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 Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 1/2/26 response to the Office Action dated 11/3/25. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1 and 13-14 are amended.
Claims 10 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth claim objection and 112(b) rejection so the objection and rejection are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims 1 and 14 (and their dependents) 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 (lines 6, 8, 11, 13): proximity sensing assembly. The nonce term “assembly” is modified by functional language “proximity sensing”, “defining an upper detection zone and a lower detection zone”, “obtain an upper reading in the upper detection zone”, “obtain a lower proximity reading the lower detection zone”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is either an upper proximity sensor and a lower proximity sensor (as specified in Par. 0033) or a single, multi-zone proximity sensor (as specified in Par. 0034) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 14 (lines 3-4, 7, 9) recites a “proximity sensing assembly” and is therefore interpreted the same way for the same or substantially the same reasons.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN207674507, hereafter Liu) in view of Neal et al. (US 20190301745 A1, hereafter Neal) and Stokes (US 20150371513 A1).
Reference is made to the attached Chinese to English machine translation of Liu ‘507.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (Figs. 1-2 show an appliance), the appliance comprising:
a cooktop (Fig. 1, gas stove 1) positioned at a top of a cabinet (Fig. 1 shows gas stove 1 is positioned at a top of the structure containing second infrared sensor 24 and Par. 0028 discloses the structure containing second infrared sensor 24 is a cabinet: “The second infrared sensor 24 is installed on the cabinet mounting surface”) and comprising one or more heating elements (Par. 0006, “fire hazards caused when a young child approaches a gas stove”. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the stove must comprise at least one heating element to generate heat. It’s further noted that this heat causes the fire hazard that the reference is concerned about);
a proximity sensing assembly (Fig. 1, first infrared sensor 22, second infrared sensor 24. Examiner notes the corresponding structure for this limitation is an upper proximity sensor and a lower proximity sensor or a single, multi-zone proximity sensor and its equivalents, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above. Given first infrared sensor 22 is located above second infrared sensor 24, first infrared sensor 22 is an ‘upper proximity sensor’ and second infrared sensor 24 is a ‘lower proximity sensor’. Therefore, first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 24 read on this limitation) defining an upper detection zone (Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground”) and a lower detection zone (Par. 0028, “The second infrared sensor 24 is installed on the cabinet mounting surface below the gas stove 1 at a height of 0.3m from the ground”); and
a controller (Fig. 1, controller 3) in operative communication with the proximity sensing assembly (Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first and second infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”), the controller being configured to:
obtain an upper proximity reading in the upper detection zone using the proximity sensing assembly (Par. 0028, as cited above and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”);
obtain a lower proximity reading in the lower detection zone using the proximity sensing assembly (Par. 0028, as cited above and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”); and
implement a responsive action based on a combination of the upper proximity reading and the lower proximity reading (Par. 0009, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to close (i.e., responsive action) when first infrared sensor 22 reads a signal and second infrared sensor 24 does not receive a signal or Par. 0010, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to open (i.e., responsive action) when the first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 24 receive a signal), wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking the cooktop (Par. 0034, which discloses when the solenoid valve closes, the child safety stove is locked).
However, Liu does not explicitly disclose an oven appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, the oven appliance comprising:
a cabinet defining a cooking chamber, and
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door.
Neal discloses a range (Fig. 1 and Par. 0029) similar to the present invention and Neal further discloses it is known to have an oven appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (Fig. 1, range 10, which contains oven 18), the oven appliance comprising:
a cabinet (Fig. 1, portion of range 10 that contains oven 18, oven door 20, and storage drawer 26. A cabinet is a case or cupboard usually having doors, therefore the portion of range 10 that contains oven 18, oven door 20, and storage drawer 26 is a ‘cabinet’) defining a cooking chamber (Par. 0029, “oven 18 defining a cooking cavity accessed via an oven door 20”); and
a cooktop comprising one or more heating elements (Par. 0029, “a stovetop or cooktop 14 including a plurality of cooktop burners 16”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the appliance of Liu to be a range as disclosed by Neal in order to have a stove and an oven and thereby decrease cooking times by allowing a user to stir fry and bake food simultaneously.
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door.
Stokes discloses an oven (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Stokes further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0021 and claim 6, controller 154) to be configured to implement a responsive action (Claim 6, which discloses the controller engages the door lock in response to a fire (i.e., responsive action)), wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door (Claim 6, “wherein the controller is further configured for containing the fire by engaging the door lock”).
NOTE: Similar to Liu, Stokes also discloses the controller impedes the operation of the heating element by interrupting its energy source (Claim 14, “the controller is further configured for containing the fire by disconnecting the heating element from the energy source”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Liu, as modified above, to have the capabilities of the same of Stokes in order to have a responsive action that comprises locking an oven door and thereby protect the child from injury caused by accessing the cooking chamber (As suggested by Par. 0034 of Stokes: “Locking door 108 prevents the user from accessing cooking chamber 104 and being injured”). To elaborate, this is especially useful in situations where the inside of the cooking chamber is hot, such as if a fire is inside the cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the proximity sensing assembly (From Liu: Fig. 1, first infrared sensor 22, second infrared sensor 24) comprises an upper proximity sensor (From Liu: Fig. 1, first infrared sensor 22) positioned proximate a top of the cabinet (From Liu: Fig. 1 and Par. 0028, as explained in claim 1) for monitoring the upper detection zone (From Liu: Fig. 1 and Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground”) and a lower proximity sensor (Fig. 1, second infrared sensor 24) positioned proximate a bottom of the cabinet for monitoring the lower detection zone (From Liu: Fig. 1 and Par. 0028, “The second infrared sensor 24 is installed on the cabinet mounting surface below the gas stove 1 at a height of 0.3m from the ground”).
Regarding claim 5, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1.
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose the proximity sensing assembly comprises at least one of an optical proximity sensor, an acoustic proximity sensor, or a capacitive proximity sensor.
Neal further discloses it is known for a proximity sensor to be an optical sensor (Par. 0039, “proximity sensors such as infrared, ultrasonic or optical sensors or other sensors capable of detecting gestures”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity sensing assembly of Liu, as modified above, to be an optical proximity sensor. Liu, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except Liu, as modified above, discloses the proximity sensor used in the proximity sensing assembly is an infrared sensor. Neal shows that an optical proximity sensor is an equivalent proximity sensor known in the art. Therefore, because the two proximity sensors were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the infrared proximity sensor of Liu, as modified above, with the optical proximity sensor of Neal. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely sensing proximity, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the oven appliance (From Neal: Fig. 1, range 10) is a range (From Neal: Fig. 1, range 10) or a combination of an oven (From Neal: Fig. 1, oven 18) and cooktop (From Neal: Fig. 1, cooktop 14).
Regarding claim 7, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the upper proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is positive (From Liu: Par. 0010, “When an adult approaches the gas stove, they block the signal emitted by the second infrared transmitter, so the second infrared sensor does not receive the signal.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result), the lower proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is positive (From Liu: Par. 0010, “However, at the same time, the adult also blocks the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter, so the first infrared sensor does not receive the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result), and implementing the responsive action (From Liu: Par. 0009, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to close (i.e., responsive action) when first infrared sensor 22 reads a signal and second infrared sensor 27 does not receive a signal and Par. 0010, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to open (i.e., responsive action) when the first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 27 receive a signal) comprises:
enabling full functionality or normal operation (From Liu: Par. 0010, “At this time, the second and first infrared sensors are triggered, and they transmit the signals to the controller. The controller then controls the solenoid valve to open.” and Par. 0012, “opens the solenoid valve on the gas inlet pipe of the gas stove, allowing the adult to start the gas stove and make it run normally.”) of the oven appliance (From Neal: Fig. 1, range 10).
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified above, discloses the appliance of claim 7, wherein enabling full functionality or normal operation (From Liu: Par. 0010, “At this time, the second and first infrared sensors are triggered, and they transmit the signals to the controller. The controller then controls the solenoid valve to open.” and Par. 0012, “opens the solenoid valve on the gas inlet pipe of the gas stove, allowing the adult to start the gas stove and make it run normally.”) of the oven appliance (From Neal: Fig. 1, range 10) comprises at least one of allowing oven control (Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Neal explained in claim 1. To elaborate, given modified Liu discloses a range with a cooktop and an oven, opening the solenoid valve of Liu will allow gas to the cooktop and oven of modified Liu and thereby allow oven control) or allowing cooktop control (From Liu: Par. 0012, “opens the solenoid valve on the gas inlet pipe of the gas stove, allowing the adult to start the gas stove and make it run normally.”).
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the upper proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is negative (From Liu: Par. 0009, “If the child is not tall enough, the child cannot block the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter, so the first infrared sensor will receive the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result that indicates the absence of a person which is a ‘negative’ result) and the lower proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is positive (From Liu: Par. 0009, “When a child approaches the gas stove, if the child blocks the signal emitted by the second infrared transmitter, the second infrared sensor will not receive the signal emitted by the second infrared transmitter.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result), and implementing the responsive action (From Liu: Par. 0009, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to close (i.e., responsive action) when first infrared sensor 22 reads a signal and second infrared sensor 27 does not receive a signal and Par. 0010, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to open (i.e., responsive action) when the first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 27 receive a signal) comprises:
implementing an oven appliance lockout (From Liu: Par. 0009, “At this time, only the second infrared sensor is triggered, and the second infrared sensor sends a signal to the controller, which then controls the solenoid valve to close.” and Par. 0012, “the controller controls the solenoid valve to close, so there is no gas supply to the gas stove and the child cannot start the gas stove. This serves to protect the child.”).
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein implementing the oven appliance lockout (From Liu: Par. 0009, “At this time, only the second infrared sensor is triggered, and the second infrared sensor sends a signal to the controller, which then controls the solenoid valve to close.” and Par. 0012, “the controller controls the solenoid valve to close, so there is no gas supply to the gas stove and the child cannot start the gas stove. This serves to protect the child.”) comprises at least one of disabling a heating element of the one of more heating elements of the cooktop (From Liu: Par. 0006, “fire hazards caused when a young child approaches a gas stove”, as explained in claim 1, and Par. 0012, “the controller controls the solenoid valve to close, so there is no gas supply to the gas stove and the child cannot start the gas stove. This serves to protect the child.”) or providing a user notification (Par. 0034, “When the second infrared sensor 24 is triggered or the pressure sensor 41 does not reach the set threshold, the solenoid valve closes, the child safety stove is locked, and an alarm sounds, achieving a dual protection mechanism to further ensure the safety of young children and prevent them from using the gas stove alone”).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses a method of operating an appliance (Figs. 1-2 show an appliance), a cooktop (Fig. 1, gas stove 1) positioned at a top of the cabinet (Fig. 1 shows gas stove 1 is positioned at a top of the structure containing second infrared sensor 24 and Par. 0028 discloses the structure containing second infrared sensor 24 is a cabinet: “The second infrared sensor 24 is installed on the cabinet mounting surface”) and comprising one or more heating elements (Par. 0006, “fire hazards caused when a young child approaches a gas stove”. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the stove must comprise at least one heating element to generate heat. It’s further noted that this heat causes the fire hazard that the reference is concerned about), and a proximity sensing assembly (Fig. 1, first infrared sensor 22, second infrared sensor 24. Examiner notes the corresponding structure for this limitation is an upper proximity sensor and a lower proximity sensor or a single, multi-zone proximity sensor and its equivalents, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above. Given first infrared sensor 22 is located above second infrared sensor 24, first infrared sensor 22 is an ‘upper proximity sensor’ and second infrared sensor 24 is a ‘lower proximity sensor’. Therefore, first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 24 read on this limitation) defining an upper detection zone (Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground”) and a lower detection zone (Par. 0028, “The second infrared sensor 24 is installed on the cabinet mounting surface below the gas stove 1 at a height of 0.3m from the ground”), the method comprising:
obtaining an upper proximity reading in the upper detection zone using the proximity sensing assembly (Par. 0028, as cited above and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”);
obtaining a lower proximity reading in the lower detection zone using the proximity sensing assembly (Par. 0028, as cited above and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”); and
implementing a responsive action based on a combination of the upper proximity reading and the lower proximity reading (Par. 0009, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to close (i.e., responsive action) when first infrared sensor 22 reads a signal and second infrared sensor 27 does not receive a signal or Par. 0010, which discloses the controller commands the solenoid valve to open (i.e., responsive action) when the first infrared sensor 22 and second infrared sensor 27 receive a signal), , wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking the cooktop (Par. 0034, which discloses when the solenoid valve closes, the child safety stove is locked).
However, Liu does not disclose operating an oven appliance, the oven appliance comprising a cabinet defining a cooking chamber, and
wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door.
Neal discloses a range (Fig. 1 and Par. 0029) similar to the present invention and Neal further discloses it is known to have an oven appliance (Fig. 1, range 10, which contains oven 18), the oven appliance comprising a cabinet (Fig. 1, portion of range 10 that contains oven 18, oven door 20, and storage drawer 26. A cabinet is a case or cupboard usually having doors, therefore the portion of range 10 that contains oven 18, oven door 20, and storage drawer 26 is a ‘cabinet’) defining a cooking chamber (Par. 0029, “oven 18 defining a cooking cavity accessed via an oven door 20”); and
a cooktop comprising one or more heating elements (Par. 0029, “a stovetop or cooktop 14 including a plurality of cooktop burners 16”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the appliance of Liu to be a range as disclosed by Neal in order to have a stove and an oven and thereby decrease cooking times by allowing a user to stir fry and bake food simultaneously.
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door.
Stokes discloses an oven (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Stokes further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0021 and claim 6, controller 154) to be configured to implement a responsive action (Claim 6, which discloses the controller engages the door lock in response to a fire (i.e., responsive action)), wherein implementing the responsive action comprises locking an oven door (Claim 6, “wherein the controller is further configured for containing the fire by engaging the door lock”).
NOTE: Similar to Liu, Stokes also discloses the controller impedes the operation of the heating element by interrupting its energy source (Claim 14, “the controller is further configured for containing the fire by disconnecting the heating element from the energy source”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Liu, as modified above, to have the capabilities of the same of Stokes in order to have a responsive action that comprises locking an oven door and thereby protect the child from injury caused by accessing the cooking chamber (As suggested by Par. 0034 of Stokes: “Locking door 108 prevents the user from accessing cooking chamber 104 and being injured”). To elaborate, this is especially useful in situations where the inside of the cooking chamber is hot, such as if a fire is inside the cooking chamber.
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 10 above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 10 above.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN207674507, hereafter Liu) in view of Neal et al. (US 20190301745 A1, hereafter Neal) and further in view of Morris et al. (US 20230134081 A1, hereafter Morris).
Regarding claim 3, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1.
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the proximity sensing assembly is a multi-zone proximity sensor.
Morris discloses an oven appliance (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Morris further discloses it is known for a proximity sensing assembly (Fig. 2, camera 158 and Par. 0041, “According to exemplary embodiments, the camera may capture one or more still images, one or more video clips, a live stream, or any other suitable type and number of images suitable for analysis of the cooking operation. It should be appreciated that the images obtained by the camera may vary in number, frequency, angle, resolution, detail, etc. in order to improve the clarity of the cooking chamber and/or the food item(s)”. Examiner notes the corresponding structure for this limitation is an upper proximity sensor and a lower proximity sensor or a single, multi-zone proximity sensor and its equivalents, as described in the Claim Interpretation section above. Given camera 158 views a first zone 156 and second zone 157, it is a ‘multi-zone sensor’ (See Par. 0037). In addition, given camera 158 can view a live stream of the food, it can monitor the proximity of food over time, and is therefore a ‘proximity sensor’. Therefore, camera 158 reads on this limitation) to be a multi-zone proximity sensor (Fig. 2, camera 158, Par. 0041, and Par. 0037, as explained above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity sensing assembly of Liu, as modified above, to be a multi-zone proximity sensor as disclosed by Morris in order to reduce the number of parts in the oven appliance and thereby decrease associated costs and/or complexity. Furthermore, making integral was held to be a matter of obvious engineering choice when it involved the use of a one piece construction instead of a structure with several parts. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1.
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
adjust the upper detection zone and the lower detection zone.
Morris discloses an oven appliance (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Morris further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0038, controller 140) to be configured to:
adjust an upper detection zone (Fig. 3, top left instance of zone 154) and a lower detection zone (Fig. 3, bottom left instance of zone 154. Par. 0038, “Controller 140 may then split the first zone 156 into two smaller zones and monitor each of the smaller zones individually. Accordingly, each of the plurality of zones 154 may be dynamically provided and may change size throughout a cooking operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Liu, as modified above, to include the capabilities of the controller as disclosed by Morris in order to change the size of the upper and lower detection zones and thereby finely tune the zones for increased detection accuracy (As suggested by Par. 0038 of Morris: “Advantageously, a more accurate prediction of doneness of the food item 152 may be generated by analyzing more finely tuned areas of cooking”) and less risk of false positive/negatives for increased user satisfaction and/or convenience. Furthermore, adjustability is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(D).
Claims 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN207674507, hereafter Liu) in view of Neal et al. (US 20190301745 A1, hereafter Neal) and further in view of Pattarello et al. (US 20210071347 A1, hereafter Pattarello).
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the upper proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is positive (From Liu: Par. 0010, “When an adult approaches the gas stove, they block the signal emitted by the second infrared transmitter, so the second infrared sensor does not receive the signal.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result), the lower proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) is positive (From Liu: Par. 0010, “However, at the same time, the adult also blocks the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter, so the first infrared sensor does not receive the signal emitted by the first infrared transmitter.” Examiner notes the sensor detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result) and the controller (From Liu: Fig. 1, controller 3) is in operative communication with the proximity sensing assembly (From Liu: Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first and second infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”).
However, Liu, as modified above, does not disclose the controller is further configured to:
determine that the upper proximity reading transitions from positive to negative while the lower proximity reading remains positive, and wherein implementing the responsive action comprises enabling an adult kneeling mode.
Pattarello discloses a solution to the problem of how to configure a control unit to turn on an internal light when a user visually checks the condition of items within an laundry appliance (Par. 0109), similar to the problem of how to configure a controller turn on an internal light when a user visually checks the condition of items within an oven in the present invention. Pattarello further discloses it is known for a controller (Par. 0106, “As mentioned above, upon reception of the user presence/absence data (i.e., the indication, as determined by the processing unit 315, about the presence or absence of the user near the laundry appliance 100 and/or, when provided, his/her posture), the control unit 155 is configured to control the laundry appliance 100 accordingly”) to be configured to:
determine a upper proximity reading (annotated Fig. A, upper proximity reading and Par. 0082, “the electric signal generated by capacitive coupling between the conductive element 160 and any at least partially conductive body (see the thin curves 4502 in FIG. 4 schematizing the electric field lines that start at the conductive element 160 and end at the human body of the user, and resulting in said electric signal) are received and analyzed by the processing unit 315 for deriving information about the presence or absence of the user near the laundry appliance 100, and this information about the presence or absence of the user near the laundry appliance 100 (i.e., the user presence/absence data) is provided to the main control circuitry 430 for controlling the operation of the laundry appliance 100 (as detailed in the following)”) transitions from positive to negative (Pars 0098-0100, 0104-0105. Examiner notes that when the user crouches, the electrical signal changes from being higher than VREF1 (i.e., positive test result for user’s presence in an upper proximity zone) to lower than VREF1 but higher than VREF2 (i.e., negative test result for user’s presence in the upper proximity zone). See Par. 0106, as cited above) while a lower proximity reading (annotated Fig. A, lower proximity reading) remains positive (Pars 0098-0100, 0104-0105. Examiner notes that when the user crouches, the electrical signal is lower than VREF1 but higher than VREF2 (i.e., positive test result for user’s presence in a lower proximity zone). See Par. 0106, as cited above), and wherein implementing a responsive action comprises enabling an adult kneeling mode (Par. 0109, “Additionally or alternatively to the above, in the example at issue in which the processing unit 315 is configured to determine also whether the user near the laundry appliance 100 is in the crouched posture or in the standing posture, the control unit 155 may be further configured to turn on the drum illumination system when the determined posture taken by the user is the crouched posture (in that, in this scenario, it is assumed that the user in the crouched posture is interested in visually checking the laundry load in the drum 110)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Upper proximity reading)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Lower proximity reading)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper proximity zone)][AltContent: textbox (Lower proximity zone)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Pattarello showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Liu, as modified above, to include the capabilities of the controller as disclosed by Pattarello in order to determine that the user is visually checking items within the oven appliance and thereby make it easier and/or more convenient for the user to visually check the conditions inside the oven appliance by turning on a light when the user is kneeling or crouched in front of the oven appliance (As suggested by Par. 0033 of Pattarello: “The control unit is advantageously configured to turn on the illumination system when the determined posture taken by the user near the appliance is the crouched posture.”)
Regarding claim 12, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 11, wherein determining that the upper proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the first…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) transitions from positive to negative (From Pattarello: Pars 0098-0100, 0104-0105, as explained in claim 11) while the lower proximity reading (From Liu: Par. 0028, “The first infrared sensor 22 is installed on the wall above the gas stove 1 at a height of 1.4m from the ground” and Par. 0007, “The output signals of the second…infrared sensors are connected to the input signals of the controller”) remains positive (From Pattarello: Pars 0098-0100, 0104-0105, as explained in claim 11) comprises:
determining that the upper proximity reading is negative (From Pattarello: Pars 0098-0100, 0104-0105. Examiner notes that when the user crouches, the electrical signal is lower than VREF1 but higher than VREF2 (i.e., negative test result for user’s presence in the upper proximity zone). See Par. 0106, as cited in claim 11).
However, Lin, as modified above, does not disclose determining that the upper proximity reading was positive within a prior predetermined time period.
Pattarello further discloses it is known for the controller (Par. 0106, “As mentioned above, upon reception of the user presence/absence data (i.e., the indication, as determined by the processing unit 315, about the presence or absence of the user near the laundry appliance 100 and/or, when provided, his/her posture), the control unit 155 is configured to control the laundry appliance 100 accordingly”) to determine that a proximity reading was positive (Par. 0106, presence. Examiner notes the control unit detects a test result indicating the presence of a person which is a ‘positive’ result) within a prior predetermined time period (Par. 0106, “the actions taken by the control unit 155 in the presence control mode (and discussed in greater detail here below) are protracted for a predetermined time interval or window after the processing unit 315 assesses a passage from presence to absence of the user near the laundry appliance 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Lin, as modified above, to include the capabilities of the controller as disclosed by Pattarello in order to keep the oven light on for a prior predetermined time range and thereby ensure the user is easily and/or effectively able to visually check the conditions inside the oven appliance. To elaborate, if the oven light automatically turned off immediately after the upper proximity reading became negative, the user would probably be unable to easily and/or effectively visually check the conditions inside the oven appliance, especially if the user was elderly.
Regarding claim 13, Liu, as modified above, discloses the oven appliance of claim 11, wherein enabling the adult kneeling mode (From Pattarello: Par. 0109, “Additionally or alternatively to the above, in the example at issue in which the processing unit 315 is configured to determine also whether the user near the laundry appliance 100 is in the crouched posture or in the standing posture, the control unit 155 may be further configured to turn on the drum illumination system when the determined posture taken by the user is the crouched posture (in that, in this scenario, it is assumed that the user in the crouched posture is interested in visually checking the laundry load in the drum 110)”) comprises at least one of turning on an oven light (From Pattarello: Par. 0109, “turn on the drum illumination system when the determined posture taken by the user is the crouched posture” Examiner notes this limitation is necessarily met after the modification with Neal explained in claim 1. To elaborate, given Liu in view of Neal discloses an oven, further modifying Liu to include turning on an appliance light as disclosed by Pattarello will result in modified Liu turning on an oven light).
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 11 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 12 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 12 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bauer et al. (US 20220065460 A1) discloses implementing a responsive action comprises locking an oven door.
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 Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762