Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, the sensed intervention, thereby to take account of disruption to the cooking process caused by the sensed intervention (para. 0080; 0134; 0147).
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensed intervention is opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device.
However, sensing the opening of a door is similar to sensing the opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device as a similar sensor is used. Therefore, it will be an obvious matter of design choice to provide a lid or a drawer to insert/remove/access the food in the cooking device and therefore sense the opening of the lid or removal of the drawer of the cooking device, since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the door, and sensing of the door opening/closing of Cheng.
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 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “The Office Action, on page 6, asserts that "[e]xaminer 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." Further, 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 paragraphs [0027], [0044], [0072], [0075]- [0077], [0134], and figure 4E of Cheng. However, the Office Action seems to misinterpret Cheng's disclosure for the following reasons:
Cheng merely discloses the cooking apparatus' ability to detect appliance states (door open, tray position, probe orientation) and adapt cooking algorithms in real time, or to learn user tendencies and adjust recipes in future cycles. Further, Cheng discloses image analysis to detect food conditions like blackening. However, Cheng fails to disclose a sensor for sensing a physical intervention made by a user to the food during cooking, such as, opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device and hence before the required cooking time has elapsed. Instead, Cheng relies on prompts, user confirmations, and recipe-centric adjustments either during cooking or in subsequent cycles. Cheng's disclosure is fundamentally built around a prompt-and-confirm cooking appliance. Cheng's cooking appliance uses sensors and cameras to detect cooking appliance states such as whether the cooking apparatus' door is open or closed, the position of trays is optimal, or the orientation of probes is correct. Once the cooking appliance states are detected, Cheng's cooking apparatus then prompts the user through a touchscreen or audio interface to confirm or make changes to the cooking appliance states. For example, when the door is opened, Cheng detects only the door state, not whether the user has actually manipulated the food. The cooking appliance then asks the user to validate what changes were made to the food while the door was open. Similarly, when probe orientation or tray placement is suboptimal, Cheng provides instructions to the user to adjust the tray placement or the probe orientation. Therefore, even though Cheng's sensors detect appliance/environment states, the sensor still relies on user input to confirm direct food interventions made by the user while the door was open or whether the tray placement was corrected. Cheng's sensor fails to disclose any sensing of opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device made by the user to the food while a certain appliance state is sensed. See Cheng, paragraphs [0027], [0044], [0072], [0075]- [0077], [0134], and figure 4E).” on remarks page 6, lines 3-30 and page 7, lines 1-4. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensed intervention is opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device. However, sensing the opening of a door is similar to sensing the opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device as a similar sensor is used. Therefore, it will be an obvious matter of design choice to provide a lid or a drawer to insert/remove/access the food in the cooking device and therefore sense the opening of the lid or removal of the drawer of the cooking device, since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the door, and sensing of the door opening/closing of Cheng.
Applicant further argues that “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 "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, the sensed intervention, thereby to take account of disruption to the cooking process caused by the sensed intervention," as recited by amended independent claim 1. Cheng's cooking apparatus makes adjustments, but the adjustments are recipe-centric rather than intervention-centric, i.e., based on opening of a lid or removal of a drawer of the cooking device. Cheng applies real-time algorithmic changes, such as modifying heater duty cycles, wavelengths, or smoke prevention logic based on user confirmation. See Cheng, paragraphs [0080], [0134], and [0147]. Further, Cheng learns user tendencies over time, for example, a user who consistently misplaces probes or over-rests food and applies adjustments in future cooking cycles to adjust the algorithm. See Cheng, paragraphs [0075] and [0076]. Therefore, the adjustments are either immediate tweaks to heating algorithms or long-term recipe optimizations. However, the adjustments are not re-calculations of the remaining cooking time during the ongoing cycle in response to a sensed intervention made to the food by the user. Moreover, Cheng's adjustments depend on user input or confirmation, such as entering recipe changes or validating food modifications.” on remarks page 8, lines 5-23. 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, the sensed intervention, thereby to take account of disruption to the cooking process caused by the sensed 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).
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-12, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
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.
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
07/31/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights