DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/563758, filed on 12/28/2021, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/131,596 filed on December 29, 2020.
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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "40" and "42" have both been used to designate controller. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “42” has been used to designate both GUI and controller. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are two paragraphs numbered [0010] on page 3 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “wherein a the visual indicator”. The phrase should be “wherein the visual indicator”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites “a controller communication with the processor”. The phrase should be “a controller in communication with the processor”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites “a second preparation section”. The phrase should be “a second food preparation section” to be consistent with the claimed first food preparation section.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites “a controller communication with the processor”. The phrase should be “a controller in communication with the processor”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 recites “a second preparation section”. The phrase should be “a second food preparation section” to be consistent with the claimed first food preparation section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a food item…..a food item…… a food item”. It is not clear if there are 3 different food items or one food item.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 6 recites “a food item”. It is not clear if it is the same as any of the food items in claim 1 or if it is a different food item.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 10 recites “a food item”. It is not clear if it is the same as any of the food items in claim 1 or if it is a different food item.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 10 recites “the food preparation device”. However, claim 1 does not recite any food preparation device. Claim 1 recites a food preparation appliance and a food preparation section. It is not clear if “the food preparation device” is referring to the appliance, or section, or something else.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and further recites “a second food preparation device”. It is not clear if the device is referring to the food preparation appliance, or food preparation section in claim 1 or something else.
Claim 2 recites two food preparation sections. Claim 13 depends on claim 2. Claim 13 recites “at the food preparation section”. It is not clear if claim 13 is referring to first or second food preparation section in claim 2.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. (Highlighted portions in bold of the claim constitute an abstract idea; the underlined limitations are "additional elements"): The claim recites:
A system for indicating status of a food item in a kitchen comprising: a food preparation appliance, the food preparation appliance having at least one food preparation section; a countdown timer operatively communicating with the food preparation appliance for counting a food processing time period of a food item in the at least one food preparation section; a processor receiving a count from the countdown timer; and a visual indicator providing a visual indication at the at least one food preparation section, the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a current status of a food item in the at least one food preparation section as a function of the count from the countdown timer.
As to the first step of the patent eligibility analysis (Step 2A, First Prong), the bold highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea as discussed below:
for counting a food processing time period of a food item in the at least one food preparation section; (judgement or evaluation or observation, which is a mental process);
receiving a count from the countdown timer; (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process)
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of a food preparation appliance, timer, processor, and visual indicator. However, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a). Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Paragraph [18] describes visual indicator as LED. There is no description given for processor and timer, thus they are interpreted to be generic processor with timer function. Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, these elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea as claimed with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation MPEP 2106.05(c ), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05 (e).
The additional element “the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a current status of a food item in the at least one food preparation section as a function of the count from the countdown timer” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer MPEP 2106.05(a). In other words, the current status or visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus the limitations of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a). Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Paragraph [18] describes visual indicator as LED. Thus both the oven and LED visual indicator are conventional elements known in the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05(d).
Because the specification provides no description or structural details or specific algorithms for processor and timer, these additional elements are interpreted to be a generic processor with timer function and well understood routine conventional activity as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, these elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea as claimed with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation MPEP 2106.05(c ), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05 (e).
The additional element “the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a current status of a food item in the at least one food preparation section as a function of the count from the countdown timer” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer MPEP 2106.05(a). As described above, the visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 add more generic limitations to the above mentioned additional elements of food preparation appliance, and visual indicator. However, these limitations as claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Paragraph [18] describes visual indicator as LED. Thus, in light of Applicant’s specification, both the oven and LED visual indicator are conventional elements known in the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05(d).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 2-6, 9, 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 add more generic limitations (e.g., a controller) to the above mentioned additional element of a generic processor. Paragraph [22] of the original disclosure describes the controller, processor and timer can be a single unit or separate units. As described above, the specification provides no structural details or specific algorithms for the controller, processor, or timer. As
such, these additional elements are interpreted to be a generic processor with controller and timer functions and deemed well understood routine conventional activity as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). These limitations as claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea and additional elements as claimed are so generic that amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05 (f) (3). For the foregoing reasons, claims 7,8, 10, 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13
Step 1: The preamble of claim 13 claims an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of
“the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed and determining whether there is a contraindication for preparing the input food type in the food preparation appliance at the food preparation section;….. if a contraindication exists as determined” (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process).
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element of input. However, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a). Paragraph [11] of the original disclosure describes input as a graphical user interface. There is no description or structural details or algorithm given for the GUI in the original specification, thus the claimed term “input for inputting a food type to be processed” is interpreted to be generic GUI. Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, these elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea as claimed with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation MPEP 2106.05(c ), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05 (e). Additionally, the additional element “the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed…. the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer. In other words, the warning or visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus the limitations of claim 13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a).
Paragraph [11] of the original disclosure describes input as a graphical user interface. There is no description or structural details or algorithm given for the GUI in the original specification, thus the claimed “input for inputting a food type to be processed” is interpreted to be generic GUI known in the field of food preparation as in MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, the additional element “the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed…. the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer. In other words, the warning or visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: With respect to claim 14, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 14 claims an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 14 is copied below. (Highlighted portions in bold of the claim constitute an abstract idea; the underlined limitations are "additional elements"): The claim recites:
A system for indicating status of a food item in a kitchen comprising: a food preparation appliance, the food preparation appliance having at least one food preparation section; an input for inputting a food type to be processed ; a processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed and determining whether there is a contraindication for preparing the input food type in the food preparation appliance; and a visual indicator providing a visual indication at the at least one food preparation section, the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning if a contraindication exists as determined by the processor.
As to the first step of the patent eligibility analysis (Step 2A, First Prong), the bold highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea as discussed below:
receiving the input of the food type to be processed and determining whether there is a contraindication for preparing the input food type in the food preparation appliance (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process);
if a contraindication exists as determined (judgement or evaluation, which is a mental process).
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of a food preparation appliance, input, processor, and visual indicator. However, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a). Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Paragraph [18] describes visual indicator as LED. There is no description given for processor, thus it is interpreted to be generic processor. Paragraph [11] of the original disclosure describes input as a graphical user interface. There is no description or structural details or algorithm given for the GUI in the original specification, thus the claimed term “input for inputting a food type to be processed” is interpreted to be generic GUI. Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, these elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea as claimed with, or by use of, a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation MPEP 2106.05(c ), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment MPEP 2106.05 (e).
Additionally, the additional element “the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed…. the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer. In other words, the warning or visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus the limitations of claim 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea for the following reasons:
Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by the claim over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in the claim. That is, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution MPEP 2106.05 (a).
Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Paragraph [18] describes visual indicator as LED. Thus both the oven and LED visual indicator are conventional elements known in the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05(d). Paragraph [11] of the original disclosure describes input as a graphical user interface. There is no description or structural details or algorithm given for the GUI in the original specification, thus the claimed term “input for inputting a food type to be processed” is interpreted to be generic GUI. Thus, the claimed additional elements are generic and do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to either the field of computing or the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Additionally, the additional element “the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed…. the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning” is merely gathering and analyzing information and displaying the result using a generic computer. In other words, the warning or visual indicator is insignificant extra-solution activity as in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 adds generic limitation of controller to the above mentioned additional element of a generic processor. Paragraph [22] of the original disclosure describes the controller, processor and timer can be a single unit or separate units. As described above, the specification provides no structural details or specific algorithms for the controller, processor, or timer. As such, these additional elements are interpreted to be a generic processor with controller and timer functions and deemed well understood routine conventional activity as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). However, these limitations as claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea and additional elements as claimed are so generic that amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05 (f) (3). For the foregoing reasons, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15 and 16 add more generic limitations to the above mentioned additional elements of food preparation appliance. However, these limitations as claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Paragraph [12] of the original disclosure describes food preparation appliance as an oven with shelves known in the art. Thus, in light of Applicant’s specification, the oven is conventional element known in the field of food preparation MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of “the library storing two or more recipes, the controller causing the processor to operate the food preparation section in accordance with a first recipe at a first food preparation section and a second recipe at a second preparation section, the controller determining the contraindication as a function of the two or more recipes.” Claim 18 further adds generic limitation of library to the above mentioned additional element of a generic processor. The specification provides no structural details or specific algorithms for the library. As such, library is interpreted to be a generic processor with memory and deemed well understood routine conventional activity as in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). However, these limitations as claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The abstract idea and additional elements as claimed are so generic that amounts to merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05 (f) (3). For the foregoing reasons, claims 15-18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under35 U.S.C. 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardoe et al., US 7650833 (hereafter Pardoe), and further in view of Iordanoglou, US 20120234826 (hereafter Iordanoglou).
Regarding claim 1,
“A system for indicating status of a food item in a kitchen comprising:” (Fig. 1 in Pardoe teaches system 10 comprising alarm/indicator 22)
PNG
media_image1.png
574
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Pardoe teaches a system with indicator 22, 24
“a food preparation appliance, the food preparation appliance having at least one food preparation section;” (Fig. 1 teaches appliance 12 wherein “An appliance 12 is utilized for preparing food. Appliance 12 may be a fryer, an oven, hot plate, stove, freezer or the like” as taught in column 2, lines 10-15.)
“a countdown timer operatively communicating with the food preparation appliance for counting a food processing time period of a food item in the at least one food preparation section;” (Column 2, lines 15-20 teaches “By way of example, when cooking french fries, it may be a timed fry cycle, with meat it may be a timed oven cook cycle, with pastries it may be a timed baking, steam and air convection cycle, with ice cream it may be a timed freezing cycle. A trigger causes the cycle to begin.” It is implied that a timed cycle comprises a countdown timer operatively communicating with the appliance.)
“a processor receiving a count from the countdown timer; and” (Column 2, lines 12-20 teaches “As is known in the art, appliance 12 is operated under the control of a controller so that the push of a button begins a preparation cycle. By way of example, when cooking french fries, it may be a timed fry cycle, with meat it may be a timed oven cook cycle, with pastries it may be a timed baking, steam and air convection cycle, with ice cream it may be a timed freezing cycle. A trigger causes the cycle to begin.” Here controller corresponds to the processor. It is implied that controller receives a count from the timer to complete the timed preparation cycle.)
Pardoe is silent about “a visual indicator providing a visual indication at the at least one food preparation section,”, “the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a current status of a food item in the at least one food preparation section as a function of the count from the countdown timer.”
Iordanoglou teaches “a visual indicator providing a visual indication at the at least one food preparation section,”(Paragraph [15] teaches oven 100 comprises “a display 148 that displays operational information including timer sequences to the user.”)
“the processor communicating with the visual indicator”(Paragraph [16] teaches “the controller 142 includes a timer 146 that presents time related timing sequences at the control panel display 148 of the microwave 100.”)
“ and causing the visual indicator to indicate a current status of a food item in the at least one food preparation section as a function of the count from the countdown timer.” (Paragraph [17] teaches “the display 148 flashes and/or provides sound signals (e.g., beeping sounds or the like) in order to notify the user of the oven that the programmed time for cooking an item has completed and the timer is counting upward.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the visual indicator and controller in Iordanoglou to the system in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “This notifies the operator or user of the oven that a count-up or cooling time has initiated since a zero time in the count-down was reached and a cooking time was completed as programmed” as taught in paragraph [17] in Iordanoglou.
Regarding claim 10,
“The system of claim 1, comprising a second food preparation device,” (Fig. 1 in Pardoe teaches holding stations as second food preparation device.)
“the controller operatively communicating with the food preparation device and the second food preparation device,”(Column 2, lines 10-15 teaches that the cooking appliance is controlled by a controller. Column 2, lines 40-45 teaches that holding station has a controller.
Fig. 1 teaches that appliance and holding station communicate with each other. It is implied that the controllers of these two devices operatively communicate with each other.)
“ the controller performing a second count when a food item is transferred from the food preparation device to the second food preparation device.” (Column 2, lines 50-55 in Pardoe teaches “appliance 12, upon the completion of the processing cycle, begins a countdown and upon transfer of the food to the holding 14 sends the signal. In response to this signal, timer 18 begins to countdown the elapsed time period.” Here timer 18 performs the second count.)
Regarding claim 11,
“The system of claim 10, wherein the second count is a continuation of the first count.” (Column 2, lines 50-55 in Pardoe teaches “appliance 12, upon the completion of the processing cycle, begins a countdown and upon transfer of the food to the holding 14 sends the signal. In response to this signal, timer 18 begins to countdown the elapsed time period.” Here timer 18 performs the second count.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The system of claim 10, wherein the second food preparation device is a holding station.” (Fig. 1 of Pardoe teaches holding station.)
Claim(s) 2-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardoe and Iordanoglou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horton et al., US 7126088 (hereafter Horton).
Regarding claim 2,
“The system of claim 1, wherein the food preparation appliance has at least a second food preparation section, each food preparation section being a shelf.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Horton teaches a dual oven wall unit in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 further teaches oven cavities with rack for holding shelf.
PNG
media_image2.png
567
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Horton teaches dual oven
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dual oven in Horton to the cooking appliance in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “the first and second sets of control buttons 52 and 53, in combination with numeric pad 54 and a display 62, enable a user to establish particular cooking operations for upper and lower ovens 4 and 8 respectively” as taught in column 4, lines 14-18 in Horton.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The system of claim 2, wherein a the visual indicator includes at least two visual indicators, each respective visual indicator being associated with a respective shelf to indicate a condition of the shelf with which the visual indicator is associated.” (Horton teaches oven lights 91,111 for upper and lower ovens respectively.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the oven lights for dual ovens in Horton to the cooking appliance in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “At the termination of the preheat cycle, CPU 200 will provide a signal to the user which, in the most preferred form of the invention, will include an audible signal through activation of a piezoelectric electric buzzer 300 and a visual signal, such as by flashing oven light 91 while providing a prompt on display 62” as taught in column 6, lines 27-32.)
Regarding claim 4,
“The system of claim 2, wherein each shelf is thermally isolated from an adjacent shelf.” ( Horton teaches “the first and second sets of control buttons 52 and 53, in combination with numeric pad 54 and a display 62, enable a user to establish particular cooking operations for upper and lower ovens 4 and 8 respectively” in column 4, lines 14-18. It is understood that the oven cavities are thermally isolated from each other to be able to cook independently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dual oven in Horton to the cooking appliance in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “both oven cavities 6 and 10 preferably employ both radiant and convection heating techniques for cooking food items therein” as taught in column 3, lines 55-60 in Horton.)
Regarding claim 5,
“ The system of claim 3, further comprising a door for selectively sealing the food preparation appliance, a window disposed within the door,” (Fig. 1 in Horton teaches door 14 with window 22.)
“ the visual indicator being visible through the window.” (Column 6, lines 27-32 in Horton teaches “At the termination of the preheat cycle, CPU 200 will provide a signal to the user which, in the most preferred form of the invention, will include an audible signal through activation of a piezoelectric electric buzzer 300 and a visual signal, such as by flashing oven light 91 while providing a prompt on display 62”. It is implied that flashing oven light is visible through window so the user may see it.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the door with windows for dual ovens in Horton to the cooking appliance in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “door 14 is provided with a transparent zone or window 22 for viewing the contents of oven cavity 6 while door 14 is closed” as taught in column 3, lines 30-35 in Horton.
Regarding claim 6,
“The system of claim 1, wherein the food preparation appliance has at least a second food preparation section, each food preparation section being a shelf,”(Similar scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“each shelf being thermally isolated from an adjacent shelf,” (Similar scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“the visual indicator being disposed on a respective shelf, for indicating a condition of a food item disposed in the shelf,” (Horton teaches oven lights 91,111 for upper and lower ovens respectively. Column 6, lines 27-32 teaches the lights are controlled by CPU.
Even though Horton is silent about using the oven lights to indicate a condition of a food item, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the oven lights for indicating a condition of a food item in the shelf as taught in Horton in the cooking appliance of Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because oven lights can signal the user that a cooking time is completed and the user may take the prepared food out of the oven.)
“ and a door for selectively sealing the food preparation appliance, a window disposed within the door, each visual indicator being visible through the window.” (Similar scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The system of claim 1 wherein the visual indicator changes from a first condition to a second condition at an end of the count.” (Horton teaches that the CPU controls the oven light to flash at the end of preheat cycle to signal the user in column 6, lines 27-32. It is understood that the flashing condition is different than non-flashing condition during preheating.
Even though Horton is silent about changing oven lights at the end of cooking countdown, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the lighting to flash at the end of cooking time as taught in Horton in the cooking appliance of Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because oven lights can signal the user that a cooking time is completed and the user may take the prepared food out of the oven.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardoe and Iordanoglou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franco Gutierrez et al., US 20240102662 (hereafter Franco).
“The system of claim 1, further comprising a controller communication with the processor for operating each food preparation section in accordance with a respective recipe.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Franco teaches “A food preparation system includes a control unit which is designed to guide through a process step of a process, which is in the form of a recipe and comprises the process step in the form of a recipe step.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the food preparation section in Pardoe according to a recipe as taught in Franco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “The invention is based on a food preparation system, in particular having at least one output unit and having at least one control unit designed, in particular, to control and/or regulate the output unit and designed to guide through at least one process step of at least one process, which is in the form of a recipe and comprises the process step in the form of a recipe step, in particular via the output unit” as taught in paragraph [4] in Franco.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardoe, Iordanoglou, and Franco as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Horton.
“The system of claim 7, further comprising a library communicating with the controller,” (Franco teaches in paragraph [16] “In particular, the control unit has a computing unit and, in particular in addition to the computing unit, at least one memory unit with a control and/or regulating program which is stored therein and which is designed to be executed by the computing unit.”)
“the library storing two or more recipes,” (Franco teaches in paragraph [19] “in particular at least two, advantageously at least three, particularly advantageously at least five, preferably at least eight and particularly preferably a plurality of different processes could be stored in the memory unit of the control unit.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the food preparation section in Pardoe according to a recipe as taught in Franco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “The invention is based on a food preparation system, in particular having at least one output unit and having at least one control unit designed, in particular, to control and/or regulate the output unit and designed to guide through at least one process step of at least one process, which is in the form of a recipe and comprises the process step in the form of a recipe step, in particular via the output unit” as taught in paragraph [4] in Franco.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “the controller causing the processor to operate the food preparation section in accordance with a first recipe at a first food preparation section and a second recipe at a second preparation section, the recipe including the count.”
Horton teaches “the controller causing the processor to operate the food preparation section in accordance with a first recipe at a first food preparation section and a second recipe at a second preparation section,”. (Horton teaches “the first and second sets of control buttons 52 and 53, in combination with numeric pad 54 and a display 62, enable a user to establish particular cooking operations for upper and lower ovens 4 and 8 respectively” in column 4, lines 14-18. It is understood that the controller operates two ovens according to two different recipes.)
“ the recipe including the count.” (Column 1, lines 43-46 teaches in Horton that a recipe comprises a set cooking time “Most recipes call for performing a cooking operation over a range of cook times.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add recipes for each oven separately as taught in Horton to the cooking appliance in Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because “the invention enables a consumer to program the cooking appliance through a control panel in a conventional manner based on established cooking times and temperatures in accordance with recipes or other cooking instructions” as taught in column 2, lines 5-10 in Horton.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardoe, Iordanoglou, Horton as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Oleynik, US 20150290795 (hereafter Oleynik).
“The system of claim 2,… “and the visual indicator providing a visual indication at the at least one food preparation section,” (Horton teaches oven lights 91,111 for upper and lower ovens respectively.)
“the processor communicating with the visual indicator and causing the visual indicator to indicate a warning” (Horton teaches oven lights 91,111 for upper and lower ovens respectively. Column 6, lines 27-32 teaches that CPU flashes the oven lights to signal the user of the end of preheat cycle.
Even though Horton teaches flashing oven lights at the end of preheat cycle, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the oven lights for indicating any warning as taught in Horton in the cooking appliance of Pardoe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because flashing oven lights signal the user that their attention is required and safety is ensured.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “wherein the food preparation appliance comprises an input for inputting a food type to be processed; the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed and determining whether there is a contraindication for preparing the input food type in the food preparation appliance at the food preparation section; …the processor communicating with the …. indicator and causing the … indicator to indicate a warning if a contraindication exists as determined by the processor.”
Oleynik teaches “wherein the food preparation appliance comprises an input for inputting a food type to be processed;” (Oleynik teaches in Fig. 22 and paragraph [317] “At step 832, the user 24 through the computer 15 selects a recipe”. It is understood that a recipe comprises type of food to be processed.)
“the processor receiving the input of the food type to be processed” ( Paragraph [317] teaches “At step 834, the robot food preparation engine 56 in the household robotic kitchen 48 is configured to receive inputs from the input module 50 for the selected recipe to be prepared.” Here engine 56 corresponds to processor in the instant claim.)
“and determining whether there is a contraindication for preparing the input food type in the food preparation appliance at the food preparation section;” (Paragraph [317] teaches “At step 840, the robot foo