DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the relative ratio of power output” on line 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 10,11 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey et al (US 2022/0151431) in view of Huntley (US 2013/0171304) and Boedicker et al (US 2013/0213951).
Lindsey discloses the method claimed including operating a cooking appliance comprising a cooking chamber (104) and a plurality of heating elements (124, 126, 136) positioned within the cooking chamber (also, see Figure 2) and receiving one or more inputs (via a user interface 128) to initiate a cooking sequence/operation (para 0019-0020). Lindsey further discloses for analyzing capture images in the cooking chamber and, also, finding cooking utensils (i.e., presence of cookware items) in the cooking chamber (para 0040) but does not disclose for determining one or more physical attributes of a cookware, evaluating a relative ratio of power output of the plurality of heating elements, adjusting one or more parameters including at least one of a target temperature of the cooking chambre, the relative ratio of power output or a duty cycle of the plurality of heating elements in response to determining the one or more physical attributes, and initiating the cooking sequence according to one or more adjusted parameters as claimed.
Huntley discloses it is known for a cooking appliance that determines one or more physical attributes (size and type; para 0022 and 0026) of a cookware item wherein an oven temperature (i.e., cooking chamber) is controlled based on the determined size and type of the utensil wherein the determination is made via images captured by a camera (para 0023).
Boedicker discloses it is known for a cooking appliance/chamber having a plurality of heating elements wherein a relative ratio of power outputs of the plurality of heating elements is evaluated or is determined to maintain a desired temperature setpoint of the cooking chamber while also maintaining a total power consumption below the power capacity/source (para 0025 and 0035).
In view of Huntley and Boedicker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Linsey with the cooking operation that includes determining one or more physical attributes of a cookware for controlling or adjusting a parameter such as a desired or target temperature of an oven/cooking chamber temperature in response to the physical attributes of the cookware which enables the cooking appliance to automatically and more conveniently perform and initiate the cooking sequence or operation as desired (also, see para 0005 of Huntley) wherein the relative power output of the plurality of heating element is evaluated or determined to maintain the desired temperature of the cooking chamber as desired as taught by Boedicker.
With respect to claim 11, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses for determining one or more physical attributes of the cookware that comprises receiving an input regarding a surface area size of the cookware which is shown by the determined size (as well as thickness and diameter) of the cooking utensil (also, see para 0026 of Huntley).
With respect to claim 14, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses the plurality of heating elements including a bake heating element (126) and a broil heating element (124) as shown by Linsey
With respect to claim 15, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses for a plurality of heating elements including a convection heating element (136), a convection fan (138) for circulating heated air within the cooking chamber wherein the one or more parameters (e.g., oven temperature) of the cooking sequence/operation is adjusted, and Linsey further discloses for adjusting the speed of the fan between 0% to 100% (para 0017) that further would control achieving the desired or target temperature of the cooking/oven chamber.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses an image capture device (shown by a camera 158 of Lindsey; and also shown by camera 906 of Huntley) wherein the images captured by the image capture device is analyzed and extracted/identified one or more physical attributes from the analysis of the capture image as taught by Huntley (also, see para 0022 and 0023).
With respect to claim 18, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses for generating a user’s profile which includes cooking utensil and cooking data/recipe based on one or more extracted physical attributes (para 0026 of Huntley) of the cookware/utensil wherein the user’s profile including the cooking data/recipe having a cooking temperature data, as a cooking heating profile, associated with the determined cooking utensils/cookware for controlling the cooking temperature/heating profile (para 0022 and 0023) wherein Huntley further discloses for a memory data that stores the data (para 0037 and 0052).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker as applied to claims 10,11 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Bassill et al (US 2019/0353527).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Lindsey in view of Huntley and Boedicker discloses the method claimed including a stove range that is known to have a stove-oven range having a cooktop (see, para 0005 of Huntley) but does not disclose a sensor provided within the cooktop wherein the sensor is configured to determine a ferrous composition of the cookware item.
Bassill discloses it is known to provide a sensor (122) provided in a cooktop (see Figure 1) wherein the sensor is configured to determine a ferrous composition of a cookware/pan (30; also, see para 0035) wherein the sensor is further connected to a controller (150) that controls a temperature setting of the pan based on the type of pan identified or that the pan is made of a ferrous material. Also, see Figure 10.
In view of Bassill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lindsey, as modified by Huntley and Boedicker, with the cooktop having a sensor that is configured to identify the type of cookware that indicates or signals that the cookware is a ferrous material wherein heating elements for heating the cookware can be more accurately controlled based on the identified cookware to more effectively and predictably meet the desired temperature of the cookware as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection including Boedicker which is applied to teach for the newly amended claim recitation of evaluating the relative ratio of power output of the plurality of heating elements as stated in the ground of rejection.
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights