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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 2019/0053332).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a cooking device (110, 200, 440, 500), comprising a cooking chamber (i.e. 502) (abstract; para. 0033-0034; 0057; 0100); a food support (i.e. 510) for supporting food to be cooked, for mounting in the cooking chamber (i.e. as shown in Fig. 5); a heating device (112, 212, 514) for heating the cooking chamber (para. 0028; 0100; 0195); a sensing arrangement (114, 214, 216, 218, 518, 530) for sensing cooking parameters over time (para. 0027; 0034; 0041; 0044); a controller adapted to determine a remaining required cooking time for the food to be cooked and hence cooking process to be completed, based on a time-evolution of the sensed cooking parameters (para. 0024; 0035; 0043; 0053; 0080; 0131; 0134); and a sensor for sensing an intervention made by a user to the food during cooking and hence before the required cooking time has elapsed (para. 0027; 0134), wherein the controller is adapted to re-determine and thereby adjust the remaining required cooking time, based on the time-evolution of the sensed cooking parameters, in response to, and following, a sensed intervention, thereby to take account of disruption to the cooking process caused by the intervention (para. 0080; 0134; 0147).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the food is to be cooked by a cooking procedure which includes shaking the food during the cooking process, wherein the sensed intervention is indicative of the shaking of the food (flipping can be done by shaking; para. 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, comprising an air fryer (an air fryer is a small oven; para. 0004; 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an output device for providing one or both of: an output instruction to the user to perform the intervention at a particular time (para. 0026; 0134; 0147); and an indication of the remaining required cooking time (para. 0147).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the controller is adapted to set the particular time as a time point between one third and two thirds of way through the determined required cooking time (para. 0026; 0134; 0186; capable of setting the particular time as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensing arrangement comprises a temperature sensor and/or a humidity sensor (para. 0050; 0052-0053; 0131; 0134).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the controller is adapted to determine a required time for the intervention by monitoring the temperature, and optionally wherein the temperature sensor functions as the sensor for sensing an intervention based on a drop in temperature caused by the cooking chamber being opened (para. 0026; 0134; 0147).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the controller is adapted to determine a required time for the intervention by monitoring humidity, and optionally wherein the humidity sensor functions as the sensor for sensing an intervention based on a drop in the humidity caused by the cooking chamber being opened (para. 0050; 0082; 0088; 0134; 0201).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensing arrangement comprising a weight sensor, and wherein the controller is adapted to determine a required cooking time by monitoring a weight change (para. 0173).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the controller is adapted to determine a required time for the intervention by monitoring the weight change, and optionally wherein the weight sensor functions as the sensor for sensing an intervention based on a drop in weight caused by removal of the food from the cooking chamber during the intervention (para. 0134; 0173).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensing arrangement comprises an image sensor, and wherein the controller is further adapted to determine a required cooking time by monitoring an image of the food (para. 0027; 0034-0035; 0037; 0041; 0044; 0101; 0130; 0134).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng teaches the cooking device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the controller is further adapted to determine a required time for the intervention by monitoring the image of the food and optionally wherein the image sensor functions as the sensor for sensing an intervention based on an image change caused by removal of the food from the cooking chamber (para. 0027; 0034-0035; 0037; 0041; 0044; 0101; 0130; 0134).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Cheng does not disclose the claimed "sensing an intervention made by a user to the food." The Office Action alleges that the claimed features of the independent claim 1: "a sensor for sensing an intervention made by a user to the food" are disclosed in paragraph [0027], [0034], [0041], and [0044] of Cheng. However, the Office Action seems to misinterpret Cheng's disclosure for the following reasons: In paragraph [0044], Cheng merely recites, "the oven door being open or closed can be determined through feedback from one or more sensors." Indeed, Cheng automatically determines that the door is opened basis feedback from the sensors. However, Cheng does not disclose that these sensors detect any user intervention with the food. Stated otherwise, while the user opens the door and the sensors detect the door opening per se, Cheng's sensors never sense the claimed "intervention made by a user to the food during cooking." Cheng, at best, senses an intervention of user with the cooking appliance (e.g. opening the door) rather than sensing an intervention of the user with the food. Once the sensors detect the door opening, Cheng's cooking appliance prompts the user by asking "what changes did you make?" to validate whether the user made any changes to the food during cooking. See, paragraph [0077] and the menu title in the below illustrated Fig. 4E of Cheng. Cheng's sensing of door opening followed by its validation from the user is different from the claimed "sensing an intervention made by a user to the food during cooking" because the confirmation of whether the user interacted with the food comes from the user rather than being automatically detected in Cheng.” on remarks page 5, lines 23-24 and page 6. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner considers opening the door of the cooking appliance to visually check the food as a form of interaction with the food, as well as any direct contact with the food or indirect contact as adding ingredients or spices, etc. Moving the tray with the food from top to bottom shell or vice versa, and probe orientation change are also a form of interaction. Therefore, Cheng teaches a sensor for sensing an intervention made by a user to the food during cooking and hence before the required cooking time has elapsed (para. 0027; 0044; 0072; 0075-0077; 0134; Fig. 4E also discloses some user interactions with the food).
Applicant further argues that “Cheng does not disclose the claimed "controller is adapted to re-determine and thereby adjust the remaining required cooking time...and following, a sensed intervention." Cheng merely describes that "based on user preferences, similar recipes, and properties of basic food ingredients, the cooking appliance prompts or suggests to the user to adjust the food dimensions, cooking times and other aspects of a new recipe." However, Cheng fails to disclose "controller adapted to re-determine and thereby adjust the remaining required cooking time, based on the time-evolution of the sensed cooking parameters, in response to, and following, a sensed intervention, " as recited by amended independent claim 1. The claimed subject matter introduces a fundamentally different control mechanism; the controller itself, without user input, automatically re-determines and adjusts the remaining required cooking time during the ongoing cooking cycle, using the sensed intervention to the food to compensate immediately for any interruption caused to the cooking time. Cheng's disclosure is limited to monitoring cooking parameters, prompting the user to confirm the intervention, and suggesting cooking time updating for new recipes based on similar recipes saved in a database. Cheng does not disclose an autonomous, recalculation of remaining cooking time based on a sensed intervention to the food.
Although Cheng states that an unsuccessful recipe may be "corrected automatically during cooking," in paragraph [0080], this disclosure is limited to recipe-centric heating algorithm adjustments (e.g., heater duty cycle, wavelength changes, etc.) based on user inputs or prompts. Accordingly, even if Cheng applies corrections "automatically during cooking," these are recipe-centric adjustments to heating algorithm, dependent on user confirmation, not the claimed controller's sensed intervention-triggered recalculation of remaining cooking time.” On page 7 and page 8, lines 1-8. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Cheng discloses wherein the controller is adapted to re-determine and thereby adjust the remaining required cooking time, based on the time-evolution of the sensed cooking parameters, in response to, and following, a sensed intervention, thereby to take account of disruption to the cooking process caused by the intervention (para. 0080; 0134; 0147; the recipe is automatically corrected during cooking, and cooking time is part of the recipe, adjusting the cooking time during cooking is an adjustment of the remaining cooking time).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/26/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761