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 .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 10/10/2025, claims 1-26 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a recording unit for recording the humidity data to generate data history of humidity overtime; and
a processing unit to adapt a self-learning baking procedure of the food processing system, wherein the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor and the humidity sensor and, based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system”
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
“a classification unit for comparing the gathered current visual data feature data with reference visual feature data”
The claim limitation(s) use generic placeholder(s) “unit” that is/are coupled with functional languages “recording”, “processing” and “classification” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “recording unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub.para.0210 recites: “If the connection is temporarily not available it is of advantage to store the data locally in the recording unit 1822 or in a comparable memory and sync the data once the connection is up again.” Thus, the recording unit 1822 can be memory or thing(s) similar to memory.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “processing unit” and “classification unit”, Applicant’s Specification, pub.para.0195 recites: “the respective units 1820, 1830, 1840, and 1850 may be provided separately or may also be implemented as software being executed by a CPU of the monitoring apparatus 150.” Thus, the processing unit 1820 and classification unit 1850 may be provided separately or may also be implemented as software being executed by a CPU of the monitoring apparatus 150
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 recites the amended limitation:
“a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification of the current application does not disclose the first camera sensor performs the function of “observ[[ing]] an area outside of a heating chamber to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber”. In fact, figure 1A-B and pub. Para.0064 and 0220 of the current application disclose: “ Although the camera 160 is preferably mounted at an outside of the outside window 135 to be easily integrated within the monitoring apparatus 150, wherein the camera 160 then observes an inside of the heat treatment chamber 120 through the double glass window 130, the camera 160 may also be provided between the inside window 136 and the outside window 135 to observe an inside of the heat treatment chamber through the inside window 136” and “ the camera 160 recording a pixel image of food being heated, wherein the current sensor data of the camera corresponds to the current pixel data of a current pixel image.” Thus, the camera 160 observes an inside of the heat treatment chamber 120 to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber, not “observe an area outside of a heating chamber …to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” as claimed. See figs.1A-1B of the camera, the camera can be mounted at an outside of the outside window 135; however, the area that the camera 160 actually observes to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber120 is the inside of the heating chamber 120, not any area of the window 135. There is no evidence to show that observing the area of the window 135 (outside of the heating chamber) would “gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the above limitation introduces new matter(s).
Additionally, claim 1 recites the amended limitation: “the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor and the humidity sensor and, based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system” which is not supported by the original disclosure. The current application does not clearly explain how the signal from the first camera sensor can “add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system”. Applicant pointed to para.0129 to show the support for the amendment to claim 1. However, para.0129 discloses: “visual information … may support the control unit to adjust the heat treatment chamber program such as the baking program such as adjusting the bake time or temperature” which is not related to the limitation: “the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor …and, based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system”. As such, this limitation of claim 1 introduces new matter(s).
Claim 24 recites the limitation: “the monitoring system is additionally configured to set a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber based on the gathered current visual data of the food” which introduces a new matter. This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure, particularly in paragraphs 0231 and 0232 of the specification as asserted by the Applicant in the 10/10/25 Remarks.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraphs 0231 and 0232 of the specification only disclose “means for setting a time dependent temperature curve within the heat treatment chamber”, but not “based on the gathered current visual data of the food”. Therefore, by adding “based on the gathered current visual data of the food”, this limitation “the monitoring system is additionally configured to set a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber based on the gathered current visual data of the food” is a new matter.
Similarly, claims 25-26 recite the limitations:
“the monitoring system is additionally configured to adapt the speed of a fan within the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food” and
“the monitoring system is additionally configured to control ventilation of the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food”.
These limitations are not supported by the current disclosure. Paragraphs 0231 and 0232 of the specification only disclose “means for adapting the fan speed” and “means to adapt humidity in the heat treatment chamber by adding water, or a control of the ventilating mechanism (ventilating shutter)”, not “based on the current gathered visual data of the food” Therefore, by adding “based on the gathered current visual data of the food”, the above limitations in claims 25-26 are new matter.
Claims 2-17 and 22-23 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-17 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites the limitation: “a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” in lines 2-5 is unclear because this limitation conflicts with the current disclosure. Para.0064 and 0220 of the current application disclose: “The monitoring apparatus 150 is mounted across the outside window 135 of the double glass window 130 and comprises a camera 160 arranged next to the outside window 135, which is used to observe the food inside the oven chamber 120 during cooking or baking” and “ the camera 160 recording a pixel image of food being heated, wherein the current sensor data of the camera corresponds to the current pixel data of a current pixel image.” Thus, the camera 160 observes an inside of the heat treatment chamber 120 to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber, not “observe an area outside of a heating chamber …to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” as claimed. Therefore, it is unclear how the camera 160 can observe the outside area of the door 135 to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber 120 as shown in figs.1A-1B of the current application because these two areas are not related. Stated another way, it is unclear how the outside area of the heating chamber can be used to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber. For examination purposes, based on pub.Para.0064 and figs.1A-1B of the current application, the limitation: “a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” is construed as the camera sensor 160 mounted at an outside of the outside window 135, wherein the camera sensor 160 is capable of imaging the area outside of a heating chamber and gathering current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber 120.
Claim 1 also recites the amended limitation: “the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor and the humidity sensor and, based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system” which is unclear how the signal from the first camera sensor can add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system. Pub. Para.0239 of the current application discloses: “In case of humidity, at least one hygrometer detects a reference value for the humidity over bake time during the reference bake. When repeating a baking of the same product the amount of water to be added may be different”. Based on Pub. Para.0239, the signal from the humidity sensor can helps to add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system, not the signal from both of the “first camera sensor and the humidity sensor” as recited in claim 1. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007), In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2181. . For examination purposes, the processing unit is construed as any type of controller that comprises a camera sensor and a humidity sensor and the processing unit is capable of adding water to the heating chamber of the food processing system.
Claim 24 recites the limitation: “the monitoring system is additionally configured to set a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber based on the gathered current visual data of the food” , as written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. Paragraphs 0231 and 0232 of the specification only disclose “means for setting a time dependent temperature curve within the heat treatment chamber”, but not “based on the gathered current visual data of the food”. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007), In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2181. For examination purposes, the monitoring system is construed as any type of controller that is capable of setting a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber, wherein the monitoring system comprises the first camera sensor.
Similarly, claims 25-26 recite the limitations:
“the monitoring system is additionally configured to adapt the speed of a fan within the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food” and
“the monitoring system is additionally configured to control ventilation of the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food”.
one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. Paragraphs 0231 and 0232 of the specification only disclose “means for adapting the fan speed” and “means to adapt humidity in the heat treatment chamber by adding water, or a control of the ventilating mechanism (ventilating shutter)”. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007), In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and MPEP § 2181. For examination purposes, the monitoring system is construed as any type of controller that is capable of adapting the speed of a fan within the heating chamber (claim 25) and controlling ventilation of the heating chamber (claim 26), wherein the monitoring system comprises the first camera sensor.
Claims 2-17 and 22-26 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US20010051202A1, previously cited) in view of Akira (JP 2008286466 A, previously cited), Kates (US20080204246A1, previously cited) and further in view of Hirotsugu (JP 2004167132 A, newly cited)
Regarding claim 1, Hofer discloses
A monitoring system (system including sensors 9, controller 16 and memory as shown in fig.1) for a food processing system (1, see fig.1), comprising:
a humidity sensor (9, see fig.1 and para.0031) for gathering humidity data within the heating chamber (4, see fig.1 and para.0031) of the food processing system (see para.0031: “ sensors 9 for detecting humidity in the oven 4 are connected to the control device 16 by means of lines 24”); and
a processing unit (16, see fig.1) to adapt a self-learning baking procedure of the food processing system (see para.0045: “the oven 4 can be used universally for different cooking and baking purposes and other processes such as baking, roasting, steaming, thawing and similar. Due to the option of fully automated operation or “self-learning operation…”),
wherein the processing unit (16, see fig.1) is additionally configured to receive a signal from the humidity sensor (9, see fig.1) and, based on the received signal (see para.0041), add water to the heating chamber (4) of the food processing system (see para.0041: “If the control device 16 ascertains that the actual value for humidity is at variance with the desired value, the actual value for humidity will be reduced to the desired value by feeding in dry air or drawing off moisture, for example, and, if the humidity in the oven 4 is too low, fluid 11 in liquid, gaseous or vapour form will be fed in to increase the moisture content until the actual value matches the desired value again”).
Hofer does not expressly disclose
a first camera sensor to observe an area outside surface of a door of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber;
a recording unit for recording the humidity data to generate data history of humidity over time; anda processing unit to adapt a self-learning baking procedure of the food processing system, wherein the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor, and based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system.
However, Akira discloses a heating device that can know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit (see para.007), comprising:
a first camera sensor (10, see fig.2) to observe an area outside of a heating chamber (area outside of the heating chamber 2, see fig.1-2. See the area outside of the heating chamber in annotated fig.2 below. The camera is capable of imaging the annotated area outside of the heating chamber ) of the food processing system (1, see fig.2) to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber (see para.0010: “the inside of the heating chamber 2 is photographed by the imaging unit 10 and the image signal is received by the display unit 20 and displayed on the screen, so that the user can visually confirm the heating state of the article 3 to be heated”. See 112(a)-(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Akira
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Hofer to incorporate the first camera sensor of Akira so that the first camera sensor is capable of observing an area outside surface of a door of a heating chamber of the food processing system and gathering current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber (See 112(a)-(b) rejections above). Doing so allows the system to know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit/sensor (See para.007 of Akira). In addition, “ it is possible to prevent the object to be heated from being burnt and lead to the occurrence of a fire accident or the like, so that the safety of the heating device is increased” (see para.0051 of Akira).
Hofer in view of Akira discloses the above limitations as set forth, Hofer also discloses a recording unit for storing at least one desired value for the humidity, wherein the desired value for the humidity is compared with the humidity data to increase the moisture content inside the cooking chamber (see claim 7 and para.0038-0041), except a recording unit for recording the humidity data to generate data history of humidity over time.
Kates discloses Systems and methods for monitoring conditions that affect the quality of food being served, comprising:
a recording unit (writeable storage area, see para.0099) for recording the humidity data to generate data history of humidity over time (see para.0090: “, the writeable storage area on the tag is used for storing previous sensor readings…and/or other data that can be used to produce a history for the tag corresponding to one or more environmental parameters (e.g., a temperature profile history, a humidity profile history”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the recording unit of Hofer in view of Akira to record the humidity data to generate data history of humidity over time as taught by Kates. Doing so enables the user to track of fluctuations, identify potential issues, and facilitate proactive measures in order to maintain stable and appropriate humidity levels for the cooking device.
Hofer in view of Akira and Kates discloses the above limitations as set forth, but is silent on the processing unit is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor, and based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system.
Hirotsugu discloses a water cooker, comprising:
the processing unit (11, see fig.1) is additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor (10, see fig.1), and based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber (6, see fig.1) of the food processing system (system shown in fig.1 and see page 1m lines 28-30: “the actual amount of rice is photographed by the image pickup means, and the control means is controlled so as to supply a predetermined amount of water according to the output of the image processing apparatus”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the processing unit of Hofer in view of Akira and Kates to be “additionally configured to receive a signal from the first camera sensor, and based on the received signal, add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system” as taught by Hirotsugu. Doing so allows to perform automatic water supply according to the amount of food which ensures the food receives the precise amount of water, improving efficiency and reducing food/water waste (see page 1, lines 12-14 of Hirotsugu).
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the processing unit comprises a classification unit for comparing the gathered current visual data feature data with reference visual feature data.
Akira further discloses the processing unit (18, see para.0024) comprises a classification unit (18, see para.0024) for comparing the gathered current visual data with reference visual data (see para.0024: “The control unit 24 compares the image in the heating chamber 2 stored in the storage device in step S403 with the image in the heating chamber 2 stored in the storage device in step S407, and whether or not they are the same”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the processing unit of Hofer, as modified by Akira, Kates and Hirotsugu above, to “compare the gathered current visual data feature data with reference visual feature data” as taught by Akira. Doing so allows the system to know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit/sensor (See para.007 of Akira). In addition, “it is possible to prevent the object to be heated from being burnt and lead to the occurrence of a fire accident or the like, so that the safety of the heating device is increased” (see para.0051 of Akira).
Regarding claim 4, Hofer further discloses the processing unit (16) is adapted to start predetermined process variants for the food processing system without input from a user (see para.0045: “Due to the option of fully automated operation or “self-learning operation”, there is no longer any need to take account of the temperature and/or humidity or the temperature of the moisture and the quantity when the oven 4 is loaded”).
Regarding claim 9, Hofer further discloses the processing unit (16) adapted to implement the self-learning baking procedure (see para.0045) is to optimize a function of the processing unit (16) using machine learning techniques or corrections used for self-learning procedures (see para.0045-0046. Para.0045 recites: “Due to the option of fully automated operation or “self-learning operation…”).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates and Hirotsugu further discloses the current visual data (data from the camera 10 of Akira, see fig.2) comprises at least one of a region of interest, interest points, blobs, edges, corners, grey-level image, or color image (See para.0022, 0047,0048, 0050. Para.0050 recites: “It is considered that black or brown is generally used as a reference color for the determination of scoring, but other colors may be used).
Claims 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Riefenstein (US 2014/0026762 A1)
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the processing unit is adapted to inform a user to place the food into the food processing system or to initiate an automated placement process.
Riefenstein discloses a cooking device, comprising:
the processing unit (controller, see para.0037) is adapted to inform the user to place the food into the food processing system (“the controller may be programmed to request the user to insert the food in different tray levels”, see para.0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the processing unit of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu to be adapted to inform a user to place the food into the food processing system or to initiate an automated placement process as taught by Riefenstein. Doing so ensures that food is cooked consistently, regardless of the operator's experience. In addition, it significantly reduces the time it takes to prepare and cook food.
Regarding claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except type and quantity of the food produced is determined based on data characteristics of the current visual data.
Riefenstein discloses a cooking device, comprising:
type and quantity of the food produced is determined on the basis of data characteristics (type and piece number, see para.0038) of the current feature data (calculated data from the pictures).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira/Kates/Hirotsugu to have type and quantity of the food produced is determined based on data characteristics of the current feature data as taught by Riefenstein. This allows for automated food recognition, quality assessment, and even prediction of cooking outcomes.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Toshihiko (JP 2004347163 A)
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except first camera sensor is to gather pixel data.
Toshihiko discloses a cooking system for automating cooking using a heating cooker by allowing the setting of optimum cooking conditions for the heating cooker, comprising:
first camera sensor (21) is to gather pixel data (page 3, lines 5-6: “X and Y correspond to the X and Y coordinates of the image sensor 21, and (X, Y) means pixel data of the X and Y coordinates (output data of the image sensor 21)”). \
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first camera sensor of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates and Hirotsugu to gather pixel data as taught by Hirotsugu. Doing so provides a cooking system for automating cooking by allowing the setting of optimum cooking conditions for the food processing system (see page 1, lines 12-14 of Toshihiko ).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hansen (US 20040261632 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the humidity sensor includes a hygrometer.
Hansen discloses a Humidity Control System for Combination Oven, comprising:
the humidity sensor includes a hygrometer (see para.0035: “ dedicated humidity sensor 83, such as an electronic hygrometer”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the humidity sensor including the hygrometer of Hansen for the humidity sensor of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of detecting the moisture/humidity in the cooking chamber (see para.0035 of Hansen).The hygrometer is easy to use and affordable, making them accessible for various applications.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu, Hansen as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Buhr (US 20140356899 A1)
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the humidity sensor is positioned within a vertical tube connected to the heating chamber.
Buhr discloses quantitative performance prediction of decontaminating treatments of surfaces exposed to hot humid air, comprising:
the humidity sensor (170, see fig.1) is positioned within a vertical tube ( See para.0046: “A traceable hygrometer/thermometer 170 from Control Company in Friendswood, Tex. was disposed within a single TPP.RTM. conical tube”) connected to the heating chamber (120, see fig.2. in Buhr, the tube 130 connected to the chamber 120. Thus, in the modification of Hofer in view of Kates/ Hansen/Buhr, the tube 130 is connected to the heating chamber of Hofer).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
395
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig.1 of Buhr
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the humidity sensor of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu/ Hansen to include the teachings of Buhr so as the humidity sensor is positioned within a vertical tube connected to the heating chamber. The modification enables “real-time monitoring of temperature and relative humidity inside the conical tube exactly” (see para.0046 of Buhr).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Torres (US 2016/0345389 A1)
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the processing unit is connected to a lookup table storing a type of the food.
Torres discloses systems, apparatuses, and methods are disclosed for cooking a food item, comprising:
the processing unit (processor 112, see fig.2A) is connected to a lookup table storing the type of food (see table 1, para.0065).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing unit of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu to be connected to a lookup table storing a type of the food as taught by Torres. Doing so allows to cook the food items to a desired processing result (see para.0065 of Torres).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Riefenstein(US 20130302483 A1), hereinafter Riefenstein’483
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the food processing system is used for cooking of the food at a restaurant chain.
Riefenstein’483 discloses cooking devices having inspection systems, wherein
the food processing system (cooking device 1, see fig.1) is used for cooking of food at a restaurant chain (see para.0029: “one target group for the cooking device of the present disclosure is fast food restaurants, or chain restaurants of any type”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the food processing system of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu to be used for cooking of the food at a restaurant chain as taught by Riefenstein’483. Doing so allows to have high quality and consistency of cooked food appearance (see para.0029 of Riefenstein’483).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koo (US 20140295822 A1)
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the monitoring system is connected to a cloud service providing access to humidity data of other user stations.
Koo discloses a SmartCook architecture, comprising:
the monitoring system (SmartCook Applicance, see fig.1) is connected to a cloud service (SmartCook cloud 110, see fig.1) providing access to humidity data (data on the cloud, see para.0015-0020. Because the SmartCook Applicance accesses to all data, it is capable of access to humidity data of the user stations) of other user stations (stations 120,124,126).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer, as modified by Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu, by the teachings of Koo so as the monitoring system is connected to a cloud service providing access to humidity data of other user stations. Doing so allows the users can share humidity data, allowing for adjustments to be made based on real-time conditions across different areas of the kitchen or even across different locations.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gross (US 20100112540 A1)
Regarding claim 12, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the recording unit is adapted to store the generated data history for later exchange with an internet connection, responsive to the internet connection being temporarily not available.
Gross discloses a wireless communication system, comprising:
the recording unit (local storage, see para.0056 ) is adapted to store the generated data history for later exchange with an internet connection responsive to the internet connection being temporarily not available (see para.0056: “the wireless mobile device 401 device has local storage for storing information when a connection to the Internet is unavailable”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the recording unit of Hofer, as modified by Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu above, so as it is adapted to store the generated data history for later exchange with an internet connection responsive to the internet connection being temporarily not available as taught by Gross. Doing so avoids the potential for data loss if the user is disconnected from the internet (See para. 0056 of Gross).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Brownlow (US 5681496 A)
Regarding claim 15, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Hofer further discloses wherein the humidity sensor (9) is located in a local monitoring apparatus (3, see fig.1), except a learning unit integrated into the local monitoring apparatus and adapted to determine a mapping of humidity data to reference humidity data based on at least one training heating process, wherein the at least one training heating process is based on the humidity data of the local monitoring apparatus or current humidity data of sensors of further monitoring apparatuses at different places on the world.
Brownlow discloses an apparatus for and a method of controlling a cooker and to a cooker controlled by such an apparatus, comprising:
a learning unit (14, see fig.1) integrated into the local monitoring apparatus (2, see fig.1) and adapted to determine a mapping of humidity data (feature vector which is humidity data sensed by the absolute humidity sensor 10 , see col.6, lines 40-52: “ The first component of the feature vector is the maximum rate of change of humidity … The corresponding value of humidity H.sub.dHmax at the maximum rate of change of humidity is the second component of the feature vector, as shown in FIG. 6…fourth component of the feature vector is the average humidity H.sup.0 ....”) to reference humidity data (the degree of doneness, see col.7, lines 21-23) based on at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11 and col7, lines 21-23: “the function of the neural network is to form a nonlinear mapping between the input feature vector and the degree of doneness”), wherein the at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11) is based on the current humidity sensor data (data of the humidity sensor 10, see fig.11) of the local monitoring apparatus (2, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer, as modified by Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu, to incorporate “a learning unit integrated into the local monitoring apparatus and adapted to determine a mapping of humidity data to reference humidity data based on at least one training heating process, wherein the at least one training heating process is based on the humidity data of the local monitoring apparatus” as taught by Brownlow. Doing so allows to “ to make an estimate of doneness without identifying the type of food on the basis of humidity measurements made by the humidity sensor and to control the at least one heating device on the basis of the estimate of doneness” (see col.3, lines 32-35 of Brownlow). “User intervention can thus be reduced or eliminated while simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture of cooking apparatuses” (see col.3, lines 64-67 of Brownlow).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu, Brownlow as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Lillquist (US 4,687,344)
Regarding claim 16, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a camera that includes an infrared wavelength filter.
Lillquist discloses an imaging pyrometer may be constructed from any television or video camera using a detector which responds to radiation wavelengths in the near-infrared, comprising:
the camera (camera 10, see fig.1) that includes an infrared wavelength filter (infrared filter 12, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the camera of Hofer, as modified by Kates, Akira, Brownlow and Hirotsugu, to incorporate the infrared wavelength filter as taught by Lillquist. Doing so prevents unwanted heating and ensures the camera captures accurate images by blocking near-infrared wavelengths. Thus, accurate monitoring and recording are improved.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu, Brownlow as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Kang (US 5512736 A)
Regarding claim 17, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Hofer further discloses sensors (8 and 29, see fig.1and para.0031, 0036) to acquire signals related to ventilation (see para.0031, The sensors 8 are used to measure and monitor the temperature of air, which is a crucial aspect of ventilation systems), temperature of food surface (see para.0031: “Sensors 8 for detecting temperatures in the oven 4”. By detecting temperatures in the oven 4, the sensor 8 detects the temperature of the food surface), heat distribution (see para.0031 and 0036, the sensor 8 and probe 28 detect the heat distribution in the oven 4 and of the bakery products 2) and interior temperature of treated food (see para.0036: “probe 28 in the bakery products 2, which can also be connected to the control device 16 by means of a line 29 in order to detect the temperature and/or moisture content of the bakery products 2”), except sensors to acquire signals related to load volume, load distribution and load weight.
Kang discloses a microwave oven which can generate and transfer maximum microwave power to food being cooked irrespective of the weight and size of that food being cooked, thereby shortening cooking time and improving the efficiency of cooking, comprising:
sensors (27 and 28, see fig.3) to acquire signals related to load volume, load distribution and load weight (see col.3, lines 14-17: “The load sensing part 20 includes optical sensors 27 and a weight sensor 28 for sensing the volume and weight, respectively, of food on the turntable 12 in the heating chamber 11”. By sensing the volume and weight, the sensors 27-28 acquire signals related to load volume, load distribution and load weight).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer, as modified by Kates, Akira, Hirotsugu and Brownlow, to incorporate the sensors to acquire signals related to load volume, load distribution and load weight as taught by Kang. Doing so allows the users to measure ingredients by weight accurately which can help to prevent overcooking and ensure the food is cooked to the desired level of doneness.
Claims 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US20010051202A1, previously cited) in view of Akira (JP 2008286466 A, previously cited), Kates (US20080204246A1, previously cited)
Regarding claim 18, Hofer discloses A method for monitoring a food processing system (1, see fig.1), comprising:
gathering, by a humidity sensor (9, see fig.1 and para.0031), humidity data within the heating chamber (4, see fig.1 and para.0031: “ sensors 9 for detecting humidity in the oven 4 are connected to the control device 16 by means of lines 24”);
adapting a self-learning baking procedure of the food processing system (see para.0045: “by using this control device in the manner described, the oven 4 can be used universally for different cooking and baking purposes and other processes such as baking, roasting, steaming, thawing and similar. Due to the option of fully automated operation or “self-learning operation…”), wherein a processing unit (16, see fig.1) of the food processing system (1, see fig.1) is additionally configured to receive a signal from the humidity sensor (9, see fig.1 and para.0041) and, based on the received signal (signal of the humidity sensor 9), add water to the heating chamber of the food processing system (see para.0041: “If the control device 16 ascertains that the actual value for humidity is at variance with the desired value, the actual value for humidity will be reduced to the desired value by feeding in dry air or drawing off moisture, for example, and, if the humidity in the oven 4 is too low, fluid 11 in liquid, gaseous or vapour form will be fed in to increase the moisture content until the actual value matches the desired value again”). ; and
adding water to the heating chamber (4) of the food processing system (1, see para.0041: “if the humidity in the oven 4 is too low, fluid 11 in liquid, gaseous or vapour form will be fed in to increase the moisture content until the actual value matches the desired value again”).
Hofer does not explicitly disclose
gathering current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber from an area outside of the heating chamber of the food processing system utilizing a first camera sensor;
recording, by a recording unit, the humidity data to generate a data history of humidity over time.
Akira discloses a heating device that can know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit (see para.007), comprising:
gathering current visual data of food (3, see fig.2) to be placed into a heating chamber (2, see figs.1-2) from an area (area where the imaging unit 10 is mounted, see fig.2) outside of the heating chamber (2, see fig.2) of the food processing system (1, see fig.2. See area outside of the heating chamber in annotated fig.2 below) utilizing a first camera sensor (10, see fig.2).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Akira
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method for monitoring a food processing system of Hofer to incorporate the step of “gathering current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber from an area outside of the heating chamber of the food processing system utilizing a first camera sensor” Doing so allows the system to know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit/sensor (See para.007 of Akira). In addition, “it is possible to prevent the object to be heated from being burnt and lead to the occurrence of a fire accident or the like, so that the safety of the heating device is increased” (see para.0051 of Akira).
Hofer in view of Akira discloses the above limitations as set forth, Hofer also discloses a recording unit for storing at least one desired value for the humidity, wherein the desired value for the humidity is compared with the humidity data to increase the moisture content inside the cooking chamber (see claim 7 and para.0038-0041), except recording, by a recording unit, the humidity data to generate a data history of humidity over time;
Kates discloses systems and methods for monitoring conditions that affect the quality of food being served, comprising:
recording, by a recording unit, the humidity data to generate a data history of humidity over time (see para.0090: “, the writeable storage area on the tag is used for storing previous sensor readings, timestamps associated with previous sensors readings, and/or other data that can be used to produce a history for the tag corresponding to one or more environmental parameters (e.g., a temperature profile history, a humidity profile history”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Hofer, as modified by Akira above, to add the steps of recording, by the recording unit, the humidity data to generate a data history of overtime as taught by Kates. Doing so enables the user to track of fluctuations, identify potential issues, and facilitate proactive measures in order to maintain stable and appropriate humidity levels for the cooking device.
Regarding claim 20, Hofer discloses A non-transient computer-readable medium (operating programme, see para.0038-0041) comprising instructions (see para.0041) which, when executed by a computer (16, see fig.1), cause the computer (16, see fig.1), to:
gather humidity data within the heating chamber (4, see fig.1 and see para.0031: “ sensors 9 for detecting humidity in the oven 4 are connected to the control device 16 by means of lines 24);
add water to the heating chamber (4, see fig.1) of the food processing system (1, see fig.1 and para.0041: “… if the humidity in the oven 4 is too low, fluid 11 in liquid, gaseous or vapour form will be fed in to increase the moisture content until the actual value matches the desired value again”); and
adapt a self-learning baking procedure by the food processing system (see para.0045: “by using this control device in the manner described, the oven 4 can be used universally for different cooking and baking purposes and other processes such as baking, roasting, steaming, thawing and similar. Due to the option of fully automated operation or “self-learning operation…”).
Hofer does not explicitly disclose
gather current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber from an area outside of the heating chamber of a food processing system via a first camera sensor; and
record the humidity data to generate a humidity data history of humidity over time.
Akira discloses a heating device that can know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit (see para.007), comprising:
gather current visual data of food (3, see fig.2) to be placed into a heating chamber (2, see figs.1-2) from an area (area where the imaging unit 10 is mounted, see fig.2) outside of the heating chamber (2, see fig.2) of a food processing system (1, see fig.2. See area outside of the heating chamber in annotated fig.2 below) via a first camera sensor (10, see fig.2).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Akira
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method for monitoring a food processing system of Hofer to incorporate the step of “gather current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber from an area outside of the heating chamber of a food processing system via a first camera sensor” as taught by Akira. Doing so allows the system to know the heating state of an object to be heated from the outside while avoiding a failure of an imaging unit/sensor (See para.007 of Akira). In addition, “it is possible to prevent the object to be heated from being burnt and lead to the occurrence of a fire accident or the like, so that the safety of the heating device is increased” (see para.0051 of Akira).
Hofer in view of Akira discloses the above limitations as set forth, Hofer also discloses a recording unit for storing at least one desired value for the humidity, wherein the desired value for the humidity is compared with the humidity data to increase the moisture content inside the cooking chamber (see claim 7 and para.0038-0041), except record the humidity data to generate a humidity data history of humidity over time.
Kates discloses systems and methods for monitoring conditions that affect the quality of food being served, comprising:
record the humidity data to generate a humidity data history of humidity overtime (see para.0090: “the writeable storage area on the tag is used for storing previous sensor readings, timestamps associated with previous sensors readings, and/or other data that can be used to produce a history for the tag corresponding to one or more environmental parameters (e.g., a temperature profile history, a humidity profile history”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the recording unit of Hofer in view of Akira to record the humidity data to generate a humidity data history of humidity overtime as taught by Kates. Doing so enables the user to track of fluctuations, identify potential issues, and facilitate proactive measures in order to maintain stable and appropriate humidity levels for the cooking device.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates as applied to claim 18 and further in view of Brownlow (US 5681496 A) and Murrell (US 20160004193 A1, effective filing date 06/04/2014)
Regarding claim 19, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Hofer further discloses determining, by a learning unit (operating programme, see para.0038) integrated into the food processing system (1, see fig.1), except a mapping of current humidity data to reference humidity data based on at least one training heating process, wherein the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity data of monitoring apparatuses at different places.
Brownlow discloses an apparatus for and a method of controlling a cooker and to a cooker controlled by such an apparatus, comprising:
a learning unit (14, see fig.1) integrated into the local monitoring apparatus (2, see fig.1) and adapted to determine a mapping of current sensor data (feature vector which is humidity data sensed by the absolute humidity sensor 10 , see col.6, lines 40-52: “ The first component of the feature vector is the maximum rate of change of humidity … The corresponding value of humidity H.sub.dHmax at the maximum rate of change of humidity is the second component of the feature vector, as shown in FIG. 6…fourth component of the feature vector is the average humidity H.sup.0 ....”) to current feature data (the degree of doneness, see col.7, lines 21-23) based on at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11 and col7, lines 21-23: “the function of the neural network is to form a nonlinear mapping between the input feature vector and the degree of doneness”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hofer, as modified by Akira and Kates, to incorporate “a learning unit integrated into the local monitoring apparatus and adapted to determine a mapping of current sensor data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process” as taught by Brownlow. Doing so allows to “ to make an estimate of doneness without identifying the type of food on the basis of humidity measurements made by the humidity sensor and to control the at least one heating device on the basis of the estimate of doneness” (see col.3, lines 32-35 of Brownlow). “User intervention can thus be reduced or eliminated while simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture of cooking apparatuses” (see col.3, lines 64-67 of Brownlow).
Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/ Brownlow discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Brownlow discloses at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11 and col7, lines 21-23), except the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity data of monitoring apparatuses at different places.
Murrell discloses an Imaging Device and Method for Determining Operating Parameters, comprising:
the at least one training heating process (12, see fig.1) is based on current humidity data of monitoring apparatuses (16-1-16-M, see fig.1) at different places (see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hofer, as modified by of Akira/ Kates/ Brownlow above, to use the teachings of Murrell so as “the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity data of monitoring apparatuses at different places” as claimed. Doing so allows for a comprehensive understanding of the oven environment. This understanding is then used to optimize oven settings and ensure that the desired level of humidity is maintained for consistent, high-quality heating or baking outcomes.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates as applied to claim 20 and further in view of Brownlow (US 5681496 A) and Has (US20110134413A1)
Regarding claim 21, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the instructions cause the computer to determine a mapping of current sensor data current visual data and humidity data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process,wherein the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity sensor data collected from a local monitoring apparatus or current humidity sensor data collected from sensor units of further monitoring apparatuses at different places on the world.
Brownlow discloses an apparatus for and a method of controlling a cooker and to a cooker controlled by such an apparatus, comprising:
the instructions cause the computer to determine a mapping of current sensor data current visual data and humidity data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process,wherein the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity data collected from a local monitoring apparatus or current humidity sensor data collected from sensor units of further monitoring apparatuses at different places on the world.
the instructions (operating programme of the controller 14) cause the computer (14, see fig,1) to determine a mapping of humidity data (feature vector which is humidity data sensed by the absolute humidity sensor 10 , see col.6, lines 40-52: “ The first component of the feature vector is the maximum rate of change of humidity … The corresponding value of humidity H.sub.dHmax at the maximum rate of change of humidity is the second component of the feature vector, as shown in FIG. 6…fourth component of the feature vector is the average humidity H.sup.0 ....”) to current feature data (the degree of doneness, see col.7, lines 21-23) based on at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11 and col7, lines 21-23: “the function of the neural network is to form a nonlinear mapping between the input feature vector and the degree of doneness”), wherein the at least one training heating process (the neural network for doneness calculation, see fig.11) is based on the current humidity sensor data (data of the humidity sensor 10, see fig.11) collected from a local monitoring apparatus (2, see fig.1)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the instructions of Hofer, as modified by Akira/ Kates, to “cause the computer to determine a mapping of humidity data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process,wherein the at least one training heating process is based on current humidity data collected from a local monitoring apparatus” as taught by Brownlow. Doing so allows to “ to make an estimate of doneness without identifying the type of food on the basis of humidity measurements made by the humidity sensor and to control the at least one heating device on the basis of the estimate of doneness” (see col.3, lines 32-35 of Brownlow). “User intervention can thus be reduced or eliminated while simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacture of cooking apparatuses” (see col.3, lines 64-67 of Brownlow).
Hofer in view of Kates and Brownlow discloses the claimed invention as set forth, except the instructions cause the computer to determine a mapping of current visual data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process.
Has discloses a cooking hob device, comprising:
the instructions cause the computer (24 and 30, see fig.1) to determine a mapping of current visual data to current feature data (see para.0039: “The evaluation unit 30 is provided to assign a specific application situation, in particular a hazardous situation, to a change of contour obtained in the chronological sequence of images 16′”) based on at least one training heating process (training heating process shown in fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the instructions of Hofer, as modified by Akira/ Kates and Brownlow , to “cause the computer to determine a mapping of current visual data to current feature data based on at least one training heating process” as taught by Has. Doing so allows to detect hazardous situation, prevent accidents, ensure food safety, and maintain the lifespan of the oven .
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mustafa (WO2012062890A2) and Shei (US 20040069155 A1)
Regarding claim 22, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the monitoring system includes a second camera sensor aligned to observe an individual tray within the heating chamber, and wherein the monitoring system is to compute a remaining baking time for the individual tray.
Mustafa discloses an oven detecting presence and/or position of tray, comprising:
the monitoring system includes a second camera sensor (10, see fig.4) aligned to observe an individual tray (9, see fig.3) within the heating chamber (6, see fig.3),
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu to incorporate “a second camera sensor aligned to observe an individual tray within the heating chamber” as taught by Mustafa, in order for detecting the presence and/or the position of the tray so that the oven regulates the cooking effectiveness with respect to the position of the tray during cooking, blows hot air and provides the cooking performance to be increased (see page 1, lines 35-41 of Mustafa).
Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu/ Mustafa discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but silent on the monitoring system is to compute a remaining baking time for the individual tray.
Shei discloses a food holding apparatus, comprising:
the monitoring system (251, see fig.16) is to compute a remaining baking time for the individual tray (tray T, see fig.16 and para.0080: “the control 251 also includes a timer which times out the holding duration, and a display 255 which shows the time remaining until the end of holding duration”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu/ Mustafa to compute a remaining baking time for the individual tray as taught by Shei. Doing so ensures food safety, optimizes energy, and provides valuable data for process improvement.
Regarding claim 23, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 22, except the monitoring system is additionally configured to transmit a signal, to a display, to remove the individual tray based on expiration of the remaining baking time for the individual tray.
Shei further discloses the monitoring system (251, see fig.16) is additionally configured to transmit a signal, to a display (255, see fig.16), to remove the individual tray (tray T. see fig.16) based on expiration of the remaining baking time for the individual tray (See para.0080: “ a display 255 which shows the time remaining until the end of holding duration. The control mechanism 251 may also include a visual and/or audible alarm for alerting an operator at a predetermined time before the end of the holding duration, so that steps can be taken to start cooking a fresh batch or batches of additional food. (At the end of a holding duration, any food remaining in the compartments 207 is typically disposed of and replaced by freshly cooked food)”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu/ Mustafa/ Shei to be “configured to transmit a signal, to a display, to remove the individual tray based on expiration of the remaining baking time for the individual tray” as taught by Shei. Doing so alerts “an operator at a predetermined time before the end of the holding duration, so that steps can be taken to start cooking a fresh batch or batches of additional food” (see para.0080 of Shei).
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Torres (US 20130306626 A1)
Regarding claim 24, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the monitoring system is additionally configured to set a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber based on the gathered current visual data of the food.
Torres discloses systems, apparatuses and methods are disclosed for cooking a food item using rf oven, comprising:
the monitoring system (processor, see para.0114) is additionally configured to set a time dependent temperature curve (420, see fig.4B and see para.0114: “The time-temperature profile defined by the curve between A and B may be determined by the processor”) to control heating within the heating chamber (see step 408, fig.4A and para.0115) based on the gathered current visual data of the food (see para.0113: “The temperature change may be detected by … an IR camera may be configured to measure the surface temperature of the object”. See 112(a)-(b) rejections above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu to be “configured to set a time dependent temperature curve to control heating within the heating chamber based on the gathered current visual data of the food” as taught by Torres. Doing so allows to determine amount of energy which helps to reduce utility costs.
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mustafa (WO 2012062890 A2) and Lee (US 20140020670 A1)
Regarding claim 25, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the monitoring system is additionally configured to adapt the speed of a fan within the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food.
Mustafa discloses an oven detecting presence and/or position of tray, comprising:
the monitoring system (12, see page 2, lines 9-17) is additionally configured to adapt the speed of a fan (fan, see page 2, line 14) based on the current gathered visual data of the food (see page 2, lines 9-17: “The data transferred to the control unit (12) by the camera (10) and the data recorded in the memory are compared by the control unit (12). The control unit (12) determines the presence and/or the position of the tray in the oven cavity (6) in light of these data. Thus, the oven (1) controls the functioning parameters of the heater and the fan (work duration, start-stop times, working temperature, speed etc.) according to the position the tray is placed during cooking. Accordingly, increase in cooking performance is provided”. See 112(a)-(b) rejections above). ‘
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu to be “configured to adapt the speed of a fan based on the current gathered visual data of the food” as taught by Mustafa. Doing so allows to control the functioning parameters of the heater and the fan (work duration, start-stop times, working temperature, speed etc.) according to the position the tray is placed during cooking. Accordingly, increase in cooking performance.
Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu/ Mustafa discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Mustafa discloses the fan (see page 2, line 14), except the fan is within the heating chamber.
Lee discloses an oven, comprising:
the fan (25, see figs. 1-2 ) is within the heating chamber (20, see figs.1-2 and para.0038: “a circulation fan 25 are installed at a rear of the cooking chamber 20 to form uniform temperature at an inside the cooking chamber 20 by circulating the air of the inside of the cooking chamber 20 such that the food is rapidly cooked”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fan of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/Hirotsugu/ Mustafa to be within the heating chamber as taught by Lee. Doing so allows to control the functioning parameters of the heater and the fan (work duration, start-stop times, working temperature, speed etc.) according to the position the tray is placed during cooking. Accordingly, increase in cooking performance.
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Akira, Kates, Hirotsugu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bicknell (US 20140217185 A1)
Regarding claim 26, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the monitoring system is additionally configured to control ventilation of the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food.
Bicknell discloses a HVAC System with Camera and Microphone, comprising:
the monitoring system (controller, see abstract) is additionally configured to control ventilation (see abstract: the controller configured to control at least one of the first heating setting, the first ventilation setting”) of the heating chamber (heating chamber of Hofer) based on the current gathered visual data (see abstract: “in response to receiving the data from at least one of the image sensor”) of the food (food of Hofer. See 112(a)-(b) rejections above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the monitoring system of Hofer in view of Akira/ Kates/ Hirotsugu to incorporate the teachings of Bicknell so as “the monitoring system is additionally configured to control ventilation of the heating chamber based on the current gathered visual data of the food” as claimed. By continuously monitoring the surface, color, and structure of the food, the system can adjust ventilation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the 10/10/2025 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Regarding the limitation of claim 1: “a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber", it is noted that this limitation is not disclose in the current disclosure (see 112 rejections above). For examination purposes, based on pub.Para.0064 and figs.1A-1B of the current application, the limitation: “a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber” is construed as the camera sensor 160 mounted at an outside of the outside window 135, wherein the camera sensor 160 is capable of imaging the area outside of a heating chamber and gathering current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber 120.
The argument filed on page 8 is not found persuasive because as shown in figs.1-2 of Akira, the camera 10, which is mounted on the handle portion 6 and disposed outside of the heating chamber 2, images an outside area of the door 4, which is outside of the heating chamber 2, and inside area of the heating chamber 2 so as to gather current visual data of the food 3 being placed with the heating chamber 2. See the area outside of the heating chamber in annotated fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
476
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
According the Applicant’s arguments, if the imaging unit 10 images "an area outside of the heating chamber of the food processing system", the imaging unit 10 will observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber" as recited in claim 1 (See page 8, Remarks). As such, the teachings of Akira fulfill the claimed requirements.
Additionally, it is noted that independent claims 18 and 20 does NOT include features similar to those of claim 1. Claim 18 recites the limitation: “gathering current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber from an area outside of the heating chamber the food processing system from utilizing a first camera sensor” which is different from the limitation “a first camera sensor to observe an area outside of a heating chamber of the food processing system to gather current visual data of food being placed within the heating chamber”. Claim 18 is rejected by the same reference Akira that teaches the step of gathering current visual data of food to be placed into a heating chamber 2 from an area outside of the heating chamber 2 the food processing system from utilizing a first camera sensor 10 (See fig.1-2 of Akira).
Claim 20 is rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claim 18.
Claims 2-17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claims 1, 18 and 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20180372326A1 discloses an oven having the camera portion may be disposed outside the door to incline and captures an image of the inside of the cooking compartment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761