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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig10
Improper numbering of views. See MPEP 1.84 (u) and (h)
Fig17-20
Add Legend to label the black/grey bubbles. See MPEP Rule 1.84(o)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13
L3, amend “[[the]]a second temperature sensor” in order to have the correct antecedent basis indication
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because in independent Claims 1/13/18 the claimed invention directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Viroli discloses:
“A cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1) comprising:
a first temperature sensor (Fig1/2, Para66/67, first sensor of sensors 4);
a second temperature sensor (Fig1/2, Para66/67, second sensor of sensors 4);
an analog switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1) configured to select one of a sensing value of the first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor as a selected sensing value (Para71-74/77, Fig2/3, switch 5 selects between sensors 4); and
a processor (Fig2, control 6) configured to:
receive the selected sensing value from the analog switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b), and
apply the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generate a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
Claim 13
Viroli discloses:
“A method of operating a cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1; Fig3, method), the method comprising:
selecting (Para71-74/77) a selected sensing value (data input to control 6), via an analog switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1), from among a sensing value of a first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor (Para71-74, Fig1/2, sensors 4 output data);
receiving, by a processor (Fig2, control 6), the selected sensing value from the analog switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b); and
applying, by the processor (control 6), the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generating a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
Claim 18
Viroli discloses:
“A cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1) comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Fig2, surface 2 supports cookware 7);
a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7);
a first temperature sensor configured to sense a first temperature value of a first area of the upper plate (Fig1/2, Para66/67, first sensor of sensors 4 mounted to surface 2);
a second temperature sensor configured to sense a second temperature value of a second area of the upper plate (Fig1/2, Para66/67, second sensor of sensors 4 mounted to surface 2), the second area being different from the first area (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are mounted in different areas); and
a switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1) configured to select one of the first temperature value and the second temperature value as a selected sensing value (Para71-74/77, Fig2/3, switch 5 selects between sensors 4); and
a processor (Fig2, control 6) configured to:
receive the selected sensing value from the switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b), and
generate a predicted temperature based on the selected sensing value (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
The underlined portions of the cited claim are all directed towards abstract ideas that fall within the bucket of a mental process. That is each of the underlined portions can be performed in the human mind as the abstract idea is effectively an exam question for one of ordinary skill in the art.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because beyond the abstract idea, the only items are either basic computing parts or are applying the abstract idea within a technological area. Additionally, the claim limitations of Claims 1/13/18 that are not indicated by underlining are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Viroli (US 2021/0315064) as indicated above.
All dependent claims have been analyzed and present only additional abstract ideas and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the cited claim (claims 4-10, 11, 15-17, 19-20), or provide additional technological area recitations (claims 2-3, 11-12, 14). See Claim 2, 3, 11, 12, 14 mapping below to show the additional technological area recitations. Similar underlining indication is applied herein as is applied above in the context of the independent claims 1/13/18, as Claim 11 provides both additional/continuation of prior abstract ideas and additional technological area recitations.
Claim 2
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, further comprising: an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Fig2, surface 2 supports cookware 7); and a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7).”
Claim 3
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 2, further comprising a sensor support member disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil (Fig1/2, coil 3 schematically shown to support and locate sensors 4 arranged in radial extension), wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are mounted on the sensor support member (Fig1/2, coil 3 schematically shown to support and locate sensors 4 arranged in radial extension).”
Claim 11
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the first temperature sensor includes a main temperature sensor (naming convention for a first sensor of sensors 4), wherein the second temperature sensor includes a sub temperature sensor (naming convention for a second sensor of sensors 4), and wherein the main temperature sensor (first sensor 4) and the sub temperature sensor (second sensor 4) overlap with different areas of the cooking appliance (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are in different areas of the arrangement).”
Claim 12
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 11, further comprising a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating an object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7), wherein the main temperature sensor (first sensor 4) overlaps with a center of the working coil (Fig1/2, central sensor 4), and the sub temperature sensor (second sensor 4) overlaps with an area of the working coil that is between the center of the working coil and an outer edge of the working coil (Fig1/2, either of the two radially outer sensors 4).”
Claim 14
Viroli discloses: “The method according to claim 13, further comprising generating magnetic fields by a working coil to heat an object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7), wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor overlap with different areas of the working coil (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are in different areas of the arrangement).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1
Limitation “apply the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generate a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function.” (office added underlining for emphasis) fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Para135-140,151-153 and Fig10/13 appears to be the closest support to disclose the cited limitation, however these paragraphs/figures merely disclose that a thermistor has a non-linear resistance value based on temperature, and that best-fit curves may be applied to such a data set. Para173-180 appears to be the second closest support to disclose the cited limitation, however these paragraphs merely indicates that the processor may determine which prediction function between the potential high/low or single temperature prediction functions may be applied.
The cited paragraphs, and the rest of the specification as a whole, fail to disclose any particular mathematical function to result in a temperature prediction. Fig10/13 appear to maybe imply the possible application of some sort of possible look-up table or best-fit curve to a non-linear data set, however the specification fails to actually disclose the use of such a look-up table or best-fit curve.
Further, even if the above cited specification sections are shown to disclose/support a particular function to predict a temperature, the specification still fails to provide sufficient written disclosure to support the full breadth of the scope of the cited limitations. See MPEP 2161.01 for 35 USC 112a written support standards for a Computer Implemented Invention.
Claim 4
Limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to determine the at least one temperature prediction function based on a previously predicted temperature.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 5
Limitation “wherein the previously predicted temperature is based on a prior sensing value sensed by the first temperature sensor or the second temperature sensor.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 6
Limitation “in response to the previously predicted temperature being greater than a preset first level, apply the selected sensing value to a first temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function; and in response to the previously predicted temperature being less than a preset second level, apply the selected sensing value to a second temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function, and wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 7
Limitation “wherein a first slope of the first temperature prediction function is steeper than a second slope of the second temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 8
Limitation “wherein the first preset level is equal to the second preset level.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim
Limitation “” (office added underlining for emphasis) fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 9
Limitation “in response to the previously predicted temperature being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintain a same temperature prediction function among the first and second temperature prediction functions that was used to generate the previously predicted temperature and apply the selected sensing value to the same temperature prediction function to generate the predicted temperature, and wherein the second preset level is different from the first preset level.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 13
Limitation “applying, by the processor, the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generating a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 15
Limitation “determining the at least one temperature prediction function from among a first temperature prediction function and a second temperature prediction function based on a previously predicted temperature, wherein the previously predicted temperature is based on a prior sensing value sensed by the first temperature sensor or the second temperature sensor, and wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 16
Limitation “in response to the previously predicted temperature being greater than a preset first level, applying the selected sensing value to the first temperature prediction function and generating the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function; and in response to the previously predicted temperature being less than a preset second level, applying the selected sensing value to the second temperature prediction function and generating the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function, wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 17
Limitation “in response to the previously predicted temperature being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintaining a same temperature prediction function among the first and second temperature prediction functions that was used to generate the previously predicted temperature and applying the selected sensing value to the same temperature prediction function to generate the predicted temperature, wherein the second preset level is different from the first preset level.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 18
Limitation “generate a predicted temperature based on the selected sensing value.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 19
Limitation “in response to the selected sensing value being greater than a first preset level, input the selected sensing value to a first temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function, and in response to the selected sensing value being less than a second preset level, input the selected sensing value to a second temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claim 20
Limitation “in response to the selected sensing value being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintain a same temperature prediction function that was used to generate a previous predicted temperature and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the same temperature prediction function.” fails to comply with the written description requirement, as the cited limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full claimed scope of the cited limitation.
Rejection is based on the same rational as discussed above in the context of Claim 1. For the interest of readability of the instant office action, please see the rational above as discussed in the context of Claim 1.
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viroli (US 2021/0315064)
Claim 1
Viroli discloses:
“A cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1) comprising:
a first temperature sensor (Fig1/2, Para66/67, first sensor of sensors 4);
a second temperature sensor (Fig1/2, Para66/67, second sensor of sensors 4);
an analog switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1) configured to select one of a sensing value of the first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor as a selected sensing value (Para71-74/77, Fig2/3, switch 5 selects between sensors 4); and
a processor (Fig2, control 6) configured to:
receive the selected sensing value from the analog switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b), and
apply the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generate a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
Claim 2
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, further comprising: an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Fig2, surface 2 supports cookware 7); and a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7).”
Claim 3
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 2, further comprising a sensor support member disposed in a direction extending away from a center of the working coil (Fig1/2, coil 3 schematically shown to support and locate sensors 4 arranged in radial extension), wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are mounted on the sensor support member (Fig1/2, coil 3 schematically shown to support and locate sensors 4 arranged in radial extension).”
Claim 4
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the processor (control 6) is further configured to determine the at least one temperature prediction function based on a previously predicted temperature (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, future predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value, ie, the control 6 modifies the heating production based on predicted temperature average at time X, thus future predicted temperature averages at times X+Y are based on the control results of the predicted temperature averages prior to time X+Y).”
Claim 5
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 4, wherein the previously predicted temperature is based on a prior sensing value sensed by the first temperature sensor or the second temperature sensor (Para71-79, all predicted temperature averages of the control loop are based on sensors 4).”
Claim 6
Viroli discloses:
“The cooking appliance according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to the previously predicted temperature being greater than a preset first level, apply the selected sensing value to a first temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value); and
in response to the previously predicted temperature being less than a preset second level, apply the selected sensing value to a second temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), and
wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function (Para57/76, predicated temperature average calculation changes when a user changes the target).”
Claim 7
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 6, wherein a first slope of the first temperature prediction function is steeper than a second slope of the second temperature prediction function (Para57/76, when a user changes the target heating the predicated temperature average calculation changes, a change in the change over time [effectively a double derivative] produces a changing slope where a portion is steeper than another portion when compared).”
Claim 8
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 6, wherein the first preset level is equal to the second preset level (Para57/76, heating target value does not change unless a user provides input).”
Claim 9
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to the previously predicted temperature being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintain a same temperature prediction function among the first and second temperature prediction functions that was used to generate the previously predicted temperature and apply the selected sensing value to the same temperature prediction function to generate the predicted temperature (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), and wherein the second preset level is different from the first preset level (Para57/76, predicated temperature average calculation changes when a user changes the target).”
Claim 10
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the processor (control 6) is further configured to control the analog switch (switch 5) to alternatingly select between the sensing value of the first temperature sensor and the sensing value of the second temperature sensor for a plurality of preset periods (Para10/78, control 6 takes input from sensors 4 over consecutive time periods).”
Claim 11
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 1, wherein the first temperature sensor includes a main temperature sensor (naming convention for a first sensor of sensors 4), wherein the second temperature sensor includes a sub temperature sensor (naming convention for a second sensor of sensors 4), and wherein the main temperature sensor (first sensor 4) and the sub temperature sensor (second sensor 4) overlap with different areas of the cooking appliance (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are in different areas of the arrangement).”
Claim 12
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 11, further comprising a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating an object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7), wherein the main temperature sensor (first sensor 4) overlaps with a center of the working coil (Fig1/2, central sensor 4), and the sub temperature sensor (second sensor 4) overlaps with an area of the working coil that is between the center of the working coil and an outer edge of the working coil (Fig1/2, either of the two radially outer sensors 4).”
Claim 13
Viroli discloses:
“A method of operating a cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1; Fig3, method), the method comprising:
selecting (Para71-74/77) a selected sensing value (data input to control 6), via an analog switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1), from among a sensing value of a first temperature sensor and a sensing value of the second temperature sensor (Para71-74, Fig1/2, sensors 4 output data);
receiving, by a processor (Fig2, control 6), the selected sensing value from the analog switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b); and
applying, by the processor (control 6), the selected sensing value to at least one temperature prediction function and generating a predicted temperature based on an output of the at least one temperature prediction function (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
Claim 14
Viroli discloses: “The method according to claim 13, further comprising generating magnetic fields by a working coil to heat an object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7), wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor overlap with different areas of the working coil (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are in different areas of the arrangement).”
Claim 15
Viroli discloses: “The method according to claim 13, further comprising determining the at least one temperature prediction function from among a first temperature prediction function and a second temperature prediction function based on a previously predicted temperature (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), wherein the previously predicted temperature is based on a prior sensing value sensed by the first temperature sensor or the second temperature sensor (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), and wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function (Para57/76, predicated temperature average calculation changes when a user changes the target).”
Claim 16
Viroli discloses:
“The method according to claim 15, further comprising:
in response to the previously predicted temperature being greater than a preset first level, applying the selected sensing value to the first temperature prediction function and generating the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value); and
in response to the previously predicted temperature being less than a preset second level, applying the selected sensing value to the second temperature prediction function and generating the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value),
wherein the first temperature prediction function is different from the second temperature prediction function (Para57/76, predicated temperature average calculation changes when a user changes the target).”
Claim 17
Viroli discloses: “The method according to claim 16, further comprising, in response to the previously predicted temperature being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintaining a same temperature prediction function among the first and second temperature prediction functions that was used to generate the previously predicted temperature and applying the selected sensing value to the same temperature prediction function to generate the predicted temperature (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), wherein the second preset level is different from the first preset level (Para57/76, predicated temperature average calculation changes when a user changes the target).”
Claim 18
Viroli discloses:
“A cooking appliance (Fig1-2, induction heating appliance 1) comprising:
an upper plate configured to support an object to be heated (Fig2, surface 2 supports cookware 7);
a working coil configured to generate magnetic fields for heating the object (Fig1/2, Para69, induction coil 3 below surface 2 for heating cookware 7);
a first temperature sensor configured to sense a first temperature value of a first area of the upper plate (Fig1/2, Para66/67, first sensor of sensors 4 mounted to surface 2);
a second temperature sensor configured to sense a second temperature value of a second area of the upper plate (Fig1/2, Para66/67, second sensor of sensors 4 mounted to surface 2), the second area being different from the first area (Fig1/2, sensors 4 are mounted in different areas); and
a switch (Para72, Fig2, analog switch 5/5.1) configured to select one of the first temperature value and the second temperature value as a selected sensing value (Para71-74/77, Fig2/3, switch 5 selects between sensors 4); and
a processor (Fig2, control 6) configured to:
receive the selected sensing value from the switch (Para74/77, Fig2, input port 6.1 receives switch 5 output 5b), and
generate a predicted temperature based on the selected sensing value (Fig2/3, Para11/22/23/79, control 6 uses temperature data from at least two sensors 4 to generate a predicated average temperature).”
Claim 19
Viroli discloses:
“The cooking appliance according to claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to the selected sensing value being greater than a first preset level, input the selected sensing value to a first temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the first temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value), and
in response to the selected sensing value being less than a second preset level, input the selected sensing value to a second temperature prediction function and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the second temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value).”
Claim 20
Viroli discloses: “The cooking appliance according to claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to the selected sensing value being between the first preset level and the second preset level, maintain a same temperature prediction function that was used to generate a previous predicted temperature and generate the predicted temperature based on an output of the same temperature prediction function (Para76-79, control 6 controls the heating production based on comparing the predicted temperature average to a target value, further predicated temperature averages responds based on modified heating production due to being above or below the preset target value).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,324,079 to Viroli: US Patent version of Viroli above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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 at (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 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights