DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 due to the their dependency from claim 8 and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “unnecessarily large number of heating zones” in claim 8 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unnecessarily large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “unnecessarily large number of heating zones”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not unnecessarily large but extending over a number of heating zones.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “such as” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations which follow the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krossa et al. (WO2022262919; ids 3/30/26).
Krossa teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a method of roasting a cooking product by a contact heating surface of a cooking appliance (par. 0013) where it is noted though silent to roasting, Krossa teaches a same claimed contact heating surface and thus it is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, i.e. roasting.
The method comprising the following steps:
determining a cooking product (par. 0019) to be roasted placed onto the contact heating surface (par. 0019; par. 0023) by at least one sensor system (par. 0018) located above the contact heating surface (fig. 8) and an electronic detection device connected thereto (par. 0018, 0175),
providing the cooking product with an identifier upon initial placement (par. 0091; label), the identifier being stored in terms of control (par. 0091 time/temp),
roasting the cooking product by the supply of heat via the contact heating surface (par. 0013), a control unit (par. 0175) of the cooking appliance controlling the amount of the supplied heat (par. 0202) in accordance with a cooking product-specific cooking path provided in a control unit as a function of the determined cooking product (par. 0202; 0067),
tracking the position of the cooking product via the sensor system during roasting (par. 0020), and
issuing at least one signal to an operator via the control unit (par. 0194), that the cooking product needs to be moved (par. 0194, 0072).
Claim 2, wherein a signal is a signal removing (par. 0194 ready) or shifting the cooking product (par. 0194 move).
Claim 3, a signal is a signal signalizing the end of the roasting process (par. 0194 ready for consumption; should be moved)
Claim 4, wherein the signals are issued in accordance with times provided in the cooking path or the determined cooking product temperature (par. 0117).
Claim 6, wherein the cooking product is detected by the sensor system during roasting, and the roasting progress is thus determined (par. 0009), and the time of the issue of at least one of the signals is adjusted, both depending on the roasting progress (par. 0181).
Claim 7, wherein the contact heating surface is composed of a plurality of adjacent heating zones which are adapted to be controlled independently of each other (par. 0067), the position of the cooking product or the position of the cooking product with respect to the heating zones being determined by the sensor system and the detection device (par. 0067).
Claim 8, wherein a signal for moving the cooking product and an improved positioning of the cooking product is issued (par. 0212) if the cooking product extends over an unnecessarily large number of heating zones (par. 0210).
Claim 9, wherein the improved position to be aimed at is output on a screen of the cooking appliance (par. 0190 lines 25-28) and/or a moving direction leading to the improved position (par. 0194).
Claim 10, wherein the movement of the cooking product and/or the new position of the cooking product is detected via the sensor system (par. 0183 lines 26-29) and a signal is issued if the improved position has not yet been reached (par. 0020 lines 18-19) or has been reached (par. 0020 lines 18-19).
Claim 13, wherein the position tracking of the cooking product is interrupted during a movement recognition (par. 0065; par. 0035, 0036 relative presence when moved).
Claim 14, wherein the cooking path assigned to the cooking product is closed when the cooking product is moved out of the sensor area (par. 0067, 0071, 202).
Claim 15, wherein the sensor system comprises at least a camera (par. 0018), an IR sensor (par. 0183).
Claim 19, wherein the cooking product is detected alternately with and without light markings by the at least one sensor (par. 0058; where alternately is taken with respect to food vs area).
Claim 20, a cooking appliance comprising a control unit programmed so as to carry out the method according to claim 1 (par. 0090, 0175).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5, 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krossa et al. (WO2022262919; ids 3/30/26) in view of Olson et al. (20210030199).
Krossa teaches a system for monitoring food and providing food tracking during cooking using image processing and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of cameras and processors operable to recognize and locate food items and track their state as desired by Krossa and taught by Olson (par. 0010).
With respect to claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a user action as taught by Krossa including a turning process is detected by the sensor system and the detection device and the turned cooking product is detected as turned thus providing the additional advantage of recognizing the completion task has actually been performed (par. 0028) including flipping (par. 0027).
Claim 11. Krossa teaches the food placed in one or more processing zones (par. 0202) and tracking heating of each zone and/or multiple parts of a singular food which extend along a dimension (par. 0210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an edge tolerance as taught by Krossa, stored which tolerates an edge-side overlapping of the cooking product on an adjacent heating zone such that no signal is issued if the cooking product extends within an edge tolerance area of the adjacent heating zone thus preventing a signal of cooking completion due to time when the food product comprises temperature inhomogeneities when assessing the cooking state as taught (par. 0209).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the edge tolerance area is between 5 and 15% of the length dimension of the associated heating zone in the corresponding direction of extension thus defining area of adjacent processing zones for temperature control and preventing a signal of cooking completion due to time when the food product comprises temperature inhomogeneities when assessing the cooking state as taught (par. 0209).
Claim 16, Olson teaches a light marking projector laterally above the heating surface projects light markings on the cooking product (par. 0067) and at least one sensor which is positioned laterally above the contact heating surface and laterally away from the light marking projector detects the light markings projected onto the cooking product (par. 0077 lidar), and cooking product properties are determined based on data in the control unit acquired by the at least one sensor (par. 0077).
Thus since both teach a same sensor assembly for detecting food and since Olson teaches providing a projector for projecting directly onto the cooking product (par. 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of sensor for detecting and recognizing food location and cooking state such as in the instant case at least one sensor which is positioned laterally above the contact heating surface and laterally away from the light marking projector detects the light markings projected onto the cooking product (par. 0077 lidar), and cooking product properties are determined based on data in the control unit acquired by the at least one sensor (par. 0077). Thus achieving a same purpose of Krossa of any kind of computer-implemented computer vision technique that allows identifying and locating objects since identification and localization, object detection can be used to count objects in a scene and determine and track their precise locations, all while accurately labelling them. Analyzing the plurality of images using object detection is therefore advantageous in that computer-readable labels may be assigned to the food items placed on the processing area of the processing area. Such labels facilitate a tracking of the food items on the processing area. Thereby, a record concerning each food item may be established, and the record is linked to the corresponding food item by way of the computer-readable label assigned through the object detection (par. 0091).
Claim 17, Krossa and Olson teach IR sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach light marking projector generates light markings having a wavelength in the range of 800-1000 nm and additionally also emits infrared light strips with far infrared light, and the at least one sensor or a further sensor detects these infrared light strips thus achieving a same purpose of Krossa of any kind of computer-implemented computer vision technique that allows identifying and locating objects since identification and localization, object detection can be used to count objects in a scene and determine and track their precise locations, all while accurately labelling them. Analyzing the plurality of images using object detection is therefore advantageous in that computer-readable labels may be assigned to the food items placed on the processing area of the processing area. Such labels facilitate a tracking of the food items on the processing area. Thereby, a record concerning each food item may be established, and the record is linked to the corresponding food item by way of the computer-readable label assigned through the object detection (par. 0091).
Claim 18, Krossa teaches the sensor or a further sensor detects the cooking product optically without light strips (par. 0189 infrared), and wherein the acquired data with and without light markings are compared in the control unit (par. 0189) and data as to the dimensionality of the cooking product are determined based thereon (par. 0189; dimensions). Though silent to three-dimensionality of the cooking product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a same information, including three-dimensionality as taught by Olson (par. 0021) for its art recognized purpose of providing representative temperature and location images as taught by both.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20210375155, 20190125120 directed to cooking image display, 20210137130 directed to AI cooking, 20200069111, 20150285513 directed to camera controlled cooking
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights