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 1-20 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.
With regard to claim 1, the limitation “a controller configured to determine a temperature change rate “; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the temperature change determination as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 1, the limitation “a controller configured to … determine a surface material of the object”; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the object surface material determination as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 2, the limitation “wherein the controller is further configured to measure the temperature by setting an emissivity” is unclear what structure is being adapted with regard to emissivity? Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 2, the limitation “the controller is configured to measure the temperature”; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the temperature measurement as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 2, the limitation “measure the temperature” is unclear with regard to what structure/element the temperature is being measured. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation “measure the temperature based on”, it is unclear what structure/element the temperature is being measured. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation “measure the temperature based on setting the emissivity” is unclear with regard to what element the emissivity relates to? Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation “measure the temperature based on setting the emissivity” is unclear with regard to how a temperature measurement corresponds to an emissivity that is set? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a temperature change amount”; however, it is unclear what element/structure is being referenced with regard to the temperature change amount? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a height of an area”; however, it is unclear what element/structure is being referenced with regard to the claimed area. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claims 5-6, the claims recite “the height of an area”; however, as indicated with regard to the rejection over claim 4, it is unclear what element/structure is being referenced with regard to the claimed area. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 7, the claim recites “determine a temperature of a load”; however, it is unclear what structural limitation relates to the “load” and/or where the “load” is situated within the device. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites “determine a temperature of a load”; however, it is unclear what structural limitation relates to the “load” and/or where the “load” is situated within the device. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 9, the claim recites “the controller is further configured to estimate a volume of a load in the object based on a height of an area in which a temperature change amount is equal to or greater than a preset reference value”; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the “height of an area” measurement as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a state of a load in the object”; however, it is unclear what “state” and “load” is being referenced with regard to the aforementioned phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the controller is configured to receive a plurality of load state estimation models from a server and output the state of the load”; however, it is unclear what structure is receiving the “state of the load”. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 15, the limitation “the controller is further configured to determine a temperature of a load in the object based on the temperature of the object to be heated and a temperature of the heating portion of the cooking appliance measured by the array sensor”, it is unclear whether the array sensor performs a measurement of both of “temperature of the object” and “a temperature of the heating portion of the cooking appliance” or if the array sensor only performs a measurement of the later item (i.e., “a temperature of the heating portion of the cooking appliance”). Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 16, the limitation of “determine a state of a load in the object” is unclear with regard to the what is meant by “a state of a load”. Additionally, it is unclear how the material of the object would impact a “state of a load”. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 16, the limitation “a controller configured to determine a temperature change rate “; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the temperature change determination as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to claim 16, the limitation “a controller configured to … determine a material of the object”; however, it is unclear what structure is performing the object surface material determination as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “the controller is further configured to determine a height of an area of the object”, it is unclear what structure is performing the height determination of an area as a controller does not include structure explicitly or inherently to perform the aforementioned function. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “the state of the load in an object is determined differently” is unclear with regard to how a determination may be “different’? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “determinate the state of the load in the object based on an output of the at least one load state estimation model”, it is unclear what “state of the load” is being referenced. Appropriate correction is required.
Each of claims 1-20 each recite functional language related to functional steps being performed by the controller. It is respectfully submitted that the language “configured to” does not modify the functional steps being recited in each of the claims, as each of the claims recite functional steps being performed by the controller. Accordingly, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP 2173.05(p) – Claim Directed to Product-By-Process or Product and Process).
Each of claims 1-20 each recite a controller “configured to” perform various functional steps, such as: a determination related to a temperature rate change rate, measure a temperature, a determination regarding height, etc;; however, it is unclear what structural limitations perform each of these functional steps.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stipe et al. (EP 3742052).
With regard to claim 1, Stipe describes a device for measuring temperature (50, FIGS. 1 & 2), the device (50) comprising: at least one array sensor (78) configured to measure a temperature of at least a portion of a surface of an object (object situated on heater 18, FIG. 1; “The infrared sensor 78 can be a 2D optical infrared sensor, and can be used to determine local temperatures on the cooking appliance 12 as thermal maps at predetermined intervals.”, para. [0020]; “Alternatively, the infrared sensor can be arranged as a matrix or grouping of infrared sensors, such as non-optical infrared sensors like a thermopile that uses multiple thermocouples that can generate electrical signals indicative of the local temperatures. Additionally, it is contemplated that the 2D infrared sensor is combined with a 2D camera sensor 74 to develop 3D thermal maps of the cooking appliance 12.”, para. [0020]) to be heated by a cooking appliance (16); and a controller (82, FIG. 3) configured to: determine a temperature change rate based on the temperature (“the infrared sensor 78 can be used to track temperature increases to update the boiling time, as output temperatures from the cooking appliance 12 can vary, while it is contemplated that British Thermal Units (BTUs) or other thermal output rates of the heater 18 can be provided or calculated by the cooking assistance appliance 50, which can also be used to estimate heating and boiling times.”, para. [0068]), and determine a surface material of the object based on the temperature change rate (“different liquids have different boiling points. The type of liquid can be determined by the camera 74 or the infrared sensor 78,”, para. [0068]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 2, Stipe describes the controller (82) is further configured to measure the temperature by setting an emissivity differently based on the surface material of the object to be heated (“the cooking assistance appliance 50 can also utilize such information for anticipating messes and to prevent them. For example, a 4-quart volume of water may take ten minutes to come to a boil. After ten minutes, the cooking assistance appliance 50 can instruct the user or directly instruct the cooking appliance 12 to reduce heat to a simmer, to prevent boiling over while maintaining the cooking temperature.”, para. [0069]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
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.
Claims 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipe et al. (EP 3742052).
With regard to claim 3, with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to:
in response to determining that the surface of the object is a matte material, measure the temperature based on setting the emissivity to a first emissivity; and in response to determining that the surface of the object is a glossy material, measure the temperature based on setting the emissivity to a second emissivity less than the first emissivity, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach glossy/matte surfaces, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 4, with regard to the limitation the controller is further configured to determine a type of the object based on a height of an area in which a temperature change amount is equal to or greater than a preset reference amount, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114. (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 5, with regard to the limitation the controller is further configured to:
in response to the height of the area in which the temperature change amount is equal to or greater than the preset reference amount, determine the type of object to be a first type of container; and
in response to the height of the area in which the temperature change amount is less than the preset reference amount, determine the type of object to be a second type of container different from the first type of container, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 6, with regard to the limitation the first type of conainer is a container having a height equal to or greater than the preset reference height, and wherein the second type of container is a container having a height less than the preset reference height, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 7, with regard to the limitation the controller is further configured to determine a temperature of a load based on a temperature of a side surface of the object when the type of object is determined to be a pot, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 8, with regard to the limitation the controller is further configured to determine a temperature of a load based on a first temperature of a side surface of the object and a second temperature of a bottom surface of the object when the type of object is determined to be a frying pan, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 9, with regard to the limitation the controller is further configured to estimate a volume of a load in the object based on a height of an area in which a temperature change amount is equal to or greater than a preset reference value, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 10, with regard to the limitation the horizontal length of a sensing range of the array sensor is equal to or less than a horizontal length of the object, and wherein a vertical length of the sensing range is equal to or greater than a vertical length of the object to be heated, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 11, with regard to the limitation an output interface configured to output a content corresponding to a state of a load in the object from among contents received from a server, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114; “The controller 26, as well as the cooking appliance 12, can further be wirelessly enabled including a wireless communication module, such as being Wi-Fi enabled, permitting communication with a local or external network, as well as other devices or systems communicable with the cooking appliance 12 via the controller 26.”, para. [0013]).
With regard to claim 12, with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to, in response to a temperature of the load reaching a preset reference temperature, output an alarm through the output interface or transmit an alarm output signal to an external device, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114; “The controller 26, as well as the cooking appliance 12, can further be wirelessly enabled including a wireless communication module, such as being Wi-Fi enabled, permitting communication with a local or external network, as well as other devices or systems communicable with the cooking appliance 12 via the controller 26.”, para. [0013].
With regard to claim 13, with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to:
input the temperature of the at least the portion of the surface of the object measured by the array sensor into at least one load state estimation model, and determine a state of a load in the object based on an output of the at least one load state estimation model, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 14, with regard to the limitation of the controller is further configured to receive a plurality of load state estimation models from a server and output the state of the load based on one of the plurality of load state estimation models and information about the object to be heated, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]); “The controller 26, as well as the cooking appliance 12, can further be wirelessly enabled including a wireless communication module, such as being Wi-Fi enabled, permitting communication with a local or external network, as well as other devices or systems communicable with the cooking appliance 12 via the controller 26.”, para. [0013]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 15, with regard to the limitation of the array sensor is inclined with respect to an upper surface of the cooking appliance and configured to capture the at least the portion of the surface of the object and a heating portion of the cooking appliance within a sensing range of the array sensor, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine a temperature of a load in the object based on the temperature of the object to be heated and a temperature of the heating portion of the cooking appliance measured by the array sensor, it is submitted that although Stipe does not explicitly teach each of the aforementioned limitations, such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation (Stipe: “the controller 82 can be programmed with a setup algorithm. The setup algorithm can include a process or series of actions, such computational or physical steps, or a combination thereof, to determine information related to the cooking appliance 12, the stovetop 16, and other information related to the cooking assistance appliance 50 and the area proximate the cooking appliance 12. The setup algorithm can utilize the sensors, such as the camera 74, the proximity sensor 76, or the infrared sensor 78, for example, to digitally or virtually map the stovetop 16, utilizing one or more sensors, such as the camera 74 to provide image data, with the setup algorithm using the images to develop a virtual cook surface representative of the stovetop 16, the boundaries thereof, and the heaters 18 as the virtual cook surface. The virtual cook surface mapped by the setup algorithm can include information or data representative of the stovetop 16, such as the boundary, sizes and distances, depth, distance from the sensors or the cooking assistance appliance 50, the number and position of the heaters 18, temperatures, local temperatures, local temperature changes, cooking vessels or cookware items placed on or near the stovetop 16, food items on or near the stovetop 16 as well as a status thereof, a user's location, existence, or absence, or messes, in non-limiting examples. Additional information that can be mapped by the controller 82 can include local kitchen environment information, such as kitchen layout, the existence or position of other cooking appliances, kitchen appliances, or other appliances, the position or existence of a user, or any other features which can be beneficial or suitable for use by the cooking assistance appliance 50.”, para. [0029]; “The controller 26, as well as the cooking appliance 12, can further be wirelessly enabled including a wireless communication module, such as being Wi-Fi enabled, permitting communication with a local or external network, as well as other devices or systems communicable with the cooking appliance 12 via the controller 26.”, para. [0013].). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights