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 § 102
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan (US-20160022086-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system, comprising: (abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’)
an excitation component configured to excite a cooking vessel; (20 fig. 1, ‘induction coil’, 202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’)
a sensor configured to sense an acoustic response of the cooking vessel to the excitation; and (202, 210, 212 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensors’, ‘cooking event sounds’, ‘cooking event responses’)
one or more processors configured to determine a type of the cooking vessel based at least in part on the acoustic response of the cooking vessel to the excitation that is sensed via the sensor. (208, 214 fig. 2, ‘controller’, ‘cooktop components’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046, 0056, 0058], ‘response to cooktop audio’, ‘the acoustic sensor, thereby providing enhanced audio signal integrity and performance’; para [0060], ‘In yet further embodiments, other criteria may be analyzed as well to determine sample matches.’; para [0041], ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop’)
In regards to claim 2, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor comprises an acoustic transducer. (202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046], ‘response to cooktop audio’; fig(s) 2-5, ‘method’)
In regards to claim 3, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor is in contact with the cooking vessel. (202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046], ‘response to cooktop audio’; fig(s) 2-5, ‘method’)
In regards to claim 4, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the excitation component comprises an induction coil. (20 fig. 1, ‘induction coil’; para [0021])
In regards to claim 6, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, wherein determining the type of the cooking vessel comprises determining a signature of the cooking vessel from an acoustic spectrum. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’)
In regards to claim 7, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein determining the type of the cooking vessel comprises determining a signature of the cooking vessel from an impedance spectrum. (para [0056-0061, 0058], ‘At (310) a frequency of the sample can be compared versus a frequency of each of the plurality of cooking event sounds. As an example, at (310) it can be determined whether the frequency of the sample is within a threshold amount from a frequency of one or more of the cooking event sounds.’; ‘At (312) it can be determined whether the sample matches one or more of the cooking event sounds. As an example, the sample can be determined to match a cooking event sound if the amplitude and/or the frequency of the sample respectively matches the amplitude and/or frequency of such cooking event sound. In other embodiments, both the amplitude and the frequency of the sample must match those of the cooking event sound for the sample to match the cooking event sound. In yet further embodiments, other criteria may be analyzed as well to determine sample matches.’; para [0041], ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop’)
In regards to claim 9, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the excitation component is configured to excite the cooking vessel at a set of probe frequencies. (para [0034], ‘control system 200 can also include one or more filters that filter the audio signal before or after amplification. As an example, in some embodiments, the one or more filters can be one or more band-pass filters that pass audio frequencies associated with common cooking events. For example, the band-pass filters can filter out low values associated with air noise and high values associated with user physical contact with the cooktop.’)
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US-20160022086-A1), in view of, Wilkinson (US-10025282-B1).
Yuan teaches:
In regard to claim 5, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1; abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’; ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop such as identify a vessel, determine or determine a temperature.’)
Yuan teaches the basic concepts of the invention which includes transducers or sensors. However, it does not specifically say piezoelectric sensor which is obvious to a person with ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Yuan to provide a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
Yuan does not teach:
wherein the excitation component comprises a piezoelectric transducer.
Wilkinson teaches:
wherein the excitation component comprises a piezoelectric transducer. (abstract, ‘Various sensors of the smart cooking device such as a force sensor, a vibration sensor and/or a temperature sensor measure data associated with a cooking process performed when the heating element is operating and the cookware item holds food’; 22-55 col. 8, ‘Examples of suitable force sensors 308 include hydraulic, pneumatic, piezoelectric and capacitive load cells, as well as strain-gage-based load cells’
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wilkinson to provide a piezoelectric sensor for a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US-20160022086-A1), in view of, Wilkinson (US-10025282-B1).
Yuan teaches:
In regards to claim 8, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Yuan to provide a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
Yuan does not teach:
wherein the excitation causes vibration of the cooking vessel that is sensed by the sensor.
Wilkinson teaches:
wherein the excitation causes vibration of the cooking vessel that is sensed by the sensor. (Wilkinson: abstract, ‘vibration sensor’; 112 fig. 1, ‘sensors’; 32-67 col. 2, ‘the sensors may also include a vibration 60 sensor, and the instructions may be configured to cause the remote computing device to receive vibration data from the vibration sensor, correlate the vibration data with the described steps, and include the correlated vibration data with the described steps in the digital recipe file. Optionally, the remote computing device may also be configured to determine whether the cookware item is a known cookware item. If the cookware’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wilkinson to provide the method for a piezoelectric sensor for a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan (US-20160022086-A1).
In regards to claim 10, Yuan teaches a method for cookware identification, comprising: (abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’)
exciting a cooking vessel using an excitation component; sensing an acoustic response of the cooking vessel to the excitation using a sensor; and (20 fig. 1, ‘induction coil’, 202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’)
determining a type of the cooking vessel based at least in part on the acoustic response of the cooking vessel to the excitation that is sensed via the sensor. . (208, 214 fig. 2, ‘controller’, ‘cooktop components’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046, 0056, 0058], ‘response to cooktop audio’, ‘the acoustic sensor, thereby providing enhanced audio signal integrity and performance’; para [0060], ‘In yet further embodiments, other criteria may be analyzed as well to determine sample matches.’; para [0041], ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop such as identifying a vessel or determination of a temperature’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan (US-20160022086-A1).
In regards to claim 11, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system, comprising: (abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’)
an acoustic sensor configured to sense vibrations pertaining to cooking of an ingredient in a cooking vessel; and (20 fig. 1, ‘induction coil’, 202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’)
one or more processors configured to:
monitor, over time, a signal that is based on the vibrations sensed by the acoustic sensor; and based on detecting a change in the signal that is based on the vibrations sensed by the acoustic sensor, determine a state of the ingredient. (208, 214 fig. 2, ‘controller’, ‘cooktop components’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046, 0056, 0058], ‘response to cooktop audio’, ‘the acoustic sensor, thereby providing enhanced audio signal integrity and performance’; para [0060], ‘In yet further embodiments, other criteria may be analyzed as well to determine sample matches.’; para [0041], ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop’)
In regards to claim 12, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the acoustic sensor is in contact with the cooking vessel. (202 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensor’s’; para [0021, 0027, 0044, 0043-0046], ‘response to cooktop audio’; fig(s) 2-5, ‘method’)
In regards to claim 14, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring one or more frequencies of the signal over time. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’)
In regards to claim 15, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 14, wherein an ingredient state is determined in response to detecting a change in amplitude of a frequency. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’)
In regards to claim 16, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein browning of the ingredient is determined based on detecting a change in amplitude of a first frequency. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’; para(s) [0033, 0056-0057], ‘compares amplitude with a plurality of cooking event sounds implementing thresholds’)
In regards to claim 17, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim14, wherein blackening of the ingredient is determined based on detecting a change in amplitude of a second frequency. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’; para(s) [0033, 0056-0057], ‘compares amplitude with a plurality of cooking event sounds implementing thresholds’)
In regards to claim 18, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 14, wherein the one or more frequencies comprise a subset of frequencies that are selected for monitoring monitored. (310 fig. 3, ‘310-compare frequency sample vs frequency sample of plurality of cooking event sounds’; 414 fig. 4, ‘cooking event sound’, ‘audio signal samples’; 512 fig. 5, ‘store user-defined cooking event’; para(s) [0033, 0056-0057], ‘compares amplitude with a plurality of cooking event sounds implementing thresholds’)
In regards to claim 19, Yuan teaches an ingredient state detection system of claim 18, (see claim rejection 18) wherein the subset of frequencies is selected based on a mode of cooking being performed. (310 fig. 3; 504, 508, 50 fig. 5)
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US-20160022086-A1), in view of, Wilkinson (US-10025282-B1).
Yuan teaches:
In regard to claim 13, Yuan teaches a cookware identification system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11; abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’; ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop such as identify a vessel, determine or determine a temperature.’)
Yuan teaches the basic concepts of the invention which includes transducers or sensors. However, it does not specifically say piezoelectric sensor which is obvious to a person with ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Yuan to provide a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
Yuan does not teach:
wherein the excitation component comprises a piezoelectric transducer.
Wilkinson teaches:
wherein the excitation component comprises a piezoelectric transducer. (abstract, ‘Various sensors of the smart cooking device such as a force sensor, a vibration sensor and/or a temperature sensor measure data associated with a cooking process performed when the heating element is operating and the cookware item holds food’; 22-55 col. 8, ‘Examples of suitable force sensors 308 include hydraulic, pneumatic, piezoelectric and capacitive load cells, as well as strain-gage-based load cells’
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Wilkinson to provide a piezoelectric sensor for a smart cooking device and system in order to alleviate the difficulty of cooking for individuals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan (US-20160022086-A1).
In regards to claim 20, Juan teaches a method for ingredient state detection, comprising: (abstract, 10, 31 fig(s) 2-5, ‘cooktop’, ‘input components ‘, ‘1 or more acoustic sensors’, ‘method of operation’)
sensing, using an acoustic sensor, vibrations pertaining to cooking of an ingredient in a cooking vessel; (310 fig. 3; 504, 508, 50 fig. 5; 202, 210, 212 fig. 2, ‘acoustic sensors’, ‘cooking event sounds’, ‘cooking event responses’)
monitoring, over time, a signal that is based on the vibrations sensed by the acoustic sensor; and (para [0056-0061, 0058], ‘At (310) a frequency of the sample can be compared versus a frequency of each of the plurality of cooking event sounds. As an example, at (310) it can be determined whether the frequency of the sample is within a threshold amount from a frequency of one or more of the cooking event sounds.’; ‘At (312) it can be determined whether the sample matches one or more of the cooking event sounds. As an example, the sample can be determined to match a cooking event sound if the amplitude and/or the frequency of the sample respectively matches the amplitude and/or frequency of such cooking event sound. In other embodiments, both the amplitude and the frequency of the sample must match those of the cooking event sound for the sample to match the cooking event sound. In yet further embodiments, other criteria may be analyzed as well to determine sample matches.’; para [0041], ‘controller 208 can consult cooking event responses database 212 to identify an appropriate action to perform in response to the cooking event identified as occurring at the cooktop’)
based on detecting a change in the signal that is based on the vibrations sensed by the acoustic sensor, determining a state of the ingredient. 19. The ingredient state detection system of claim 18, wherein the subset of frequencies is selected based on a mode of cooking being performed. (310 fig. 3; 504, 508, 50 fig. 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Holscher (DE-2024136052-A1), Roy (US-20260101912-A1), and Goddard (US-20250113415) references further describe a smart induction cooking system as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights