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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant is thanked for their April 10, 2026 response to the Office Action filed February 13, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 2, 15, and 17 have been amended and claims 6 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2 and 15 have overcome the previous objections and those objections are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 with regards to the amended claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the cited references fail to teach newly amended independent claim 1, since Klein fails to teach requesting a confidential security passcode. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous Office Action relied upon Ferguson to teach all of the limitations of claims 6 and 19 except for “requesting a passcode”, including the teaching by Ferguson of requiring a passcode prior to modifying or disabling the access control mode. Klein was included to explicitly teach the step of requesting a passcode, and particularly teaches an interpretation wherein requesting a passcode includes prompting the user to enter a passcode. However, although it was stated that Ferguson does not explicitly teach requesting a passcode, it is nevertheless implicit in the disclosure of Ferguson. In requiring a passcode to continue (as at step 532 in Fig 5) prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode (see paragraph [0056] where the user is required to enter a passkey to reset the range in order to cook again), the method of Ferguson is implicitly requesting a passcode. Ferguson also discloses that the passcode is confidential and known only to supervisory users of the oven appliance (paragraph [0056] discloses using a passkey or predetermined sequence of keys and paragraph [0095] discloses using a personal identification number, password, etc. and that the caretaker’s password is unknown to others). Therefore, the limitations of amended claim 1 are disclosed by Ferguson. The current rejection set forth herein thus now relies on the implicit teachings of Ferguson rather than the additional, explicit teachings of Klein. Examiner further notes that, even where an explicit teaching of “requesting a passcode” is desired, or the narrower interpretation of requesting a passcode from a user by prompting the user to enter the passcode, this limitation is further taught by Klein, as discussed in the previous rejection.
Similar reasoning also applies to independent claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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]);
receiving a request to disable or modify the access control mode (paragraph [0056] once access control mode is activated, user performs a reset to disable access control mode); and
requesting a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode, the passcode being confidential and known only to supervisory users of the oven appliance (paragraph [0056] passkey or predetermined sequence of keys is required to reset, also paragraph [0095] on-demand settings may be deactivated with a personal identification number or a password known only to a caretaker).
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);
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]);
receiving a request to disable or modify the access control mode (paragraph [0056] once access control mode is activated, user performs a reset to disable access control mode); and
requesting a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode, the passcode being confidential and known only to supervisory users of the oven appliance (paragraph [0056] passkey or predetermined sequence of keys is required to reset, also paragraph [0095] on-demand settings may be deactivated with a personal identification number or a password known only to a caretaker).
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 convection heating is disabled or step 180 delay-start is disabled);
receiving a request to disable or modify the access control mode (Fig 3 step 163, user deactivates holiday mode; paragraph [0017]); and
requesting a passcode prior to disabling or modifying the access control mode, the passcode being confidential and known only to supervisory users of the oven appliance (paragraph [0017] prior to disabling holiday mode, the user must enter a predetermined key sequence; the particular key sequence, or passcode, here referenced, would not be widely or universally known or shared, and is therefore considered to be ‘confidential’ and ‘known only to supervisory users’).
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; which would include preheat notifications).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 2006/0059360 by Ortkiese discloses an access control mode of an oven appliance which limits the operation of the appliance and where a supervisory user must enter a passcode to modify the access control mode.
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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights