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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-2, 5-19 and 21-23 are pending.
Claims 3-4 and 20 are cancelled.
Claim 23 is newly added.
Claims 1 is amended.
Claim 8-19 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1-2, 5-7 and 22-23 are examined as follow:
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2165370A (previously cited) hereby set forth as GB5370A, in view of KANG (US2016/0088688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KANG.
Regarding claim 1, GB5370A discloses a cooking device (refer to “rice cooker” in Abstract) comprising:
one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) for heating a fluid;
an input device (refer as “input terminal A1” in cited Page 2 line 31-36) for receiving input information (refer to Page 2 line 31-36 cited: “…Fig. 1, reference numeral 9 de notes a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature of a rice cooking pot (not shown) by a thermistor 10 so as to supply various temperature data (to be described later) to an input terminal Al of the microcomputer 6…”); and
a processor (refer to “circuit for controlling” in Abstract) configured to:
control the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) for a first period of time (refer to “first time” annotated in fig.4) in order to heat the fluid to a first temperature (refer to “first temperature” annotated in fig.4);
control the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) for a second period of time (refer to “second time” annotated in fig.4) such that the temperature of the fluid falls to a second temperature (refer to “second temperature” annotated in fig.4); and
control the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) for a third period of time to increase power (refer to “third time/power increase” annotated in fig.4) supplied to the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) relative to power supplied to the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) during the second period of time (refer to “second time” annotated in fig.4); and the first (refer to “first temperature” annotated in fig.4) and second temperature (refer to “second temperature” annotated in fig.4) based on the input information (refer to Page 2 line 31-36 cited: “…Fig. 1, reference numeral 9 de notes a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature of a rice cooking pot (not shown) by a thermistor 10 so as to supply various temperature data (to be described later) to an input terminal Al of the microcomputer 6…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GB5370A does not explicitly disclose determine the first, second and third period of time based on the input information, wherein the input information comprises an original cooking time and an extended cooking time, wherein a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time is not greater than the original cooking time, and wherein the extended cooking time is equal to a sum of the first, second and third period of time, and wherein the extended cooking time is a time by which a cooking process is to be finished.
In the similar field of input control of cooking device, KANG discloses determine the first, second (refer as first residual cooking time”) and third period of time (refer as part “first time” cited below, the first time is first and third period), wherein the input information comprises an original cooking time (refer as “predetermined first time”) and an extended cooking time (refer as “total cooking time”), wherein a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time (refer as part “first time” cited below, the first time is first and third period) is not greater than the original cooking time (refer as “predetermined first time”), and wherein the extended cooking time (refer as “total cooking time”) is equal to a sum of the first, second (refer as first residual cooking time”) and third period of time (refer as part “first time” cited below, the first time is first and third period) (refer to claim 3 cited: “…determining whether the total cooking time is equal to or greater than a predetermined first time value; if the total cooking time is equal to or greater than the predetermined first time value, setting the predetermined first time value as the first time; determining whether a first residual cooking time indicating a value obtained by subtracting the first time from the total cooking time is equal to or greater than a predetermined third time value; if the first residual cooking time is equal to or greater than the predetermined third time value, setting the predetermined third time value as the second time…”),and wherein the extended cooking time (refer as “total cooking time”) is a time by which a cooking process is to be finished (refer to the definition of “total cooking time”, mean the cooking process completed).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GB5370’s cooking device with determine the first, second and third period of time based on the input information, wherein the input information comprises an original cooking time and an extended cooking time, wherein a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time is not greater than the original cooking time, and wherein the extended cooking time is equal to a sum of the first, second and third period of time, as taught by KANG, in order to provide more flexibility and expendability to the cooking device, such that would be able to accommodate different recipes and increase the utility and marketability of the cooking device.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, GB5370A further discloses wherein the increase in power (refer to “third time/power increase” annotated in fig.4) supplied to the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) for the third period of time (refer to “third time/power increase” annotated in fig.4) results in:
increasing the temperature (refer to “third temperature” annotated in fig.4) of the fluid to a third temperature (refer to “third temperature” annotated in fig.4) which is greater than the second temperature (refer to “second temperature” annotated in fig.4).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, GB5370A further discloses further comprising a sensor coupled to the processor (refer to “circuit” in abstract and fig.1), wherein the sensor (#9, fig.1) is configured to detect a temperature of the fluid and transmit a signal representing the detected temperature (refer to Page 2 line 96-101 cited: “…Referring to Fig. 1, reference numeral 9 de notes a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature of a rice cooking pot (not shown) by a thermistor 10 so as to supply various temperature data (to be described later) to an 100 input terminal Al of the microcomputer 6 …”) to the processor (refer to “circuit” in abstract and fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, GB5370A further discloses wherein the cooking device (refer to fig.1) is a vessel cooker (refer to “rice cooker pot” in Page 2 line 98) comprising a vessel in which the fluid is heated (refer to the term “pot” in “rice cooker pot” in Page 2 line 98).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, GB5370A further discloses the processor (refer to “circuit” in abstract and fig.1) is further configured to control the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) to operate at one or more preheating temperatures (refer to “preheat” annotated in fig.4) to preheat the fluid for a respective one or more periods of time (refer to “preheat period” annotated in fig.4).
Regarding claim 22, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, GB5370A does not disclose wherein the original cooking time is equal to a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time.
In the similar field of input control of cooking device, KANG discloses wherein the original cooking time (refer as “predetermined first time”) is equal to a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time (refer to the calculation cited in claim 3, cited: “…determining whether the total cooking time is equal to or greater than a predetermined first time value; if the total cooking time is equal to or greater than the predetermined first time value, setting the predetermined first time value as the first time; determining whether a first residual cooking time indicating a value obtained by subtracting the first time from the total cooking time is equal to or greater than a predetermined third time value; if the first residual cooking time is equal to or greater than the predetermined third time value, setting the predetermined third time value as the second time…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GB5370’s cooking device with wherein the original cooking time is equal to a sum of the first period of time and the third period of time, as taught by KANG, in order to provide more flexibility and expendability to the cooking device, such that would be able to accommodate different recipes and increase the utility and marketability of the cooking device.
Regarding claim 23, the modification of GB5370A and KANG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, in light of claim 1 rejection, GB5370A further disclose the processor (refer to “circuit for controlling” in Abstract) is further configured to control the one or more heating elements (refer to “heater 3” in Abstract) to maintain a temperature (refer to “keep warm” in fig.4) for an indefinite period of time (refer to the end of Step S23, after step S22 “keep warm” is engaged fig.7B) at the end of the cooking process (refer to end of “unpolished rice cooking mode” in fig.4).
PNG
media_image3.png
754
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 165 370 A to Asahi et al. (hereinafter "Asahi") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0088688 Al to Kang (hereinafter "Kang"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Applicant submits that Asahi and Kang do not teach or suggest all features of the amended claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia, that "the input information comprises an original cooking time and an extended cooking time" and that "the extended cooking time is a time by which a cooking process is to be finished." Applicant submits that Asahi and Kang do not teach or suggest at least these features of claim 1.
Initially, Applicant submits that the "extended cooking time" recited by claim 1 is a user-input parameter for the current cooking process. Claim 1 requires that the input information received by the input device comprises an "original cooking time" and an "extended cooking time." These are values are received from the user for the purpose of defining the cooking program to be performed. Critically, claim 1 further specifies that "the extended cooking time is a time by which a cooking process is to be finished," which defines the total duration of the cooking process currently being performed. Accordingly, none of the time periods recited by claim 1 are in any way derived from, or dependent upon, any previous cooking process.
The Non-Final Office Action acknowledges that Asahi does not teach or suggest that "the input information comprises an original cooking time and an extended cooking time," as recited by claim 1 and cites Kang as curing this deficiency. Non-Final Office Action at pages 5-7. Kang describes a "total cooking time" that is a fundamentally different concept. In Kang, the "total cooking time" is not a user-defined parameter for the current cooking program in any straightforward sense. Rather, it is a computed value that expressly incorporates a "previous cooking time," i.e., time accumulated from cooking processes performed immediately before the current operation. Kang, paragraphs [0031], [0036], [0040], [0041], [0042], [0045], and [0047]. The purpose of this accumulation is to account for residual heat in the electrical components from prior use, to prevent overheating. Id., paragraphs [0002], [0011], [0012], and [0018]. Applicant therefore submits that the "total cooking time" described by Kang thus reflects cumulative thermal loading across multiple cooking sessions, not the duration of the current cooking process alone.
Applicant submits that this distinction between claim 1 and Kang is critical. In the cooking device of claim 1:
The extended cooking time is a user-supplied input that defines when the
current cooking process is to be finished;
None of the first, second, or third periods of time are influenced by any prior cooking process; and
The relationship between the time periods is governed entirely by the user-input original cooking time and extended cooking time for the cooking process at hand.
In contrast, in the description of Kang:
The "total cooking time" is calculated by adding a "previous cooking time" (from prior cooking sessions) to the current input time;
The time periods assigned to the cooking stages are determined by reference to this accumulated total; and
The primary goal of the system is to modulate cooking time as a function of
prior use, which is a consideration entirely absent from the claimed invention. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the "total cooking time" described by Kang and the "extended cooking time" recited by claim 1 are not analogous concepts.
In addition, Applicant submits that there is no reason to combine the description of Asahi and the description of Kang. The Non-Final Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the cooking device described by Asahi with Kang's time- determination approach "in order to provide more flexibility and expendability to the cooking device, such that would be able to accommodate different recipes and increase the utility and marketability of the cooking device." Non-Final Office Action at page 9. Applicant respectfully disagrees, for at least the following reasons.
As discussed above, Kang's time-determination algorithm is specifically designed to solve the problem of component overheating in a microwave. The algorithm described by Kang is inseparable from that context: it is the incorporation of a "previous cooking time," representing residual thermal effects on electrical components, that defines Kang's description. As discussed in Applicant's October 23, 2025 Response to Non-Final Office Action, Asahi is directed to controlling a rice cooker and, more specifically, to a power interrupt countermeasure in a circuit for controlling a rice cooking operation. Asahi, page 1, col. 1, lines 5-9. If a person of ordinary skill in the art were to adopt Kang's algorithm into the vessel cooker described by Asahi while removing the "previous cooking time" component (because there is no analogous overheating problem to solve in a vessel cooker), the person of ordinary skill in the art would be left with nothing from Kang that is not already taught or suggested by Asahi. The combination proposed by the Non-Final Office Action would require selectively excising the very feature that makes Kang's description meaningful, which Applicant submits is not a proper basis for an obviousness combination.
Further, the reason for combining the teachings of Asahi and Kang in this manner identified by the Non-Final Office Action of providing "flexibility and expendability" to accommodate "different recipes" is not supported by the description of Kang. Kang does not address with recipe flexibility or user-configurable cooking programs, and Applicant submits that importing this motivation into the analysis amounts to impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2142 ("The tendency to resort to 'hindsight' based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.").
Moreover, even if the teachings of Asahi and Kang were properly combinable in the manner proposed by the Non-Final Office Action, Asahi and Kang do not teach or suggest all features of claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 requires that:
The input information comprises an original cooking time and an extended cooking time;
The extended cooking time is a time by which the current cooking process is to be finished;
A sum of the first and third periods of time is not greater than the original cooking time; and
The extended cooking time equals the sum of the first, second, and third periods of time.
These features define a specific relationship between user-input cooking time parameters and the time periods of the cooking process, which is designed to allow the user to specify both a standard cooking duration and a deliberately extended total duration (to accommodate, for example, the phase represented by the second period of time). Kang does not teach or suggest this structure. As explained above, the "total cooking time" described by Kang is not a user-defined endpoint for the current cooking process. Instead, it is a calculated value incorporating prior cooking history for the purpose of thermal management. Kang does not teach or suggest the claimed relationship between an "original cooking time," an "extended cooking time," and the three defined periods of cooking,
where the extended cooking time is prospectively defined as the total duration of the current cooking operation. Asahi, for its part, does not teach or suggest the claimed time- determination limitations at all, which the Non-Final Office Action acknowledges. Accordingly, Applicant submits that these features of claim 1 are not taught or suggested by the combination of Asahi and Kang.…”, Remark Page 9-14.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that GB5370A and Kang are nonanalogous art (summarized), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both GB5370A and Kang references are related as the same technical field of rice cooker control cooking process, such that it’s obvious to combine them.
In response to applicant’s argument that the input data is user input, not influenced by any prior cooking process and relationship between the time period (summarized), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, there is no cited limitation in the rejected claim citing the argued limitation to distinct claim 1 from the prior art of records.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, since GB5370A and Kang are in closely related field of controlling rice cooking processes, Kang teaches the flexibility and adjustment of the cooking time during each different period, such teaching would be advantages for GB5370A to modify and improve from, increasing the flexibility and expendability to GB5370A’s cooking device, such that GB5370A’s cooking device would be able to accommodate different recipes and increase the utility and marketability of GB5370A’s cooking device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN1451912A discloses a microwave oven that have different cooking times and temperature.
WO2013/021535A1 discloses an induction cooker
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is -571-272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Steven W. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 21, 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights