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 .
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 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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 is: “control module” in claims 1 and 12.
The claim limitation “control module” in claims 1 and 12 uses “module” as a generic placeholder for “means” for performing the claimed function; the term “module” is modified by the functional language “control […] for controlling”; and the term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim limitation meets the three-prong test and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), in other words equivalent to “means for controlling.” The specification discloses that the “control module 50 can include a microprocessor and memory as operatively connected together” (page 9, paragraph 30, lines 7-8). Because the limitation invokes 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of “control module” is the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function “for controlling” which is a microprocessor and memory and equivalents thereof recognized in the art.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites 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 § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gaynor teaches a slow cooker (Gaynor, fig. 1, slow cooker 10) for heating food over time (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0017, lines 3-5, the slow cooker 10 cooks foodstuff 12 over time) comprising:
a cooking body (Gaynor, figs. 1-2, shell 14) defining an internal cavity (Gaynor, fig. 2, heating cavity 16) within which a heating element (Gaynor, fig. 3, heating element 18) is provided for heating the internal cavity (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0018, lines 1-3, the heating element 18 is positioned within the heating cavity 16 of the shell 14 of slow cooker 10 and heats the heating cavity 16);
a cooking vessel (Gaynor, figs. 2-3, crock 22) removably received within the internal cavity of the cooking body (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0021, lines 1-3; the crock 22 is removably placed inside of the heating cavity 16 of the shell 14; note that for the purposes of examination, “the heating body” is considered to be a typographical error, and is read as “the cooking body” instead), the cooking vessel being heated by the heating element within the internal cavity so that food when positioned within the cooking vessel can also be heated over time (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0017, lines 3-5 and paragraph 0021, lines 17-20; the crock 22 is heated by the heating element 18 within the heating cavity 16 and is heated in order to cook the foodstuff 12 over time);
a temperature probe (Gaynor, figs. 1 and 3, temperature probe 28) comprising a temperature sensor for reading a sensed temperature of a food product or liquid within the cooking vessel and for communicating the sensed temperature to a control module (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 10-12 and page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 11-16 and paragraph 0027, lines 5-8; the temperature probe 28 is able to measure temperatures at its probe tip 30, which is inserted into the foodstuff 12 and sends the measured temperatures to the controller 36; the temperature probe 28 is understood to comprise a temperature sensor within its probe tip 30 because the probe tip is able to respond to the temperature of the foodstuff 12 and transmit the measured temperature to the controller 36; the Examiner notes that a “sensor” is defined in the dictionary as “a device that responds to a physical stimulus […] and transmits a resulting impulse” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor, accessed January 23rd, 2025]); and
the control module (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 1, paragraph 0007, lines 8-24 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-14; the controller 36 may be comprised of a microprocessor; the Examiner notes that the term “microprocessor” is defined in the dictionary as “a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip” having “memory and associated circuits” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microprocessor, accessed January 24th, 2025]; the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes; note that, in the 112(f) claim interpretation above, “control module” is considered to be a microprocessor and memory and equivalents thereof recognized in the art) operatively connected with the temperature probe (Gaynor, figs. 2, 6 and page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 1-6; the controller 36 is connected to the temperature probe 28—via a probe outlet 34 located on the shell 14 and a plug 28d—to allow for communication between the two elements), the control module provided to the cooking body (Gaynor, fig. 3 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-4; the controller 36 is located on the shell 14) and operatively connected with the heating element for controlling a heat setting of the heating element for cooking food according to one of a plurality of different cooking modes (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0031, lines 1-13; the controller 36 controls the heating element 18 to heat the crock 22 at a certain temperature given by one of the cooking modes; the different cooking modes are: probe mode, program mode, and manual mode), the control module comprising “a microprocessor and memory with programming for controlling the plurality of different cooking modes” (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 1, paragraph 0007, lines 8-24 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-14; the controller 36 may be comprised of a microprocessor; the Examiner notes that the term “microprocessor” is defined in the dictionary as “a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip” having “memory and associated circuits” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microprocessor, accessed January 24th, 2025]; the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes) and including a user interface (Gaynor, figs. 1-2 and page 4, paragraph 0032, lines 1-8 and paragraph 0034, lines 14-19; the controller 36 is attached onto the shell 14 through a control panel 48 that comprises a display 50 and control buttons 52a-52g to allow the user to interact with the slow cooker 10 controls) allowing selection from the plurality of different cooking modes including at least a temperature probe mode (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0031, lines 11-13 and page 5, paragraph 0042, lines 1-8; the user selects a cooking mode, one of which can be a probe mode, from the display 50 of the control panel 48), which temperature probe mode controls heating of the food product or liquid within the cooking vessel by the heating element to attain a user selected temperature and to maintain the food product or liquid within the cooking vessel at the user selected temperature for a further time period unless the cooking mode is stopped by a user (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0032, lines 1-13 and pages 5-6, paragraph 0043, lines 1-17; in the probe mode, the temperature probe 28 measures the temperature of the foodstuff 12 within the crock 22 and sends the measured value to the controller 36 to be compared to a user-selected probe set temperature; the foodstuff 12 is heated by the heating element 18 until the measured temperature of the foodstuff 12 is greater than or equal to a user-selected probe set temperature; the user-selected probe set temperature is then maintained for a maximum time period; the control panel 48 includes an on/off button 52e; the cooking mode is considered to be able to be stopped by the user because there exists an on/off button 52e on the slow cooker 10 that the user can interact with to stop the cooking mode).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Elinsky (U.S. Patent No. 4847099 A).
Regarding claim 2, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 1 above, further comprising a lid for closing the cooking vessel (Gaynor, figs. 1-2, the lid 40 closes the crock 22), the lid providing a probe opening (Gaynor, figs. 1-2, probe hole 40c) through the lid to allow the temperature probe to be inserted within food or liquid within the cooking vessel (Gaynor, fig. 3 and page 3, paragraph 0027, lines 5-8; the probe hole 40c allows the shaft 28a of the temperature probe 28 to be inserted through the lid 40 and into the foodstuff 12 within the crock 22).
Gaynor does not teach the lid providing plural probe openings to allow the temperature probe to be inserted within food or liquid within the cooking vessel from plural different angles.
However, Elinsky teaches a cooking device (Elinsky, fig. 1, pan 2) with a lid (Elinsky, fig. 1, lid 3) providing plural probe openings (Elinsky, fig. 1 and page 5, col. 5, lines 17-25, three apertures 7 are shown on the lid 3; other apertures 7 may be provided on the lid 3 as needed) to allow the temperature probe to be inserted within food or liquid within the cooking vessel from plural different angles (Elinsky, fig. 1 and page 5, col. 5, lines 17-25; the thermometer stem 9 is inserted through one of the apertures 7; the apertures 7 are considered to allow the thermometer stem 9 to be inserted at different angles because they are located at different places on the lid 3, and using the thermometer stem 9 at each of the aperture 7 locations will result in a variety of angles of insertion, such as the one shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the teaching of having plural apertures (7) of Elinsky into the lid (40) of Gaynor for the benefit of having multiple angles to measure the food within the cooker, which can provide a more accurate temperature reading for foods that are not uniformly positioned within the cooking vessel. Additionally, the apertures that are not being used for inserting the temperature probe can be opened or closed to control the release of steam and regulate the pressure within the cooker as needed, as acknowledged by Elinsky (page 5, col. 5, lines 20-25).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Elinsky (U.S. Patent No. 4847099 A) and further in view of Bedetti (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0124737 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gaynor in view of Elinsky teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 2 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker wherein the lid comprises a handle that is centrally located (Gaynor, figs. 1-2 and page 3, paragraph 0028, lines 1-4; the gripping knob 42 is mounted onto a central part of the lid 40), the temperature probe having an extension element with the temperature sensor provided near a distal end thereof (Gaynor, figs. 2-3 and page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 3-7, 10-12 and page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 11-16; the temperature probe 28 includes a shaft 28a that extends from its body 28b and has a probe tip 30 located at a distal end; the temperature probe 28 is able to measure temperatures at its probe tip 30, which is inserted into the foodstuff 12 and sends the measured temperatures to the controller 36; the temperature probe 28 is understood to comprise a temperature sensor within its probe tip 30 because the probe tip is able to respond to the temperature of the foodstuff 12 and transmit the measured temperature to the controller 36; the Examiner notes that a “sensor” is defined in the dictionary as “a device that responds to a physical stimulus […] and transmits a resulting impulse” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor, accessed January 23rd, 2025]) and the length of the extension element being provided for positioning the temperature sensor near a bottom of the cooking vessel when the temperature probe is inserted through (Gaynor, fig. 3 and page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 3-7; the shaft 28a of the temperature probe 28 is extended in such a way that the probe tip 30 is located in the relative proximity, or within some short distance, of the bottom of the crock 22; the Examiner notes that the term "near" is defined in the dictionary as "at, within, or to a short distance" [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/near, accessed January 29th, 2025]).
Gaynor in view of Elinsky does not teach that one of the openings is provided through a portion of the handle, or that the temperature sensor is inserted through the opening through the handle portion.
However, Bedetti teaches a cooking device (Bedetti, fig. 4, pan P) with a lid (Bedetti, fig. 4, lid 20) that comprises a handle (Bedetti, fig. 4, the lid 20 has a lid handle 22) with an opening provided through a portion of the handle (Bedetti, fig. 4 and page 2, paragraph 0025, lines 5-9 and 14-17; a hole 24 is provided in the center of the lid handle 22 and the lid 20), and that a temperature sensor is inserted through the opening through the handle portion (Bedetti, fig. 4 and page 1, paragraph 0006, lines 1-6 and page 2, paragraph 0025, lines 5-9 and 14-17; the kitchen utensil 10, which includes a temperature sensor 14 at its end 12, is inserted through the hole 24 of the lid handle 22; the temperature sensor 14 comes into direct contact with the food within the pan P).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of a temperature probe opening, or hole (24), in the lid handle (22) of Bedetti into the cooker lid of Gaynor in view of Elinsky for the purpose of achieving a temperature measurement that is taken directly in the center of the cooking vessel and the food within it, which can allow for a more accurate reading of the internal temperature of the food being cooked.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Phillips (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0236613 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Gaynor teaches a slow cooker (Gaynor, fig. 1, slow cooker 10) for heating food over time (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0017, lines 3-5, the slow cooker 10 cooks foodstuff 12 over time) comprising:
a cooking body (Gaynor, figs. 1-2, shell 14) defining an internal cavity (Gaynor, fig. 2, heating cavity 16) within which a heating element (Gaynor, fig. 3, heating element 18) is provided for heating the internal cavity (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0018, lines 1-3, the heating element 18 is positioned within the heating cavity 16 of the shell 14 of slow cooker 10 and heats the heating cavity 16);
a cooking vessel (Gaynor, figs. 2-3, crock 22) removably received within the internal cavity of the heating body (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0021, lines 1-3; the crock 22 is removably placed inside of the heating cavity 16 of the shell 14; note that for the purposes of examination, “the heating body” is considered to be a typographical error, and is read as “the cooking body” instead), the cooking vessel being heated by the heating element within the internal cavity so that food when positioned within the cooking vessel can also be heated over time (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0017, lines 3-5 and paragraph 0021, lines 17-20; the crock 22 is heated by the heating element 18 within the heating cavity 16 and is heated in order to cook the foodstuff 12 over time);
a temperature probe (Gaynor, figs. 1 and 3, temperature probe 28) comprising a temperature sensor for reading a sensed temperature of a food product or liquid within the cooking vessel and for communicating the sensed temperature to the control module (Gaynor, page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 10-12 and page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 11-16 and paragraph 0027, lines 5-8; the temperature probe 28 is able to measure temperatures at its probe tip 30, which is inserted into the foodstuff 12 and sends the measured temperatures to the controller 36; the temperature probe 28 is understood to comprise a temperature sensor within its probe tip 30 because the probe tip is able to respond to the temperature of the foodstuff 12 and transmit the measured temperature to the controller 36; the Examiner notes that a “sensor” is defined in the dictionary as “a device that responds to a physical stimulus […] and transmits a resulting impulse” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor, accessed January 23rd, 2025]); and
a control module (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 1, paragraph 0007, lines 8-24 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-14; the controller 36 may be comprised of a microprocessor; the Examiner notes that the term “microprocessor” is defined in the dictionary as “a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip” having “memory and associated circuits” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microprocessor, accessed January 24th, 2025]; the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes; note that, in the 112(f) claim interpretation above, “control module” is considered to be a microprocessor and memory and equivalents thereof recognized in the art) operatively connected with the temperature probe (Gaynor, figs. 2, 6 and page 3, paragraph 0024, lines 1-6; the controller 36 is connected to the temperature probe 28—via a probe outlet 34 located on the shell 14 and a plug 28d—to allow for communication between the two elements), the control module provided to the cooking body (Gaynor, fig. 3 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-4; the controller 36 is located on the shell 14) and operatively connected with the heating element for controlling a heat setting of the heating element for cooking food according to one of a plurality of different cooking modes (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0031, lines 1-13; the controller 36 controls the heating element 18 to heat the crock 22 at a certain temperature given by one of the cooking modes; the different cooking modes are: probe mode, program mode, and manual mode), the control module comprising “a microprocessor and memory with programming for controlling the plurality of different cooking modes” (Gaynor, fig. 6 and page 1, paragraph 0007, lines 8-24 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-14; the controller 36 may be comprised of a microprocessor; the Examiner notes that the term “microprocessor” is defined in the dictionary as “a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip” having “memory and associated circuits” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microprocessor, accessed January 24th, 2025]; the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes) including a user interface (Gaynor, figs. 1-2 and page 4, paragraph 0032, lines 1-8 and paragraph 0034, lines 14-19; the controller 36 is attached onto the shell 14 through a control panel 48 that comprises a display 50 and control buttons 52a-52g to allow the user to interact with the slow cooker 10 controls) allowing selection from the plurality different cooking modes including at least a temperature probe mode, (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0031, lines 11-13 and page 5, paragraph 0042, lines 1-8; the user selects a cooking mode, one of which can be a probe mode, from the display 50 of the control panel 48), which temperature probe mode controls heating of the food product or liquid within the cooking vessel by the heating element to attain a user selected temperature, and a time mode during which a user can manually change the user selected temperature higher or lower (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0053, lines 4-10; in the program mode, the user can use the up and down buttons 52f, 52g to change the temperature higher and lower; the program mode is considered to be a time mode).
Gaynor does not teach the temperature probe mode switching to a time mode after the user selected temperature is attained.
However, Phillips teaches a cooking device (Phillips, fig. 2, kitchen appliance 10) having a control module that switches from one cooking mode to another after a predetermined temperature is attained (Phillips, page 4, paragraph 0031, lines 7-10 and pages 5-6, paragraph 0044, lines 12-19; once the temperature of the contents within the container 22 of the kitchen appliance 10 reaches a first predetermined temperature FT in a single cooking mode, the controller 36 can automatically switch from the single cooking mode to a single warming mode by actuating the heating element 16 appropriately).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of the controller switching between cooking modes of Phillips into the controller (36) and programming of Gaynor for the benefit of saving the user time by automating transitions between cooking modes, which speeds up the cooking process while also making the cooker easier to use.
Regarding claim 13, Gaynor in view of Phillips teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 12 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker wherein during the time mode the control module maintains the food product or liquid within the cooking vessel at the user selected temperature for a further time period unless the cooking mode is stopped by a user or the user selected temperature is changed to a new temperature, in which case the new temperature is maintained (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0032, lines 1-13 and page 7, paragraph 0053, lines 7-10 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-14; during the program mode, the controller 36 uses the heating element 18 to heat the foodstuff 12 at a temperature selected by the user for a period of time also selected by the user; the control panel 48 includes an on/off button 52e; the cooking mode is considered to be able to be stopped by the user because there exists an on/off button 52e on the slow cooker 10 that the user can interact with to stop the cooking mode; it is noted that the limitation "unless the cooking mode is stopped by a user or the user selected temperature is changed to a new temperature, in which case the new temperature is maintained" is in the alternative).
Claims 4-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Phillips (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0236613 A1) and further in view of Jin (Chinese Patent No. 106213974 A).
Regarding claim 4, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 1 above, wherein a time mode during which the user selected temperature of the food product will be maintained (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0053, lines 7-10 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-14; during the program mode, the controller 36 uses the heating element 18 to heat the foodstuff 12 at a temperature selected by the user for a period of time also selected by the user; the program mode is considered to be a time mode), the time mode including a starting of a timer provided within a display of the control module to provide an indication to the user (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-8; in the program mode, the controller 36 turns on a cooking time indicator 72a that displays the duration of cooking, which the user can change using up and down buttons 52f, 52g to set a cooking time; once the cooking has begun, the cooking time indicator 72a displays the time remaining in the cooking process).
Gaynor does not teach the temperature probe mode switching to a time mode after the user selected temperature is attained.
However, Phillips teaches a cooking device (Phillips, fig. 2, kitchen appliance 10) having a control module that switches from one cooking mode to another after a predetermined temperature is attained (Phillips, page 4, paragraph 0031, lines 7-10 and pages 5-6, paragraph 0044, lines 12-19; once the temperature of the contents within the container 22 of the kitchen appliance 10 reaches a first predetermined temperature FT in a single cooking mode, the controller 36 can automatically switch from the single cooking mode to a single warming mode by actuating the heating element 16 appropriately).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of the controller switching between cooking modes of Phillips into the controller (36) and programming of Gaynor for the benefit of saving the user time by automating transitions between cooking modes, which speeds up the cooking process while also making the cooker easier to use.
Gaynor in view of Phillips also does not specifically teach that the timer within the control module counts upward to provide an indication to the user of the cooking mode timing.
However, Jin teaches a cooking device (Jin, fig. 1, electric rice cooker) having a timer provided within the control module counting upward to provide an indication to the user of the cooking mode timing (Jin, page 12, paragraph 0056, lines 499-507; the main control board 8 of the electric rice cooker can have a timing device that displays the amount of time elapsed from when a specified temperature is achieved in the preheating stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cooking time indicator (72a) of Gaynor in view of Phillips with the teaching of displaying an elapsed time from Jin for the purpose of providing the user with a variety of timer settings to choose from, thus satisfying unique user preferences.
Regarding claim 5, Gaynor in view of Phillips and further in view of Jin teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 4 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker wherein the time mode has a maximum time period, the expiration of which shuts off the slow cooker (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0054, lines 11-24; in the program mode, the controller 36 maintains a warm temperature—for keeping the cooked food material warm—for a maximum time period of fourteen hours; once the maximum time period has elapsed, the controller 36 cuts off the power to the heating element 18 and sets the display 50 to read "OFF"; the slow cooker 10 is considered to be shut off because the power to its heating element 18 is shut off, ending any further cooking).
Regarding claim 6, Gaynor in view of Phillips and further in view of Jin teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 4 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker wherein during the time mode, a user can manually change the user selected temperature higher or lower (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0053, lines 4-10; in the program mode, the user can use the up and down buttons 52f, 52g to change the temperature higher and lower).
Regarding claim 14, Gaynor in view of Phillips teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 12 above, wherein a time mode during which the user selected temperature of the food product will be maintained (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0053, lines 7-10 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-14; during the program mode, the controller 36 uses the heating element 18 to heat the foodstuff 12 at a temperature selected by the user for a period of time also selected by the user; the program mode is considered to be a time mode; note that for the purposes of examination, the “time mode” element referenced in the claim is understood to be the same “time mode” referenced in claims 12-13), the time mode including the starting of a timer provided within a display of the control module counting upward to provide an indication to the user of the time mode timing (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-8; in the program mode, the controller 36 turns on a cooking time indicator 72a that displays the duration of cooking, which the user can change using up and down buttons 52f, 52g to set a cooking time; once the cooking has begun, the cooking time indicator 72a displays the time remaining in the cooking process).
Gaynor does not teach that the temperature probe mode switches to a time mode after the user selected temperature is attained.
However, Phillips teaches a cooking device (Phillips, fig. 2, kitchen appliance 10) having a control module that switches from one cooking mode to another after a predetermined temperature is attained (Phillips, page 4, paragraph 0031, lines 7-10 and pages 5-6, paragraph 0044, lines 12-19; once the temperature of the contents within the container 22 of the kitchen appliance 10 reaches a first predetermined temperature FT in a single cooking mode, the controller 36 can automatically switch from the single cooking mode to a single warming mode by actuating the heating element 16 appropriately).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of the controller switching between cooking modes of Phillips into the controller (36) and programming of Gaynor for the benefit of saving the user time by automating transitions between cooking modes, which speeds up the cooking process while also making the cooker easier to use.
Gaynor in view of Phillips also does not specifically teach that the timer within the control module counts upward to provide an indication to the user of the cooking mode timing.
However, Jin teaches a cooking device (Jin, fig. 1, electric rice cooker) having a timer provided within the control module counting upward to provide an indication to the user of the cooking mode timing (Jin, page 12, paragraph 0056, lines 499-507; the main control board 8 of the electric rice cooker can have a timing device that displays the amount of time elapsed from when a specified temperature is achieved in the preheating stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cooking time indicator (72a) of Gaynor in view of Phillips with the teaching of displaying an elapsed time from Jin for the purpose of providing the user with a variety of timer settings to choose from, thus satisfying unique user preferences.
Regarding claim 15, Gaynor in view of Phillips and further in view of Jin teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 14 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker wherein the time mode has a maximum time period, the expiration of which shuts off the slow cooker (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0054, lines 11-24; in the program mode, the controller 36 maintains a warm temperature—for keeping the cooked food material warm—for a maximum time period of fourteen hours; once the maximum time period has elapsed, the controller 36 cuts off the power to the heating element 18 and sets the display 50 to read "OFF"; the slow cooker 10 is considered to be shut off because the power to its heating element 18 is shut off, ending any further cooking).
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Johncock (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0351579 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 1 above, wherein the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes).
Gaynor does not teach the temperature probe mode including the ability for the user to provide a user selected time in addition to the user selected temperature, the user selected time applying to the time period over which the user selected temperature is maintained after the user selected temperature is attained.
However, Johncock teaches a cooking device (Johncock, fig. 1, a cooking vessel 20 on a cooktop 24) having a cooking mode that includes the ability for the user to provide a user selected time in addition to the user selected temperature (Johncock, fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 0026, lines 1-5; in the sous vide cooking mode, the user can set both a desired cooking temperature and desired cooking time using the user input 67 on the cooktop 24), the user selected time applying to the time period over which the user selected temperature is maintained after the user selected temperature is attained (Johncock, fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 0027, lines 17-30; after the desired cooking temperature is reached, the first temperature sensor 34 within the cooking vessel 20, the controller 52, and the cooktop burner 22 are used to measure and maintain the temperature of the cooking liquid 16 at the desired cooking temperature for the duration of the desired cooking time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the teaching of the user being able to input a desired cooking time in addition to a desired cooking temperature in a cooking mode of Johncock into the probe mode of Gaynor for the benefit of keeping the cooked food item warm for as long as the user desires and eliminating the need for the user to re-heat the food after cooking.
Regarding claim 17, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 12 above, wherein the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes).
Gaynor does not teach the temperature probe mode including the ability for the user to provide a user selected time in addition to the user selected temperature, the user selected time applying to the time period over which the user selected temperature is maintained after the user selected temperature is attained.
However, Johncock teaches a cooking device (Johncock, fig. 1, a cooking vessel 20 on a cooktop 24) having a cooking mode that includes the ability for the user to provide a user selected time in addition to the user selected temperature (Johncock, fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 0026, lines 1-5; in the sous vide cooking mode, the user can set both a desired cooking temperature and desired cooking time using the user input 67 on the cooktop 24), the user selected time applying to the time period over which the user selected temperature is maintained after the user selected temperature is attained (Johncock, fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 0027, lines 17-30; after the desired cooking temperature is reached, the first temperature sensor 34 within the cooking vessel 20, the controller 52, and the cooktop burner 22 are used to measure and maintain the temperature of the cooking liquid 16 at the desired cooking temperature for the duration of the desired cooking time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the teaching of the user being able to input a desired cooking time in addition to a desired cooking temperature in a cooking mode of Johncock into the probe mode of Gaynor for the benefit of keeping the cooked food item warm for as long as the user desires and eliminating the need for the user to re-heat the food after cooking.
Claims 8-10, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Alipour (International Pub. No. WO 2013126917 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 1 above, wherein the control module comprises for controlling the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes), including a slow cook mode in addition to the temperature probe mode (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 4-8 and page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0056, lines 11-18; the slow cooker 10 includes a program mode and a manual mode in addition to the probe mode, and both modes involve a slow cooking procedure where the foodstuff 12 is heated and cooked for a long period of time; in the program mode, a cooking time can be set to up to twelve hours or longer; in the manual mode, the foodstuff 12 can be cooked for a maximum time of fourteen hours or longer).
Gaynor does not teach the cooking modes including a sous vide mode.
However, Alipour teaches a cooking device (Alipour, fig. 1, apparatus 100) that can operate in a sous vide mode (Alipour, figs. 1, 4 and page 1, paragraph 0003, lines 1-4 and pages 7-8, paragraph 0025, lines 1-9 and page 9, paragraph 0028, lines 1-3, 9-12; the apparatus 100 executes a sous vide cooking procedure wherein a food item 152 is cooked within an inner bag 146 surrounded by a liquid heated by the heating element 154; the sous vide cooking process occurs over a user selected time and temperature, inputted through the user controls 108 of the control unit 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 9, Gaynor in view of Alipour teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 8 above.
Gaynor does not teach that during the sous vide mode, the heating element is controlled to heat the cooking vessel so as to maintain a liquid within the cooking vessel at a user selected sous vide temperature based on sensed temperature feedback from the temperature probe to the control module and to maintain the user selected temperature for a user selected sous vide time period.
However, Alipour further teaches that during the sous vide mode, the heating element is controlled to heat the cooking vessel so as to maintain a liquid within the cooking vessel at a user selected temperature based on sensed temperature feedback from a temperature sensor to the control module and to maintain the user selected temperature for a user selected sous vide time period (Alipour, figs. 1, 4 and page 1, paragraph 0003, lines 1-4 and pages 7-8, paragraph 0025, lines 1-9 and page 10, paragraph 0030, lines 3-8; the control unit 104 and apparatus 100 execute a sous vide cooking procedure; based on the measured temperature from the temperature sensor 176, the heating element 178 is controlled by a temperature controller 182 to maintain the user selected temperature—inputted through the user controls 108—of the heat transfer liquid 172 for a user selected time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 10, Gaynor in view of Alipour teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 9 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker having a timer provided within a display of the control module that displays the user selected time period and begins counting down to provide an indication to the user of the user selected time period remaining (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-8; in the program mode, the controller 36 turns on a cooking time indicator 72a that displays the duration of cooking, which the user can change using up and down buttons 52f, 52g to set a cooking time; once the cooking has begun, the cooking time indicator 72a displays the time remaining in the cooking process).
Gaynor does not teach that at the start of the user selected sous vide period a timer provided within a display of the control module will display the user selected sous vide period and begin counting down to provide an indication to the user of the sous vide period remaining.
However, Alipour further teaches that at the start of the user selected sous vide period a timer provided within a display of the control module will display the user selected sous vide period and begin counting down to provide an indication to the user of the sous vide period remaining (Alipour, fig. 1 and page 9, paragraph 0028, lines 1-5; the control unit 104 has an alphanumeric display 114 that displays time 110 and temperature 112 information during cooking, such as the time remaining in the sous vide cooking process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance. Additionally, modifying the cooking time indicator (72a) of Gaynor with the teaching of displaying a time remaining in the sous vide cooking process from Alipour would allow the user to cook in the sous vide mode without needing to constantly monitor the timing of the cooking process, thus saving the user time by allowing the cooker to be left unattended.
Regarding claim 18, Gaynor teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 12 above, wherein the control module comprises programming for controlling (Gaynor, page 1, paragraph 0007, lines 8-24 and page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 1-14; the Examiner notes that the term “microprocessor” is defined in the dictionary as “a computer processor contained on an integrated-circuit chip” having “memory and associated circuits” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microprocessor, accessed January 24th, 2025]; the controller 36 stores the probe set temperature inputted by the user and subsequently controls the execution of the multiple cooking modes of the slow cooker 10; therefore, the controller 36 is considered to contain a memory because it is comprised of a microprocessor and because it can store inputted data and execute multiple stored cooking modes), including a slow cook mode in addition to the temperature probe mode (Gaynor, page 4, paragraph 0030, lines 4-8 and page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0056, lines 11-18; the slow cooker 10 includes a program mode and a manual mode in addition to the probe mode, and both modes involve a slow cooking procedure where the foodstuff 12 is heated and cooked for a long period of time; in the program mode, a cooking time can be set to up to twelve hours or longer; in the manual mode, the foodstuff 12 can be cooked for a maximum time of fourteen hours or longer).
Gaynor does not teach the cooking modes including a sous vide mode.
However, Alipour teaches a cooking device (Alipour, fig. 1, apparatus 100) that can operate in a sous vide mode (Alipour, figs. 1, 4 and page 1, paragraph 0003, lines 1-4 and pages 7-8, paragraph 0025, lines 1-9 and page 9, paragraph 0028, lines 1-3, 9-12; the apparatus 100 executes a sous vide cooking procedure wherein a food item 152 is cooked within an inner bag 146 surrounded by a liquid heated by the heating element 154; the sous vide cooking process occurs over a user selected time and temperature, inputted through the user controls 108 of the control unit 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 19, Gaynor in view of Alipour teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 18 above.
Gaynor does not teach that during the sous vide mode, the heating element is controlled to heat the cooking vessel so as to maintain a liquid within the cooking vessel at a user selected sous vide temperature based on sensed temperature feedback from the temperature probe to the control module and to maintain the user selected temperature for a user selected sous vide time period.
However, Alipour further teaches that during the sous vide mode, the heating element is controlled to heat the cooking vessel so as to maintain a liquid within the cooking vessel at a user selected temperature based on sensed temperature feedback from a temperature sensor to the control module and to maintain the user selected temperature for a user selected sous vide time period (Alipour, figs. 1, 4 and page 1, paragraph 0003, lines 1-4 and pages 7-8, paragraph 0025, lines 1-9 and page 10, paragraph 0030, lines 3-8; the control unit 104 and apparatus 100 execute a sous vide cooking procedure; based on the measured temperature from the temperature sensor 176, the heating element 178 is controlled by a temperature controller 182 to maintain the user selected temperature—inputted through the user controls 108—of the heat transfer liquid 172 for a user selected time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance.
Claims 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaynor (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0210062 A1) in view of Alipour (International Pub. No. WO 2013126917 A1) and further in view of Meng (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0339751 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gaynor in view of Alipour teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 10 above having a sous vide mode (cited and incorporated in claim 8 above) and a user selected sous vide time period (cited and incorporated in claim 9 above).
Gaynor in view of Alipour does not teach that the user selected cooking time period can be modified at any time during the cooking mode.
However, Meng teaches a cooking device (Meng, fig. 1, an induction cooker 100 on a cooktop surface 104) having a user selected cooking time period that can be modified at any time during the cooking mode (Meng, page 5, paragraph 0084, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0086, lines 1-3 and paragraph 0087, lines 5-9; the user can pre-set and then select a cooking sequence that the induction cooker 100 uses to execute the cooking process; the cooking sequence chosen by the user includes the selection of a time duration; the user can modify the cooking sequence while the cooking process is in progress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the controller (36) and sous vide mode of Gaynor in view of Alipour with the teaching of modifying the user selected cooking time period at any point in the cooking mode of Meng for the benefit of making the cooking process more time-flexible and providing the user with more control over the cooking procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Gaynor in view of Alipour teaches the slow cooker as incorporated in claim 19 above, and Gaynor further teaches the slow cooker having a timer provided within a display of the control module that displays the user selected time period and begins counting down to provide an indication to the user of the user selected time period remaining (Gaynor, page 7, paragraph 0052, lines 7-18 and paragraph 0054, lines 1-8; in the program mode, the controller 36 turns on a cooking time indicator 72a that displays the duration of cooking, which the user can change using up and down buttons 52f, 52g to set a cooking time; once the cooking has begun, the cooking time indicator 72a displays the time remaining in the cooking process), and the slow cooker having a sous vide mode (cited and incorporated in claim 18 above) and a user selected sous vide time period (cited and incorporated in claim 19 above).
Gaynor does not teach that at a start of the user selected sous vide time period a timer provided within a display of the control module will display the user selected sous vide period and begin counting down to provide an indication to the user of the sous vide period remaining.
However, Alipour further teaches that at the start of the user selected sous vide period a timer provided within a display of the control module will display the user selected sous vide period and begin counting down to provide an indication to the user of the sous vide period remaining (Alipour, fig. 1 and page 9, paragraph 0028, lines 1-5; the control unit 104 has an alphanumeric display 114 that displays time 110 and temperature 112 information during cooking, such as the time remaining in the sous vide cooking process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sous vide mode executed over a user selected time and temperature of Alipour into the controller (36) and cooking modes of Gaynor for the benefit of providing the user with multiple cooking methods without needing to purchase another cooking appliance. Additionally, modifying the cooking time indicator (72a) of Gaynor with the teaching of displaying a time remaining in the sous vide cooking process from Alipour would allow the user to cook in the sous vide mode without needing to constantly monitor the timing of the cooking process, thus saving the user time by allowing the cooker to be left unattended.
Gaynor in view of Alipour does not teach that the user selected cooking time period can be modified at any time during the cooking mode.
However, Meng teaches a cooking device (Meng, fig. 1, an induction cooker 100 on a cooktop surface 104) having a user selected cooking time period that can be modified at any time during the cooking mode (Meng, page 5, paragraph 0084, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0086, lines 1-3 and paragraph 0087, lines 5-9; the user can pre-set and then select a cooking sequence that the induction cooker 100 uses to execute the cooking process; the cooking sequence chosen by the user includes the selection of a time duration; the user can modify the cooking sequence while the cooking process is in progress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the controller (36) and sous vide mode of Gaynor in view of Alipour with the teaching of modifying the user selected cooking time period at any point in the cooking mode of Meng for the benefit of making the cooking process more time-flexible and providing the user with more control over the cooking procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 102 … Even more, the Gaynor reference necessarily also fails to reach the claimed aspects of maintaining the user selected temperature for a further time period unless the cooking mode is stopped by a user (claim 1), or the temperature probe mode switching to a time mode during which a user can manually change the user selected temperature higher or lower, as recited within independent claim 12. As such, the claims make a significant inventive step over the Gaynor reference. the Gaynor reference makes it clear that it only contemplates waiting for a cooking process to complete (here, when the food temperature is equal or greater than the detector setting temperature), and then moves to the extended warm mode, which warm mode is neither based on a user-selected temperature, nor does the Gaynor reference provide any reason why it would maintain such a user-selected temperature after its cooking cycle is complete” on pages 11-13 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because Gaynor teaches temperature can be set and maintain at user selected set temperature ([0007], i.e., the measured temperature of the foodstuff 12 is greater than or equal to a user-selected probe set temperature) “for a further time period” ([0052] This indicates that the default cooking time is four hours (4 hrs) for the program mode, which may be modified by depressing the up and/or down buttons 52f, 52g in thirty minute increments (30 min) in a preferred range between thirty minutes and twelve hours (12 hrs). The slow cooker 10 is not limited to the four hour default time or to the thirty minute to twelve hour cooking time range. This suggest that the user is able to further modify the cooking time such as adding another 3 hours of cooking during cooking or at the end of maximum of period of cooking time) “unless the cooking mode is stopped by a user” ([0052] a user presses the on/off button 52e. This suggest that the user is able to cut off power at any given time).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights