the images of height and area of the object to estimate volume. The substitution of one known process (the volume estimation process of Matarazzi or Kim) for another (the volume estimation process of Wynn) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the process taught in Wynn would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing an estimation of volume Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 14, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, Sones, and Wynn, discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the estimating the volume of the cooking food includes measuring the volume based on an image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image (“calculating the volume of food by calculating the volume of food by using height information of each pixel of an image photographed through a stereo camera” taught by Kim).
Regarding claim 18, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, discloses the cooking appliance of claim 17.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose wherein the controller measures the volume using the estimated height and area of the cooking food.
However, Wynn teaches wherein the controller measures the volume using the estimated height and area of the cooking food (“the height profile may be integrated with the dimensions of the adhesive to determine a volume of applied adhesive” paragraph [0049]).
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim and Sones, does not disclose using the images of the height and area of the object to estimate volume. Wynn teaches using the images of height and area of the object to estimate volume. The substitution of one known process (the volume estimation process of Matarazzi or Kim) for another (the volume estimation process of Wynn) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the process taught in Wynn would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing an estimation of volume Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matarazzi, in view of Kim, in view of Sones, in view of Wynn, and further in view of Araki (JP 2003343853 A), hereinafter Araki.
Regarding claim 11, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, Sones, and Wynn, discloses the method of claim 10, wherein obtaining the first captured image is performed based on the door being open and the rack being placed at the first position (As modified).
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, Sones, and Wynn, does not disclose the rack being detected to be placed at the first position.
However, Araki teaches the rack being detected to be placed at the first position (“When the grill plate 23 is moved to the extended position shown in FIG. 12 by moving the grill plate 23 forward, the actuator 71 is turned on in correspondence with the second position detector 73” All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image5.png
336
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
392
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Akari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include detection of the first position as is taught in Akari, in the method as presently modified because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, Sones teaches that a first position should be an extended position of the rack. A user might manually confirm the position of the rack, but Akari teaches means for automatically confirming an extended position of the rack. Providing this automatic means is not sufficient to distinguish over the applied art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matarazzi, in view of Kim, in view of Sones, in view of Wynn, and further in view of Cheng (US 20170074522 A1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 13, Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, Sones, and Wynn, discloses the method of claim 10, wherein obtaining the second captured image is performed based on the sliding part being accommodated inside the cooking chamber.
Matarazzi, as modified by Kim, Sones, and Wynn, does not disclose closing of the door being detected.
However, Cheng teaches closing of the door being detected (“the cooking appliance can detect placement of food into the cooking appliance. The cooking appliance can execute the cooking recipe in response to detecting the placement of food. For example, the cooking appliance can detect the placement of food by a camera in the cooking appliance, a weight sensor, a temperature probe connected to the cooking appliance, a mechanical connection sensor of a door of the cooking appliance, or any combination thereof” paragraph [0180]).
In view of Cheng’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include detection of the first position as is taught in Cheng, in the method as presently modified because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, Sones teaches that a second position should be an inserted position. A user might manually confirm the position of the rack, but Cheng teaches means for automatically confirming an inserted position. Providing this automatic means is not sufficient to distinguish over the applied art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the controller measures the volume by comparing an image pixel number corresponding to a height of an inner space and a side surface of the cooking chamber with the image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image.” The closest prior art of record to claim 9 is Tamrakar (US 20110182477 A1) which teaches “the volume of each food item needs to be measured with respect to a reference surface, estimation of the table plane is carried out as a pre-requisite step. By inspection of the image, a person skilled in the art would appreciate that, apart from pixels corresponding to food on the plate, most pixels lie on the table plane. Hence, table estimation is performed by employing RANSAC to fit a 3D plane equation on feature points earlier used for camera pose estimation. To obtain better accuracy, points falling on the plate are removed for the purpose of plane fitting by using the boundaries obtained from the plate detection step. Once the table plane has been estimated, it is used to slice the entire point cloud into two portions such that only 3D points above the plane are considered for the purpose of volume estimation” (paragraph [0090]). However, this teaching is not sufficient to make obvious further modification. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claims, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the measuring the volume of the cooking food includes measuring the volume by comparing an image pixel number corresponding to a height of an inner space and a side surface of the cooking chamber with the image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image” and is allowable by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 9, above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the controller measures the volume by comparing an image pixel number corresponding to a height of an inner space and a side surface of the cooking chamber with the image pixel number of the first captured image and the second captured image” and is allowable by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 9, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Luckhardt (US 20110123689 A1) “During insertion, the line laser 13 emits a green, fan-shaped laser line 14 while the camera 7 continuously records product top-views 11”
PNG
media_image7.png
464
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Riefenstein (US 20130302483 A1) “Upon detection of the presence of food product carrier 7 by distance sensor 9, digital optical recognition device 10 is activated (e.g., by a signal received from sensor 9, or directly by controller 12), and digital optical recognition device 10 begins to capture images of food product P during the loading process of food product carrier 7 into cooking chamber 3”
PNG
media_image8.png
384
364
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Luckhardt (US 20150056344 A1) “The proposed method comprises a step of capturing at least one image or picture of the at least one food item placed or to be placed in the chamber. For capturing the at least one image, there may be used a camera arranged in such a way that the image of the food item placed in proper and/or ordinary arrangement and/or alignment within the chamber can be captured by the camera. However, the at least image can also be captured otherwise, in particular prior and/or during inserting the food item into the chamber”
PNG
media_image9.png
554
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Luckhardt (US 20170208652 A1) “during closing and/or opening the oven door 14 multiple images of the cooking chamber 12 and the food stuff 24 are recorded by the camera 18. Since the position of the camera 18 at the oven door handle 16 and the movement path of the oven door 14 are known, the position of the camera 18 in relation to the cooking chamber 12 can be calculated. For example, a door switch may be used for identifying certain opening angles and/or the closed state of the oven door 14. Further, known points and/or structures on the recorded image may be used for calculating the position of the camera 18. For example, the position of a fan cover at the rear side of the cooking chamber 12 may be used. On the basis of the positions of the camera 18 and the images recorded from said positions three-dimensional features of the food stuff 24 inside the cooking chamber 12 are calculated by triangulation of multiple points of the images. In particular, the three-dimensional features of the food stuff 24 are used as parameter for recognizing said food stuff 24”
PNG
media_image10.png
272
690
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Shibusawa (US 20200182610 A1)
PNG
media_image11.png
456
474
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
374
444
media_image12.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights