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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's amendments (cancelling group I and incorporating some of the limitations of group I into new claims dependent upon claims of group II) have combined the two distinct groups into a single product group and as such the restriction requirement is no longer proper. The Restriction requirement of 07/25/2025 is withdrawn and all claims are examined for patentability.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 3 and 4 contain reference numerals which do not have lead lines, see 37CFR1.84(q)
Figures 3-6 utilizes boxes around each reference numeral, i.e. they are encircled, see 37CFR1.84(p)(1)
Figure 4 has an axis and portions of the graph line which are not sufficiently legible for publication. The numbers on the axis or not legible and the overlapping lines are not sufficiently contrasted.
Figures 3 and 4 appear to have no explanation for the legend in the specification or Figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the language regarding the “derivative” of the beverage criterion. While not explicitly stated the “derivative” is presumed to be a time derivative as this is considered implied by the term “rate of change”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended the claims in the amendment of 09/23/2025 to state that the “plurality of locations of the third thermal image using the temperature data for the third thermal image”. This contradicts the originally presented claim, ¶ [0009] and Fig. 6 which all either explicitly state or imply (Fig. 6) that the third thermal image data is used for the “first thermal image” as the means by which the control cycle is restarted once the third thermal image data is obtained. This is a new matter rejection.
It is acknowledged, however, that the new matter appears to derive from Applicant attempts to clarify some ambiguity in the claim between the “first” and “third” images. The Examiner suggests an amendment similar to: “using the temperature data of the third thermal image for the first thermal image of the heat cycle control” in order to overcome both the ambiguity and the new matter. This limitation is supported by the control flow chart in Fig. 6, the term “cycle” in the original claim and by the original claim set.
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.
Claims 10-29 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.
Regarding claim 10 and by dependency claims 11-29,
The amended claim term “plurality of locations of the third thermal image using the temperature data for the third thermal image” renders the claim ambiguous as since the third image no longer becomes the first image the “cycle” language of claim 10 appears to now contradict with the specific control steps. I.e., previously a cycle was being performed by writing the third image back to the first (as is also shown in Fig. 6).
It is acknowledged, however, that the ambiguity appears to derive from Applicant attempts to clarify the claim with respect to the “first” and “third” images. The Examiner suggests an amendment similar to: “using the temperature data of the third thermal image for the first thermal image of the heat cycle control” in order to overcome both the ambiguity and the new matter. This limitation is supported by the control flow chart in Fig. 6, the term “cycle” in the original claim and by the original claim set.
Specifically, regarding claim 17
There is conflict between the Specification and claims regarding an interpretation of claim 17 such that it leads to differing interpretations thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The first and most likely interpretation of the language of claim 17 is that the area of greatest absolute value of the derivative of the temperature function is used to identify an area of greatest rate of change in the temperature function (supported by paragraphs 53 &54).
The second and more literal interpretation of the claim language is that a second derivative of the temperature function with respect to time is being taken. In order to identify a greatest rate of change “in the calculated derivative of the function”.
Assuming the Examiner is correct in believing that the intention of the claim is to find a region of greatest rate of change in the temperature function, the Examiner suggests clarifying by stating, e.g., “identifying a region of greatest rate of change in the temperature function by means of a calculated derivative function” or similar. Support being found in paragraphs 53 and 54.
Allowable Subject Matter
Assuming the assumptions made by the Examiner about intended scope of the claims are correct the Examiner is unaware of prior art that anticipates or makes obvious claim 10 or dependents.
While not explicitly stated the present invention appears to be directed to a non-obvious improvement over the types of automatic microwave control devices utilizing thermal cameras exemplified by Hooker et al. (US 2021/0307135). Hooker teaches a thermal camera (30) which is used to determine an adaptive cooking cycle (abstract) and which importantly uses additional thermal images to determine the next stage of the cooking cycle (abstract). This differs from the claimed invention mainly in the failure mode of detection, i.e. in the presently claimed invention should a beverage fail to adequately be detected it will be heated for a set period of time (in theory providing further thermal differentiation) and then the process will be attempted again. This allows for the advantage of a more robust control system and better handling of exception circumstances (e.g. no food/beverage is present).
The examiner was able to find this idea of using a timed cycle in place of a sensed cycle upon a measurement failure in Gaspard (US 8,142,375) – see Fig. 28 and associated description. However, this device is an infant massaging device which is not in the same field of endeavor nor pertaining to solving the problem at hand and thus does not qualify as analogous prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761