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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cooking time threshold and non-cooking time threshold" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends from itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 11,357,080 B2) in view of White et. al (US 2009/0017404 A1) in view of Grossman IV et. al (US 9,541,912 B1, hereinafter Grossman).
With respect to claim 1 Cowan discloses a cooking device safety system, comprising a cooking device [reference character 10], comprising: at least one second sensor to detect a condition of the stovetop burner1 [column 7 lines 65-67]; at least one third sensor [reference character 58 and column 5 lines 18-28] to detect a weight of the object on the burner and/or a temperature of the burner [column 5 lines 18-28]; wherein the second and/or third sensors send inputs to the system. Finally, Cowan discloses a microcontroller [reference character 42].
Cowan does not disclose that at least one first sensor to detect the presence of an object on or adjacent to a stovetop burner.
White discloses at least one first sensor [reference character 71] to detect the presence of an object on or adjacent to a stovetop burner [paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cowan by including a sensor to detect the presence of an object on or adjacent to a stovetop burner, as taught by White, in order to provide “…the ability to monitor whether a cooking vessel is in contact with the burner/heating element. This sensor is used to detect a dangerous open flame/heating element condition” [paragraph 0033 of White].
Cowan does not disclose that the microcontroller detects a date and time of use of the cooking device; wherein the system collects and stores data related to the inputs from the first sensor, second sensor and/or third sensor by the microcontroller, to determine a cooking pattern of a user; wherein based on the cooking pattern of the user, the system provides an output to the user via a signal output device; and, optionally, at least one transceiver to send a signal from the first, second and/or third sensor to a remote device.
Grossman discloses a system to synchronize one or more appliances to one or more users' schedules which includes a controller [reference character 490] which detects the date and time of use of an appliance [column 4 lines 46-50], collecting data from appliance sensors [column 9 lines 22-46], determining the usage pattern of the user [reference character 340], and providing an output to the user via a signal output device and at least one transceiver [reference character 410] to send a signal from the first, second and/or third sensor to a remote device [reference character 446 also see column 8 lines 11-29]. The data is used in order to optimize and personalize features of the appliance, such as gas consumption [see column 6 lines 33-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the stove system taught by Cowan by recording the usage patterns of the user in addition to the sensor data, as taught b Grossman, in order to optimize and personalize features of the appliance, such as gas consumption [see column 6 lines 33-58 of Grossman IV].
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman discloses that the system is communicatively connected to the remote device via wired or wireless communication, note that Grossman discloses communication with a remote device [see column 8 lines 11-29 of Grossman], the examiner notes that the communication must be wired or wireless, since those are the only two possibilities.
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman disclose that the remote device comprises a cellular device [column 3 lines 12-25].
With respect o claim 4 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman disclose that the transceiver receives a signal from the at least one first, second and/or third sensor [see Fig. 4 of Grossman and column 9 lines 4-5].
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman disclose that the microcontroller comprises a timer [reference character 86].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Cowan disclose that the timer comprises a cooking time [column 8 lines 54-60].
Cowan does not disclose a non-cooking time threshold for a stovetop burner.
White discloses that the object detection algorithm utilizes the timer to establish a non-cooking time threshold [paragraph 0033]2 in the form of a delay prior to shutting down the stove to prevent fire risk when a pan is not present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cowan by including a sensor to detect the presence of an object on or adjacent to a stovetop burner, as taught by White, in order to provide “…the ability to monitor whether a cooking vessel is in contact with the burner/heating element. This sensor is used to detect a dangerous open flame/heating element condition” [paragraph 0033 of White].
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman discloses that based on the cooking pattern detected during use of the device, the system provides an output regarding use of the device [column 8 lines 11-29 of Grossman].
With respect to claim 14 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman discloses the signal output device comprises a display [see column 8 lines 11-29, where Grossman discloses a “web browser” which implies the use of a display].
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 11,357,080 B2) in view of White et. al (US 2009/0017404 A1) in view of Grossman IV et. al (US 9,541,912 B1, hereinafter Grossman) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jablokov et. al (US 2018/0321652 A1).
With respect to claim 10 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman do not disclose that the system comprises facial recognition software.
Jablokov discloses a system for monitoring and controlling an appliance that includes “[f]acial and/or body recognition techniques may be used to process video from a video camera and determine if a person is present in the video” [paragraph 0045] in order to know if a user is in the vicinity of the appliance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman to include facial recognition technology into the appliance, as taught by Jablokov, in order to verify that a user is within the vicinity of the stove [paragraph 0045 of Jablokov].
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Cowan, White, Grossman, and Jablokov discloses that the system comprises a camera, said camera for receiving an image of a face of a user and via facial recognition software, detecting whether an input may be received from the user [see paragraph 0045 of Jablokov].
With respect to claim 12 the combination of Cowan, White, Grossman, and Joblokov discloses that the input from the user comprises haptic input3 [via knobs, see Fig. 28 of Cowan].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan (US 11,357,080 B2) in view of White et. al (US 2009/0017404 A1) in view of Grossman IV et. al (US 9,541,912 B1, hereinafter Grossman) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams et. al (US 2020/0378610 A1).
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Cowan, White, and Grossman do not disclose that the remote device is communicatively connected to the system to monitor and receive input from the system, and to provide input to the system, comprising activating or inactivating the burner(s), adjusting the temperature of the burner(s), activating the signal output device and/or sending a signal to a third party.
Williams discloses a remote device [reference character 14] that communicates with a controller [reference cahracte 60] and allows the burners to be turned off from a remote location to prevent a dangerous condition [paragraphs 0002 and 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cowan, White, and Grossman by including a mechanism for remotely modulating the temperature of the burners, as taught by Williams, in order to prevent or stop a dangerous condition [paragraphs 0002 and 0062 of Williams].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 “Next, in block 78, in some embodiments, the indicator 38 may be illuminated for a predetermined waiting period as a signal to the user indicating the pan 36 is sensed. Next, the control passes to block 80 to determine whether the burner 16 is on or off (e.g., based upon the status of gas valve 70 or igniter 66, or based upon a thermocouple, a flame detector or other sensor capable of determining whether the burner is currently on) …” [column 7 line s63-67].
2 “A delay can be included in the system to allow the unit to temporarily remove the cooking utensil from the burner and place it back without the flame or power to the burner being turned off. If the cooking utensil is removed past the predetermined time period then the power supply (gas or electric) to that burner is turned off to eliminate a fire hazard” [paragraph 0033 of White]
3 Haptic is defined as “relating to or based on the sense of touch” [“Haptic.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haptic. Accessed 14 Jul. 2026], therefore, because knobs must be touched, the manipulation of a knob is interpreted as “haptic”.
Prosecution Insights