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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0117] line 2, “cooking chamber 12” should read “cooking chamber 101”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0048817 by Jang (hereinafter “Jang”).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method for operating a cooking appliance (paragraph [0031], home appliance which may be an oven) including at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1, home appliance 100, shown as a washing machine with tubs 151A and 151B, but may be an oven with analogous treatment chamber) with at least one opening for filling the treatment chamber (Fig 1, opening to treatment chamber shown), at least one door for closing the opening of the treatment chamber (Fig 1 doors 153A/153B), at least one control device (Fig 2 controller 140), and at least one safety device (Fig 2 audio input 110, audio output 120, and sensor 130), the method comprising:
checking the at least one treatment chamber, by the at least one safety device for a presence of at least one living being and/or at least one object which could potentially disrupt operation (Fig 7 step S220; paragraph [0134]); and
if the at least one safety device detects that at least one living being and/or at least one object which could potentially disrupt operation are/is present in the at least one treatment chamber, preventing, by the control device, operation of the cooking appliance and/or limiting the operation of the cooking appliance to certain operating states (Fig 7 step S230; paragraph [0136]).
Regarding claim 4, Jang further discloses that the at least one safety device comprises at least one motion sensor and/or at least one presence sensor and/or at least one vibration sensor (Fig 2 sensor 130; paragraph [0058], in addition to the audio input as a presence sensor, sensor 130 may include a motion sensor in the form of a PIR sensor, image sensor, thermal image sensor, infrared sensor, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Jang further discloses that the at least one safety device comprises at least one acoustic sensor configured to detect at least one acoustic sound (Fig 2 audio input 110; paragraph [0049], audio input may include one or more microphones).
Regarding claim 17, Jang further discloses that the at least one safety device comprises a plurality of safety devices and/or is configured to use signals of a plurality of safety devices for detecting at least one living being and/or at least one object which could potentially disrupt operation (Fig 2, safety device includes audio input 110 as well as sensor(s) 130; paragraph [0134]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 19, Jang discloses a cooking appliance (paragraph [0031], home appliance which may be an oven), comprising:
at least one treatment chamber with at least one opening for filling the at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1, home appliance 100, shown as a washing machine with tubs 151A and 151B, but may be an oven with analogous treatment chamber and the opening for filling the chamber);
at least one door for closing the opening of the at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1 doors 153A/153B);
at least one control device (Fig 2 controller 140); and
at least one safety device (Fig 2 audio input 110, audio output 120, and sensor 130),
wherein the at least one safety device and the at least one control device are configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 2021/0341152 by Johnson et al (hereinafter “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jang teaches that the safety device may comprise one or more sensors capable of detecting movement in the at least one treatment chamber, and the one or more sensors may include an image sensor (paragraph [0135]).
Additionally, or in the alternative, Johnson teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1 household cooking appliance 300) comprising a treatment chamber (Fig 1 oven chamber 304), a door (Fig 1 door 100), and at least one camera device configured to image at least one portion of the at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1 camera 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one camera device configured to image at least one portion of the at least one treatment chamber in the safety device of Jang. Since Jang teaches the use of image sensors used to check for movement in the treatment chamber, it would have been obvious to use the camera device taught by Johnson to perform this function.
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jang teaches that the safety device may comprise one or more sensors capable of detecting movement in the at least one treatment chamber, and the one or more sensors may include an infrared sensor (paragraph [0135]).
Additionally, or in the alternative, Johnson teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1 household cooking appliance 300) comprising a treatment chamber (Fig 1 oven chamber 304), a door (Fig 1 door 100), and at least one infrared camera (Fig 1 camera 200; paragraph [0040], camera 200 can be capable of capturing infrared images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one camera device configured to image at least one portion of the at least one treatment chamber in the safety device of Jang. Since Jang teaches the use of thermal image sensors used to check for movement in the treatment chamber, it would have been obvious to use the camera taught by Johnson to perform this function.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 2007/0278220 by Bostick et al (hereinafter “Bostick”).
Regarding claim 5, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a change in an electric and/or magnetic and/or electromagnetic field in the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Bostick teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1 microwave cooking unit 100) with at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1 cooking chamber 140), a door (Fig 1 door 130), a control device (Fig 2 metal detection unit controller 230), and a safety device (Fig 1 metal detection apparatus 110), wherein the safety device checks the treatment chamber for the presence an object that could potentially disrupt operation (Fig 1; paragraph [0022], safety device checks for the presence of metal in scan zone at or near front of treatment chamber), and, if such object is present, preventing, by the control device, operation of the cooking appliance (Fig 5; paragraph [0033]). Bostick further teaches that the safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a change in an electric and/or magnetic and/or electromagnetic field in the at least one treatment chamber (paragraph [0025]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang to include an additional sensor configured to detect a change in an electric and/or magnetic and/or electromagnetic field in the at least one treatment chamber. This would be advantageous in detecting the metal objects in the treatment chamber, particularly if the cooking appliance uses microwaves. The controller could then adjust the operation of the cooking appliance based on the sensed objects, including preventing the use of microwaves when such objects are present.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of DE 102009011877 by Unterreitmayer (hereinafter “Unterreitmayer”).
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above).
But Jang does not teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a change in an electrical conductivity in the treatment chamber.
However, Unterreitmayer teaches a cooking appliance (paragraph [0001]) with at least one treatment chamber (Fig 8 Trommel/drum), a door (Figure 8 Tür/door), and a safety device (Fig 8 electrodes E1/E2), wherein the safety device checks the treatment chamber for the presence an object that could potentially disrupt operation (paragraph [0034]), and, if such object is present, prevents operation of the cooking appliance (paragraph [0003]-[0004]). Unterreitmayer further teaches that the safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a change in an electrical conductivity in the treatment chamber (paragraph [0003], [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device includes a sensor that is configured to detect a change in electrical conductivity in the treatment chamber, as taught by Unterreitmayer. Since Jang teaches the use of additional sensors used to check the chamber, it would have been obvious to use the known sensors taught by Unterreitmayer to perform this function. These additional sensors would increase the accuracy of the evaluation and provide redundancy.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 2011/0156899 by Lauer et al (hereinafter “Lauer”).
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to detect devices for wireless communication and/or the signals emitted by devices for wireless communication in the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Lauer teaches a household appliance (Fig 1 clothes washing machine 30) having a treatment chamber (Fig 1 basin 48), a door (Fig 1 door 46), a safety device comprising at least one sensor configured to detect devices for wireless communication and/or signals emitted by devices for wireless communication in the treatment chamber (Fig 1 antenna 33 and detector 44; paragraph [0015], [0026]), and a controller configured to limit or prevent operation of the appliance if a device for wireless communication is detected (Fig 1 warning device 35, paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang by including in the safety device at least one sensor configured to detect devices for wireless communication and/or the signals emitted by devices for wireless communication in the at least one treatment chamber, as taught by Lauer. This would be advantageous in detecting a wireless communication device that may inadvertently end up in the treatment chamber, for example, if placed there by a child or a person with dementia, and warning the user and/or limiting operations of the appliance, thus preventing damage to either the wireless communication device or the appliance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of DE 102006017070 by Kuchler (hereinafter “Kuchler”).
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the at least one safety device is configured to detect a size and/or a position of at least one object in the at least one treatment chamber and draw conclusions therefrom about a presence of at least one second object that could disrupt operation, and/or at least one living being.
However, Kuchler teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1, electrical appliance 1, shown as a microwave oven; paragraph [0020]) having a treatment chamber (Fig 1 enclosed space 4), at least one safety device (Fig 1 motion sensor 7a and sound sensor 7b), and a control device (Fig 1 devices 8, 9, and/or 10 which can cause the door to be opened, the heat to shut off, or an alarm to be generated; paragraph [0022]-0023]), wherein the safety device checks the treatment chamber for the presence of a living being (paragraph [0007]) and, if a living being is detected, the control device prevents or limits operation of the cooking appliance (paragraph [0023]). Kuchler further teaches that the at least one safety device is configured to detect a size and/or a position of at least one object in the at least one treatment chamber and draw conclusions therefrom about a presence of at least one second object that could disrupt operation, and/or at least one living being (paragraph [0024], data from sensors is compared to stored profiles to determine if observations are caused by food rotating or cooking in treatment chamber and draws conclusions about the presence of a living being, i.e., if the sensor data is caused by food in the chamber, then it is not caused by the presence of a living being).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device is configured to detect a size and/or a position of at least one object in the at least one treatment chamber and draw conclusions therefrom about a presence of at least one second object that could disrupt operation, and/or at least one living being. This way, if the safety device detects another object, such as food, in the treatment chamber that would cause the sensed observations, it could be determined that the observations are not likely to be caused by the presence of a second object that could disrupt operation and/or a living being, thereby reducing false alarms.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of EP 3067828 by Waitz (hereinafter “Waitz”).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Although Jang teaches that the at least one safety device may include various sensors (paragraph [0135]), Jang does not explicitly teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one ultrasonic sensor.
However, Waitz teaches a cooking appliance (Fig 1 cooking appliance 10) comprising at least one ultrasonic sensor (Fig 1 insertion sensor 26; paragraph [0042] insertion sensor 26 can be ultrasound-based distance measuring device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device includes at least one ultrasonic sensor, in order to recognize the size and/or position of objects that enter and exit the treatment chamber, thus providing additional information about the occupancy of the treatment chamber to the control unit for better evaluation and redundancy.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of DE 102015110292 by Steinberger et al (hereinafter “Steinberger”).
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one weight sensor.
However, Steinberger teaches a method of operating a cooking appliance (paragraph [0018]; Fig 5 cooking appliance 32) including at least one treatment chamber (Fig 5 cooking chamber 34), at least one door (Fig 5 door 38), at least one control device (Fig 5 control unit 42 and evaluation unit 26) and at least one safety device (Fig 5 piezoelectric sensors 14); wherein the method comprises checking the treatment chamber with the at least one safety device for a living being an/or an object which could potentially disrupt operation (paragraph [0056], piezoelectric sensors 14 can detect a person in treatment chamber, among other things), and, preventing or limiting by the control device, the operation of the cooking appliance (paragraph [0056]). Steinberger further teaches that the at least one safety device comprises at least one weight sensor (paragraph [0059], piezoelectric sensors 14 can detect a weight and/or change in weight). Steinberger teaches that the weight sensors in and around the cooking appliance can help to detect numerous states, processes, or events in the kitchen that can be used to increase automation (paragraph [0082]), such as users moving about the kitchen (paragraph [0070]-[0074]), an opening of the cooking appliance door (paragraph [0063]), items falling on the floor of the kitchen or to the bottom of the cooking appliance (paragraph [0066], [0076]), or a change in the cooking state of a food in the cooking appliance (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang by making the safety device to also comprise at least one weight sensor. This would be advantageous in allowing the system to potentially detect numerous different processes or events, in addition to being able to detect a living being or potentially disruptive object in the treatment chamber, thereby enabling increased automation.
Regarding claim 16, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one movement of the at least one door and/or at least one application of force on at least one portion of the at least one door.
However, Steinberger teaches a method of operating a cooking appliance (paragraph [0018]; Fig 5 cooking appliance 32) including at least one treatment chamber (Fig 5 cooking chamber 34), at least one door (Fig 5 door 38), at least one control device (Fig 5 control unit 42 and evaluation unit 26) and at least one safety device (Fig 5 piezoelectric sensors 14); wherein the method comprises checking the treatment chamber with the at least one safety device for a living being an/or an object which could potentially disrupt operation (paragraph [0056], piezoelectric sensors 14 can detect a person in treatment chamber, among other things), and, preventing or limiting by the control device, the operation of the cooking appliance (paragraph [0056]). Steinberger further teaches that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one movement of the at least one door and/or at least one application of force on at least one portion of the at least one door (paragraph [0063], piezoelectric sensors 14 can detect an opening of the door).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang by including a safety device configured to detect an opening of the door. This would allow the control device to better evaluate the state of the cooking appliance. For example, the control device could be configured to initiate a check of the treatment chamber whenever an opening of the door is detected.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 20210095409 by Koo (hereinafter “Koo”).
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Although Jang teaches that other sensors may be used (paragraph [0058]), Jang does not explicitly teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one gas sensor configured to detect a change in a concentration of at least one gas in the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Koo teaches a household appliance (Fig 1 washing machine 1000) having a treatment chamber (Fig 1 washing tub 10), a door for opening and closing the treatment chamber (Fig 1 door 20), a safety device configured to detect an object in the treatment chamber by detecting a change in a concentration of at least one gas in the treatment chamber (Fig 2 concentration sensing part 100, including sensors 110 and 120; paragraph [0027]), and a control device (Fig 2 controller 300) configured to limit operation of the appliance when such an object is detected (paragraph [0035]). Koo teaches that detecting the concentration of a gas in the treatment chamber may be advantageous for identifying a dangerous situation, such as a child or pet in the treatment chamber, even when the child or pet is not moving or making sounds, and detection by other means is difficult (paragraph [0009], [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang by including as a safety device at least one gas sensor configured to detect a change in a concentration of at least one gas in the at least one treatment chamber, as taught by Koo. This would be advantageous in detecting the presence of a child or pet in the treatment chamber and preventing suffocation or asphyxiation. Since the detectors of Jang may fail to detect a being that is not moving or making sounds, and such a failure could be extremely dangerous, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to also include the gas concentration sensor as an additional safety device to prevent such dangerous conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not teach that the method further comprises: requesting at least one enable input from at least one user to enable user control of the cooking device based on detection, by the at least one safety device, of at least one living being and/or at least one object in the at least one treatment chamber which could potentially disrupt operation.
However, Koo teaches a method for operating a household appliance (Fig 1 washing machine 1000) having a treatment chamber (Fig 1 washing tub 10), a door for opening and closing the treatment chamber (Fig 1 door 20), a safety device configured to detect an object in the treatment chamber (Fig 2 concentration sensing part 100, including sensors 110 and 120; paragraph [0027]), and a control device (Fig 2 controller 300) configured to limit operation of the appliance when such an object is detected (paragraph [0035]); the method comprising: checking the treatment chamber for the presence of a living being (paragraph [0027]) and, if a living being is detected, limiting operation of the appliance (paragraph [0035]). Koo teaches that the method further comprises: requesting at least one enable input from at least one user to enable user control of the appliance based on detection, by the at least one safety device, of at least one living being and/or at least one object in the at least one treatment chamber which could potentially disrupt operation (Fig 6 step S600; paragraph [0036]-[0039], once object has been detected and operations limited, a user can provide a release signal to switch appliance back to normal mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang by including a step of requesting at least one enable input from at least one user to enable user control of the cooking appliance when at least one living being and/or at least one object is detected in the treatment chamber which could potentially disrupt operation. This would allow an appropriate user to confirm that a dangerous condition is not present before resuming operations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 2007/0273475 by Neumann (hereinafter “Neumann”).
Regarding claim 12, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jang teaches that the safety device may comprise one or more sensors capable of detecting movement in the at least one treatment chamber (paragraph [0135]), but Jang does not explicitly teach that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one deformation and/or at least one distortion of at least one wall enclosing the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Neumann teaches a household appliance (Fig 1, shown as refrigerator 1; paragraph [0008] also notes that the invention may be used with other appliances having a door) including at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1 interior space 11 defined by inner walls 12), at least one door (Fig 1 appliance door 2), at least one control device (Fig 2 microprocessor 22), and at least one safety device (Figs 1 and 2, strain gauges 16 of safety device 40). Neumann teaches that the safety device checks the treatment chamber for the presence of at least one living being, and the control device controls an operation of the appliance in response to the detection of the presence of at least one living being (paragraph [0010] and [0022]). Neumann further teaches that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one deformation and/or at least one distortion of at least one wall enclosing the treatment chamber (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device includes a sensor that is configured to detect at least one deformation and/or at least one distortion of at least one wall enclosing the at least one treatment chamber, as taught by Neumann. Since Jang teaches the use of additional sensors used to check the treatment chamber, it would have been obvious to use the known sensors taught by Neumann to perform this function. These additional sensors would increase the accuracy of the evaluation and provide redundancy.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 4,426,572 issued to Tachikawa et al (hereinafter “Tachikawa”).
Regarding claim 13, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). But Jang does not explicitly teach that the at least one safety device comprises at least one photosensitive sensor configured to detect at least one change in light intensity in the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Tachikawa teaches a cooking appliance (Abstract; Fig 2) comprising a treatment chamber (Fig 2 heating chamber 1) and a photosensitive sensor configured to detect at least one change in light intensity in the at least one treatment chamber (Fig 2 photo sensors 14 and 23; col 1 line 33-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device includes a photosensitive sensor configured to detect at least one change in light intensity in the treatment chamber, as taught by Tachikawa. Since Jang teaches the use of additional sensors used to check the treatment chamber, it would have been obvious to use the known sensors taught by Tachikawa to perform this function. These additional sensors would increase the accuracy of the evaluation and provide redundancy, in addition to providing information about the cooking process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of US 2012/0235514 by Astrauskas (hereinafter “Astrauskas”).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches the method of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Jang teaches that the safety device may comprise one or more sensors capable of detecting movement in the at least one treatment chamber (paragraph [0135]), but Jang does not explicitly teach that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one change in a flow pattern and/or in a flow intensity of air in the at least one treatment chamber.
However, Astrauskas teaches a household appliance (Abstract; claims 10 and 20 point to the use of the child detection system in an oven) including at least one treatment chamber (Fig 1 enclosed space 106), at least one door (paragraph [0003]), at least one control device (Fig 1 machine controller 108), and at least one safety device (Fig 6 sensors 602). Astrauskas teaches that the safety device checks the treatment chamber for the presence of at least one living being, and the control device controls an operation of the appliance in response to the detection of the presence of at least one living being (Fig 2; paragraph [0031], sensors 602 monitors for movements that would indicate presence of child in treatment chamber). Astrauskas further teaches that the at least one safety device is configured to detect at least one change in a flow pattern and/or in a flow intensity of air in the at least one treatment chamber (paragraph [0030] sensors 602 can be configured to sense air pressure in treatment chamber; paragraph [0031] the array of sensors configured to detect shifts in pressure, indicating changes in flow pattern or flow intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang such that the at least one safety device includes a sensor that is configured to detect at least one change in a flow pattern or a flow intensity of the air in the at least one treatment chamber, as taught by Astrauskas. Since Jang teaches the use of additional sensors used to check for movement in the treatment chamber, it would have been obvious to use the known sensors taught by Astrauskas to perform this function. These additional sensors would increase the accuracy of the evaluation and provide redundancy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0064778 by Liu et al discloses a method of operating a cooking appliance which detects changes in a magnetic field to detect metal objects in a treatment chamber.
US 2020/0087846 by Park discloses an appliance with a weight sensor to detect the presence of a living being in a treatment space.
JP 2004065408 by Omachi and KR 20100070226 by Kim each disclose an appliance which detects a living being in the treatment chamber using vibration sensors.
CN 110373861 by Xu discloses an appliance which detects a living being in a treatment chamber using thermal imaging sensors.
EP 2090689 by Tondorf et al discloses an appliance which detects a living being in a treatment chamber by sensing electric capacitance changes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762