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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 line 2, “a user of oven appliance” should read “a user of the oven appliance.”
In claim 15 line 2, “a user interface panel” should read “the user interface panel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4, 8, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0329358 by Ferguson (hereinafter “Ferguson”).
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses a method of operating an oven appliance (Fig 1 electric range 102), the oven appliance comprising a user interface panel (Fig 1 controller 106 with screen 116 and buttons 118), the method comprising:
determining that an access control mode is activated (checks whether appliance is in one of various lock settings such as child safety mode described in paragraph [0040], lockout due to return timer expired as in Fig 5 step 528 and paragraph [0054], a time-based lockout mode as in paragraph [0092], or an on-demand lockout mode as in paragraph [0093] );
detecting a user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 5 step 502, processor checks whether cooking process has been initiated by a user; paragraph [0038]);
determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (user interacts with appliance while appliance is in a locked state/access control mode); and
implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (user is locked out of cooking functions until appliance is unlocked by reset procedure as discussed in paragraph [0056], child safety disabled as discussed in paragraph [0040], time-based lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0092], and/or on-demand lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, Ferguson discloses that the access control mode is activated by a user of the oven appliance using the user interface panel (paragraph [0094], on-demand lockout settings may be activated and deactivated from the user interface buttons).
Regarding claim 4, Ferguson further discloses that the method comprises determining that the access control mode is enabled (access control mode is enabled at step 522 of Fig 5 by disabling the capability of the range to generate heat and starting return timer; paragraph [0051]), determining that a period of inactivity has occurred while the access control mode is enabled (Fig 5 step 528; paragraph [0054]) and activating an access control mode to provide a limited user interaction (Fig 5 step 530; paragraph [0054] and [0056], once the return timer has expired, stove is locked until reset is performed).
Regarding claim 8, Ferguson further discloses that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises limiting at least one of a cooktop or oven operating duration (paragraph [0096], when default cook timer setting is active, controller automatically disables heating functionality when default cook timer expires).
Regarding claim 12, Ferguson discloses that the method further comprises receiving a command to disable or deactivate the access control mode; and commencing normal, unrestricted operation of the oven appliance (Fig 5 step 532; paragraph [0056] access control mode is deactivated by a manual reset command entered at the user interface and cooking is then allowed).
Regarding claim 13, Ferguson further discloses that receiving the command to disable or deactivate the access control mode comprises receiving a passcode or determining that a button was pressed and held for a predetermined amount of time (paragraph [0056] and [0095] deactivating the access control mode, or resetting, may require a passkey).
Regarding claim 14, Ferguson further discloses that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: providing a user notification regarding the user interaction or seeking user confirmation to proceed in accordance with the user interaction (Fig 5 step 530 when return timer is expired notification is sent to a user via cloud server and user must reset to proceed; paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Ferguson discloses an oven appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction (Fig 1 electric range 102), the oven appliance comprising:
a cabinet defining a cooking chamber (Fig 3);
a cooktop positioned at a top of the cabinet and comprising one or more heating elements (Fig 3);
a user interface panel mounted to the cabinet for facilitating user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 1 controller 106 with a user interface including screen 116 and buttons 118; paragraph [0108] controller, including interface panel, may be integrated in the appliance, paragraph [0108]);
and a controller in operative communication with the user interface panel (Fig 1 controller 106), the controller being configured to:
determine that an access control mode is activated (controller checks whether appliance is in one of various lock settings such as child safety mode described in paragraph [0040], lockout due to return timer expired as in Fig 5 step 528 and paragraph [0054], a time-based lockout mode as in paragraph [0092], or an on-demand lockout mode as in paragraph [0093] );
detect a user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 5 step 502, controller checks whether cooking process has been initiated by a user; paragraph [0038]);
determine that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (user interacts with appliance while appliance is in a locked state/access control mode); and
implement a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (user is locked out of cooking functions until appliance is unlocked by either reset procedure as discussed in paragraph [0056], child safety disabled as discussed in paragraph [0040], time-based lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0092], or on-demand lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 18, Ferguson discloses that the controller is further configured to: determine that the access control mode is enabled (Fig 5 step 522, access control mode is enabled by disabling the capability of the range to generate heat and starting return timer; paragraph [0051]); determine that a period of inactivity has occurred while the access control mode is enabled (Fig 5 step 528; paragraph [0054]); and activate the access control mode, the access control mode comprising providing a limited user interface input selection (Fig 5 step 530; paragraph [0054] and [0056], once the return timer has expired, stove is locked until reset is performed).
Regarding claim 20, Ferguson discloses that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: providing a user notification regarding the user interaction or seeking user confirmation to proceed in accordance with the user interaction (Fig 5 step 530 when return timer is expired notification is sent to a user via cloud server and user must reset to proceed; paragraph [0056]).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2003/0066827 by Daum et al (hereinafter “Daum”).
Regarding claim 1, Daum teaches a method of operating an oven appliance (paragraph [0014]), the oven appliance comprising a user interface panel (Fig 2 control panel 120), the method comprising:
determining that an access control mode is activated (Fig 3 step 162 holiday mode is specified);
detecting a user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 3 step 164/166 temperature setting is changed);
determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 164/166 temperature setting is changed, but appliance is in holiday mode or user attempts to use unavailable options such as convection heat or delay-start, paragraph [0021]); and
implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 164/166, wait random time to change temperature and display new setting or step 174 disable convection heating or step 180 disable delay-start) .
Regarding claim 9, Daum teaches that the method comprises disabling an oven preheat notification in response to determining that the access control mode is activated (Fig 3 step 174 disable beeps; paragraph [0021] all beeps, alarms, and warnings are not utilized; note that this would include preheat notification).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of JP 2017090042A by Ishita et al (hereinafter “Ishita”).
Regarding claim 3, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection to Ferguson above). Ferguson further teaches that operations of the oven may be disabled in response to determining that the access control mode is activated (user is locked out of cooking functions until appliance is unlocked by either reset procedure as discussed in paragraph [0056], child safety disabled as discussed in paragraph [0040], time-based lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0092], and/or on-demand lockout settings are disabled as in paragraph [0093]).
Ishita teaches a method of operating a cooking appliance (Fig 1 cooking appliance 61 including top plate 2 and grill chamber 6) having a user interface panel (Fig 1 upper operation unit 3), the method comprising determining that an access control mode has been activated, detecting a user interaction with the appliance, determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode, and implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (paragraph [0032] determines if biometric scan indicates a registered user and controls appliance based on settings associated with registered user; paragraph [0041] settings associated with user may include restriction settings such that a responsive action would include limiting certain operations). Ishita further teaches that the method comprises disabling operations other than quick access cycle options in response to determining that the access control mode is activated (paragraph [0041] appliance may allow access to menu items or certain functions with limited heating power or temperature in the access control/restriction mode, while disabling other functions such as frying).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven appliance of Ferguson by disabling operations of the oven appliance other than quick access cycle options in response to determining that the access control mode is activated. This would allow for the oven to be used in the quick access cycle for certain functions, such as low-heat operations, while disabling more dangerous operations, so that a child or elderly person may still have access to some functions of the oven while more dangerous functions remain locked.
Regarding claim 7, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection to Ferguson above). But Ferguson does not teach that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: limiting at least one of a cooktop power level or an oven cooking temperature.
However, Ishita teaches a method of operating a cooking appliance (Fig 1 cooking appliance 61 including top plate 2 and grill chamber 6) having a user interface panel (Fig 1 upper operation unit 3), the method comprising determining that an access control mode has been activated, detecting a user interaction with the appliance, determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode, and implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (paragraph [0032] determines if biometric scan indicates a registered user and controls appliance based on settings associated with registered user; paragraph [0041] settings associated with user may include restriction settings such that a responsive action would include limiting certain operations). Ishita further teaches that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: limiting a cooktop power level (paragraph [0041] restriction information for a user may include an upper limit of heating power or temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven appliance of Ferguson by making the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode to comprise limiting a cooktop power level, as taught by Ishita. This would prevent users who are not suited for high-temperature cooking, such as children or the elderly from using the appliance at high temperatures when a responsible caregiver is not present.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson.
Regarding claim 5, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection above). Ferguson further teaches that the period of inactivity may be measured by a return timer which can be set to any value between zero and thirty minutes (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson to make the period of inactivity to be between about 3 minutes and 10 minutes. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ferguson, would have found it obvious to choose the period of inactivity to be within the range disclosed by Ferguson, with the motivation of maintaining safe operation when a user may have left the vicinity of the appliance.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of EP 3772234 by Klein et al (hereinafter “Klein”).
Regarding claim 6, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Although Ferguson teaches that the method comprises receiving a request to disable or modify the access control mode and requiring a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode (paragraph [0056] and [0095], user attempts to interact with appliance but deactivating the access control mode, or resetting, may require a passkey), Ferguson does not explicitly teach that the method comprises requesting a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode.
However, Klein teaches a method of operating an oven appliance (paragraph [0004]) wherein the method comprises receiving a request to disable or modify an access control mode (upon receiving a wake-up signal, paragraph [0008]-[0009]) and requesting a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode (paragraph [0014], user is prompted to voice a randomized password in order to access functions of the appliance, paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson by including a step of requesting a passcode in addition to requiring the passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode. Requesting a passcode, for example by prompting the user via a display on the user interface, would inform the user of the appropriate action necessary to proceed, thus making the device more intuitive and user-friendly.
Regarding claim 19, Ferguson teaches the oven appliance of claim 17. Although Ferguson teaches the controller is configured to receive a request to disable or modify the access control mode and requiring a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode (paragraph [0056] and [0095], user attempts to interact with appliance but deactivating the access control mode, or resetting, may require a passkey), Ferguson does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to request a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode.
However, Klein teaches an oven appliance (paragraph [0004]) wherein the oven appliance comprises a controller (Abstract, control unit) configured to receive a request to disable or modify an access control mode (upon receiving a wake-up signal, paragraph [0008]-[0009]) and request a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode (paragraph [0014], user is prompted to voice a randomized password in order to access functions of the appliance, paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oven appliance of Ferguson by configuring the controller to request a passcode, in addition to requiring the passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode. Requesting a passcode, for example by prompting a user via a display on the user interface, would inform the user of the appropriate action necessary to proceed, thus making the device more user-friendly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of US 4,499,368 issued to Payne (hereinafter “Payne).
Regarding claim 10, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Ferguson does not teach that determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: determining that cookware was removed during operation of the oven appliance, and wherein implementing the responsive action comprises providing a user notification that the cookware was removed.
However, Payne teaches an oven appliance (Fig 1 electric range 10) which determines that cookware was removed during operation of the oven appliance and implements a responsive action, the responsive action comprising providing a user notification that the cookware was removed (col 2 line 22-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson by including a step of determining that cookware was removed during operation of the oven appliance and implementing a responsive action of providing a user notification that the cookware was removed, as taught by Payne. This would serve to alert the user and/or other caregivers that the cookware was removed while the appliance was still operating, so that potentially unsafe operations can be monitored, particularly if the oven appliance is used by a child or person having dementia.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of KR 20090102013A by Lee (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 11, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Ferguson does not teach that determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises: determining that a door of the oven appliance was opened during operation of the oven appliance, and wherein implementing the responsive action comprises providing a user notification that the door was opened.
However, Lee teaches an oven appliance (Abstract) which determines that a door of the oven appliance was opened during operation of the oven appliance and implements a responsive action in response to determining that the door was opened during operation of the oven, the responsive action comprising providing a user notification that the door was opened (Abstract, claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson by including a step of determining that the door of the oven appliance was opened during operation of the oven appliance and implementing a responsive action of providing a user notification that the door was opened, as taught by Lee. This would serve to alert the user and/or other caregivers that the door of the oven appliance was opened during operation, so that potentially unsafe operations can be monitored, particularly if the oven appliance is being operated by a child or person having dementia.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of US 2021/0407275 by Cowan (hereinafter “Cowan”).
Regarding claim 15, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 14 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Ferguson does not explicitly teach that a user notification is implemented as a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode and is provided through a user interface panel.
Cowan teaches a method of operating an oven appliance (Fig 1 cooking appliance 10), the oven appliance comprising a user interface panel (Fig 1 controls 11), the method comprising: determining that an access control mode is activated (Fig 3 132/133/134 access control mode would be active when either control lock feature is in locked mode and/or when ignition enable control is off); detecting a user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 3 step 131; paragraph [0033] user activates a burner); determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 133a/134 user activates burner but control lock feature is in locked mode or ignition enable control is off) and implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 135a/135b, alarm activated). Cowan further teaches that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises providing a user notification regarding the user interaction, (Fig 3 step 135a/135b, alarm activated, paragraph [0019]), the user interaction being provided through the user interface panel (Fig 1 alarm 50 shown on user display 13 of user interface panel 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson such that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises providing a user notification regarding the user interaction, the user notification being provided through the user interface panel, as taught by Cowan. This would serve to warn users that an interaction has occurred that is not in compliance and may also alert other nearby responsible people, such as caregivers, that such an interaction has occurred.
Regarding claim 16, Ferguson teaches the method of claim 14 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Ferguson further teaches that a controller of the oven (Fig 1 controller 106) is in operative communication with a remote device through an external network (Fig 1 mobile phone 156; paragraph [0021]), and user notifications are provided through the remote device (Fig 6 step 608 device notification alerts are sent to remote device; paragraph [0067]).
But Ferguson does not explicitly teach that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises providing a user notification regarding the user interaction, such user notification being provided through the remote device.
Cowan teaches a method of operating an oven appliance (Fig 1 cooking appliance 10), the oven appliance comprising a user interface panel (Fig 1 controls 11), the method comprising: determining that an access control mode is activated (Fig 3 132/133/134 access control mode would be active when either control lock feature is in locked mode and/or when ignition enable control is off); detecting a user interaction with the oven appliance (Fig 3 step 131; paragraph [0033] user activates a burner); determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 133a/134 user activates burner but control lock feature is in locked mode or ignition enable control is off) and implementing a responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode (Fig 3 step 135a/135b, alarm activated). Cowan further teaches that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises providing a user notification regarding the user interaction, (Fig 3 step 135a/135b, alarm activated, paragraph [0019]). Cowan further teaches that a controller of the oven appliance (Fig 2 controller 90) is in operative communication with a remote device (Fig 2 user devices 94; paragraph [0030]) through an external network (paragraph [0029]), and wherein the user notification is provided through the remote device (paragraph [0019] alarm 50 may be directed to a mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson such that implementing the responsive action in response to determining that the user interaction is not in compliance with the access control mode comprises providing a user notification regarding the user interaction, the user notification being provided through the remote device, as taught by Cowan. Ferguson teaches sending user notifications to a mobile device, so sending additional notifications in response to a user interaction that is not in compliance with the active access control mode would give the remote user additional information regarding non-compliant attempts to use the appliance. This would allow the remote user to check for potentially dangerous situations and/or to choose to disable the access control mode or adjust settings if desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0100492 by Hodapp et al discloses an oven appliance with a lockout control system wherein a user can activate a lockout device to lock the use of the cooktop and oven unit.
US 2017/0023256 by Bach et al discloses an appliance a user can lock the appliance such that inputs to the user interface are prevented from altering operation of the appliance. Alternatively, the appliance may be locked after a period of inactivity.
US 2023/0383954 by Nobles disclose a stove which must be unlocked using a biometric scanner or keypad prior to using a cooking function or can be remotely enabled. The stove also returns to the locked state if burner controls are not turned on within a predetermined time period.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762