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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Livchak (US 2015/0136430), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Livchak shows:
1. A cooking exhaust hood system, comprising: an exhaust hood 105 adapted to be located over at least one cooking appliance 115; an exhaust fan connected to the exhaust hood, the exhaust fan having a controllable exhaust air flow volume (para. 0049); a camera that monitors a surface of the at least one cooking appliance and provides an image signal representing a visual status of the at least one cooking appliance (para. 0052); an image processing controller connected to an image database, the image processing controller being configured to receive the image signal, compare the visual status of the at least one cooking appliance based on the image signal to stored images in the image database, and output a cooking appliance status signal (para. 0053); an exhaust fan controller connected to the exhaust fan, the exhaust fan controller being configured to receive the cooking appliance status signal and adjust the controllable exhaust air flow volume of the exhaust fan based on the cooking appliance status signal (para. 0050,0059; fig. 2,3).
2. The cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, further comprising a hood fire suppression system configured to be activated by the image processing controller upon the cooking appliance status signal indicating that there is a fire (Abstract; para. 0051,0052).
3. The cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, wherein the image processing controller is trainable to recognize at least one of cooking appliance conditions or food items located on the cooking appliance (Abstract; para. 0051,0052).
4. The cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, wherein the image processing controller is trainable to recognize cleaning equipment (para. 0086).
6. The cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, wherein the exhaust fan controller adjusts the exhaust air flow volume based on a number and type of the at least one cooking appliance being used (inherent, as the number and type of cooking appliance in use would result in different air flow requirements of which Livchak is capable of accommodating).
7. The cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, wherein the exhaust fan controller is configured to control duct or hood mounted dampers (para. 0020,0025,0026,0033,0035,0050,0057,0068-70,0074,0080).
8. A method of controlling a cooking exhaust hood system of claim 1, the method comprising: monitoring the at least one cooking appliance with the camera, and the camera signaling image data on captured images to the image processing controller; comparing the image data for the captured images against images in the database using the image processing controller, the image processing controller generating a cooking appliance status signal; the exhaust fan controller receiving the cooking appliance status signal and adjusting at least one of a fan speed of exhaust fan to increase or decrease the controllable exhaust air flow volume or a damper position based on the cooking appliance status signal (see previous claims).
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising activating a fire suppression system for the cooking exhaust hood upon the cooking appliance status signal indicating a fire on the at least one cooking appliance (see previous claims).
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 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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak (US 2015/0136430) in view of Aalto (EP 0217802).
Livchak discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the exhaust fan configured to adjust a make-up air volume based on the exhaust air flow volume.
Aalto, in the same or related field of endeavor (specifically, exhaust hoods for cooking appliances) teaches that it is known in the art to provide an exhaust fan configured to adjust a make-up air volume based on the exhaust air flow volume (col. 3, line 55 – col. 4, line 24).
Aalto teaches that such an arrangement provides for inhibiting the effect of interference turbulence on the capture efficiency (col. 3, lines 5-30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the above arrangement as taught by Aalto into the invention disclosed by Livchak, so as to provide for increased efficiency.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak (US 2015/0136430) in view of Melink (US 2005/0156053).
Livchak discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the exhaust fan controller configured to signal a make-up air unit to adjust a make-up air volume based on the exhaust air flow volume.
Melink, in the same or related field of endeavor (specifically, exhaust hoods for cooking appliances), teaches that it is known in the art to provide an exhaust fan controller configured to signal a make-up air unit to adjust a make-up air volume based on the exhaust air flow volume (para. 0099).
Melink teaches that such an arrangement provides for adequate performance (para. 0093)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention incorporate the above arrangement as taught by Melink into the invention disclosed by Livchak, so as to provide for adequate performance.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
December 28, 2025
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762