Cooking Interface Personalization Through User Behavior Classification

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Cooking appliances for professional and commercial use face challenges in balancing the provision of user options with usability complexity, leading to reduced user influence over cooking results, and existing solutions fail to effectively evaluate user behavior and adapt settings accordingly.

Innovation Solution

A method that centrally collects and evaluates user data and behavior to classify users into specific classes, allowing for personalized settings and advice, optimizing cooking appliance pre-sets and user guidance through intelligent data processing and feedback mechanisms.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If additional options are provided for user influence over cooking programs, then user ability to influence cooking results is improved, but operability complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveuser ability to influence cooking resultsVSAvoidoperability complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically collects usage data, analyzes user behavior patterns, and adapts cooking programs without requiring user intervention. The cooking device self-learns from observed usage patterns and automatically optimizes parameters, eliminating the need for complex manual configuration while maintaining high adaptability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors and analyzes user interaction data, then uses this feedback to automatically adjust cooking programs and settings. This closed-loop approach allows the system to adapt to user preferences over time without increasing operational complexity, as adjustments are made automatically based on observed behavior.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Ease of operation

If operability is simplified for less experienced users, then ease of operation is improved, but user ability to influence cooking results is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveease of operationVSAvoiduser ability to influence cooking results

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically observes and learns from user behavior patterns, then self-adjusts cooking programs to match individual preferences. This eliminates the need for users to manually configure complex parameters while still providing personalized cooking results, as the system serves itself by automatically adapting to each user's style.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system pre-analyzes usage data and pre-configures optimized cooking programs based on observed patterns. By performing the adaptation work in advance through automated analysis, the system prepares personalized settings before the user needs them, maintaining simplicity while ensuring customized results are readily available.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If user behavior evaluation and personalized adaptation are implemented, then user experience is improved, but data processing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepersonalized settings capabilityVSAvoiddata processing complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically collects, analyzes, and processes usage data without requiring external intervention or complex user setup. The cooking device independently performs behavioral analysis and generates personalized adaptations, eliminating the need for separate data processing systems while achieving high personalization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Adaptability or versatility

If comprehensive cooking parameters are made accessible for manual configuration, then adaptability is improved, but time required for setup increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecooking parameter customizationVSAvoidsetup time

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically observes user preferences and cooking patterns, then self-configures optimal parameters without requiring manual input. The cooking device performs the entire adaptation process autonomously by analyzing usage data, eliminating time-consuming setup procedures while maintaining comprehensive parameter customization capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system pre-processes usage data and pre-configures optimized parameters based on observed patterns before the user needs them. By performing adaptation work in advance through automated analysis, the system prepares personalized cooking settings proactively, making comprehensive customization available instantly without requiring time-intensive manual configuration.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentEP2101229B2Method for creating an intelligent human-machine interface for cooking devices

Publication Date: 2015.07.15 RATIONAL AG

AI summary

The method involves selectively changing an adjustment of a cooking device either by an input of an user at an input device e.g. remote control, for a cooking device or by evaluation of output data of a sensor determining an action of the user or by a movement of a movable part e.g. door, of the cooking device by the user. The user is classified into one or more user classes with a weightage for each user class. A work program is classified into one or more work program classes with a weightage for each work program class.