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 .
Application Status
Amended claim 1-6 are under examination.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claim 8-20 are withdrawn from examination
Claim 1-6 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Withdrawn Rejections
The claim objection over claim 2, 3 and 4 as set forth in previous office action have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The 112, second paragraph rejections over claim 1-6 as set forth in previous office action have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments submitted on 01/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites new limitation of “a weight of a cooking degree training data packet in a whole training set” is unclear. The metes and bounds of recitation is not clearly set forth in the claim to meet the limitation. It is not clear what Applicant intend “cooking degree training data packet in a whole training set” to correlates with the preceding step(s) of the claimed method. The claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites new limitation of “a self-definition of the cooking degree of the food material” is confusing. The metes and bounds of recitation is not clearly set forth in the claim to meet the limitation. It is not clear what Applicant intend “a self-definition” to correlates with the preceding step(s) of the claimed method. The claim is indefinite.
Claim 2-6 are also rejected because the claims are depended upon rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal (US 2018/0292092 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2 and 3, Bhogal discloses a method comprising a user using a cooking apparatus (cooking device) (‘092, [0027], [0028]) with a user device in communication with computing system (‘092, [0028], fig. 1, 4 and 5) to cook foodstuff. The user provides feedback includes informative dataset to improve accuracy of operation instruction which includes cooking temperature adjustment of cooked foodstuff (food material) for a desired doneness (cooking degree) (‘092, [0029]- [0032], [0035]) with a historical dataset to save operation instruction (cooking parameter) (‘092, [0033]) input to the computing system. Bhogal’s historical dataset saved with the cooking temperature adjustment of the cooked foodstuff (food material) for the desired doneness (cooking degree) encompass an acquiring step of the user’s feedback after cooking the cooked foodstuff (food material) using the cooking apparatus (cooking device).
With respect to new limitations of “…training a cooking degree identification model on the control system in the cooking device according to the feedback information…” and the adjusting step; Bhogal discloses a training set to determine an ideal set of cooking instructions (cooking degree identification model) to adjustments from multiple users (different users) (‘092, [0099], [0105], [0115], [0138]) into the computing system for desired target output food condition (self-definition of the cooking degree) (‘092, [0100]-[0103]; [0105])
Bhogal discloses feedback values are subjective food parameters from the user for the desired doneness (cooking degree), textures which includes chewy, crispness, under done, sightly undercooked, perfect, slightly overcooked, over done levels (‘092, [0029], [0031], [0077]) associated with variables including temperature settings and times within the cooking apparatus (cooking device). Additionally, Bhogal discloses the informative dataset includes cooking presets (‘092, [0058], [0071])).
Bhogal teaches the method comprising with the user feedback to achieve the target food output condition (‘092, [0081], [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to multiplicate the system to include adjusting, expanding and compressing the temperatures, times in Bhogal’s method to provide the target food output condition (‘092, [0081], [0083]). With respect to claim 2 and 3, Bhogal teaches information in the informative dataset, the historical dataset includes set of images of the foodstuff (‘092, [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 4, 5 and 6, Bhogal discloses a sensor system with camera (‘092, [0044]) for the images to determine a foodstuff to categorize the foodstuff in food class (category), determine a cooking stage and other suitable foodstuff parameter for cooking (‘092, [0044]-[0047], [0069]) for the desired doneness (cooking degree) and target food output conditions (‘092, [0069]). The desired doneness (cooking degree) with the textures which includes the chewy, crispness, the under done, the sightly undercooked (first level), the perfect, the slightly overcooked, the overdone levels (‘092, [0029], [0031], [0077]) associated with variables are considered sub-intervals including the temperature settings and the times within the cooking apparatus (cooking device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s amendments to new limitations of “…training a cooking degree identification model on the control system in the cooking device according to the feedback information…” and the adjusting step; Bhogal discloses a training set to determine an ideal set of cooking instructions (cooking degree identification model) to adjustments from multiple users (different users) (‘092, [0099], [0105], [0115], [0138]) into the computing system for desired target output food condition (self-definition of the cooking degree) (‘092, [0100]-[0103]; [0105])
Bhogal discloses feedback values are subjective food parameters from the user for the desired doneness (cooking degree), textures which includes chewy, crispness, under done, sightly undercooked, perfect, slightly overcooked, over done levels (‘092, [0029], [0031], [0077]) associated with variables including temperature settings and times within the cooking apparatus (cooking device). Additionally, Bhogal discloses the informative dataset includes cooking presets (‘092, [0058], [0071])).
Bhogal teaches the method comprising with the user feedback to achieve the target food output condition (‘092, [0081], [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to multiplicate the system to include adjusting, expanding and compressing the temperatures, times in Bhogal’s method to provide the target food output condition (‘092, [0081], [0083]). With respect to claim 2 and 3, Bhogal teaches information in the informative dataset, the historical dataset includes set of images of the foodstuff (‘092, [0036]-[0037]).
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 HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. 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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792