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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/4/25.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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(s) 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(s) is/are: boiling detection unit in claim 1, 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) 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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 15-17 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 15 recites “the predefined slope threshold (DTS) is at least 0.2 C/minute and at most 5 C/minute”. Parent claim 14 recites “a slope… falls below a predefined slope threshold (DTS)”. It is not clear if the slope must be between 0.2-5 C/min, or whether it must simply be less than 5C /min, at least 0.2C, or a range below 0.2C/min.
Claim 16 recites “the amount of a difference between the actual temperature (T1) and the desired temperature (TT) does not become greater than at least 1C and at most 5C for a predetermined time period (ZT) of at least 0.5 minutes and at most 10 minutes”. It is not clear if the temperature difference must remain between 1-5C, or simply be less then 5C, or whether it can be at least 1C (eg 35C). It is not clear if the time period is between 0.5-10 minutes, or simply more than 0.5 minutes, or simply less than 10 minutes. It is not clear what times and temperature rates are quired in this claim.
Claim 17 recites P1-3 being “dependent on or specified by the desired temperature (TT), a user input or a digital recipe”. This appears to provide additional broader options to the required step of “specifying a desired temperature (TT) by a user interface” of amended parent claim 5. It is not clear if these further options would also satisfy claim 5, or not. It is not clear if claim actually requires specifying the desired temperature by user interface, or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al [US 2020/0178357A1] in view of Kowalics et al [Pat. No. 4,817,510].
Christiansen et al teach a method for controlling a cooking process (title) by a cooking pot holding foods such as water, pasta, rice, and/or soup (paragraph 0059), a heating element (paragraph 0045), a temperature sensor (Figure 3, #24), a boiling detection unit in the form of a vibration sensor and/or temperature sensor (Figure 3, #26; paragraph 0029), a control unit using algorithms (Figure 3, #28; paragraph 0086), a user interface such as smartphone with a display (paragraph 0086), a desired simmer temperature which falls within a temperature range (Figure 1, TS, delta.TS), an initial temperature control mode using a high initial power, iP & Pmax, for the heating element wherein the actual temperature approaches the desired temperature (paragraph 0060; Figure 1), detecting a boiling stage by the vibration sensor (paragraph 0060, 0065), changing to a fixed mode using a lower fixed power value (Figure 1, PS), switching back to a temperature control mode when the actual temperature leaves the simmer temperature range (Figure 1, delta.TS, PS), a simmer temperature of 94-100C (paragraph 0016), water conventionally boiling at 100C at sea level, and the PSmax value being 2000 W and PSmin being 600 W (paragraph 0064), and an absence of relation of altitude and fill level to the implemented power levels (see whole document).
Christiansen et al do not explicitly recite specifying the desired temperature by a user interface (claim 1, 5), first and second values for power if the boiling temperature is below 100C or above 100C (claim 1, 7).
Kowalics et al teach a soup cooking system comprising a pot (Figure 1, C), a heating element (Figure 1, #40), a temperature sensor (Figure 1, #108), specifying a desired boil temperature and a desired simmer temperature (Figure 4, #239, 242), initially heating the soup to a preselected boiling temperature using high heat at 1800 W (Figure 4, #236; Figure 3, #306; column 8, line 58), switching to a fixed mode using constant lower wattage heat (Figure 4, #240, 248; Figure 3, #232; column 7, line 15), and a potentiometer for varying the predetermined temperature based upon differences in altitude (column 6, lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed step of specifying a desired temperature by user interface into the invention of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, since both are directed to methods of boiling and/or simmering foods, since Christiansen et al already included a user interface (paragraph 0086) but simply did not mention how the desired temperature was chosen, since simmer systems commonly included specifying a desired boil temperature and a desired simmer temperature (Figure 4, #239, 242), since temperature input through the user interface Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, would have permitted greater flexibility in having the user select temperature settings which were effective for their particular situation or recipe, and since a user could easily implement conventional and commonly used recipes for food products by specifying the exact temperature values into the system of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed different power levels for different temperature values into the invention of Christiensen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, since both are directed to systems for simmering and/or boiling, since Christiansen et al already included different temperature values for boiling and simmering as well as different power levels for these two functions (Figure 1), since many recipes, such as pasta, required continued boiling after initially reaching the boiling point and adding the pasta, since boiling commonly occurred at a temperature of 100C or more, since boiling was commonly understood to occur at higher temperatures than simmering, since many recipes required different levels of boiling such as rapid boiling vs a low boil, and since maintaining a higher temperature would have required a higher power level for the heat element of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al.
In conclusion, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, as applied above, and further in view of Kehoe et al [US 2008/0118614A1].
Christiansen et al and kowalics et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Christiansen et al do not explicitly recite Tmin being 80-91C and Tmax being greater than 105C (claim 10), using 0% power or 100% power when the actual temperature leaves the range (claim 12).
Kehoe et al teach an electric cooker (title) comprising a pot (Figure 1, #12), a heating element (Figure 1, #110), a simmering temperature sensor (Figure 1, #121), a boiling sensor/detection unit (Figure 1, #122), food such as pasta, soup, or vegetables (paragraph 0042), a control device (Figure 1, #18), monitoring and controlling the temperature in a temperature control mode by adjusting electrical energy so that the sensed temperature approaches/reaches a desired temperature (paragraph 0048-0049), the boil sensor/detection unit determining a boiling condition (paragraph 0051), the predetermined temperature also being the boiling temperature (paragraph 0049), adjusting the power to zero if the temperature exceeds a maximum temperature (paragraph 0052), increasing the power if the temperature falls below a minimum temperature (paragraph 0053), simmering occurring at 80-99C preferably 85C (paragraph 0006), and the system also including user input (paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed temperature and power values into the invention of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al and Kehoe et al, since all are directed to systems for boiling and/or simmering, since Christiansen et al already included upper and lower power settings as well as varied temperature settings (Figure 1), since food systems commonly included adjusting the power to zero if the temperature exceeds a maximum temperature (paragraph 0052), increasing the power if the temperature falls below a minimum temperature (paragraph 0053), and simmering occurring at 80-99C preferably 85C (paragraph 0006) as shown by Kehoe et al, since a 0% power setting would have provided faster temperature adjustment as compared to simply using a lowered power level, and since the claimed power and temperature settings would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of food and ingredients, the altitude, and/or the desired degree of cooking in the system of Christiansen et al, in view of Kehoe et al.
Claims 4, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, as applied above, and further in view of Caide et al [CN 102283564A].
Christiansen et al, Kowalics et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Christiansen et al do not explicitly recite storing the power and temperature values in a memory (claim 4), the boiling criterion being time over temperature below a threshold (claim 14), the threshold being 0.2-5 C/minute (claim 15), at a boiling temperature below 100C the threshold is 1-5C within 0.5-10 minutes (claim 16).
Caide et al teach a method for cooking by heating food until the temperature reaches a constant value for one minute, and storing the temperature value as the default value for future use as it indicates the boiling temperature at that particular elevation (paragraph 0014, 0033; Figure 3, #T2’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed boiling criterion into the invention of Christiansen et al, in view of Caide et al, since both are directed to methods of cooking food, since Christiansen et al already included a temperature boil sensor/detection unit (paragraph 0029), since cooking systems commonly determined boiling temperature by monitoring the temperature during heating and determining the temperature at which a zero slope value occurred as shown by Caide et al, since this would have enabled the system of Christiansen et al to be used at locations with different elevations and thus boiling temperatures, since cooking systems commonly included storing a temperature value for an elevated location as shown by Caide et al, and since storing plural values for boiling temperature and associated power would have enabled more accurate and precise operations of the system of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al and Caide et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose specifying the desired temperature by user interface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed step of specifying a desired temperature by user interface into the invention of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, since both are directed to methods of boiling and/or simmering foods, since Christiansen et al already included a user interface (paragraph 0086) but simply did not mention how the desired temperature was chosen, since simmer systems commonly included specifying a desired boil temperature and a desired simmer temperature (Figure 4, #239, 242), since temperature input through the user interface Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al, would have permitted greater flexibility in having the user select temperature settings which were effective for their particular situation, and since a user could easily implement conventional and commonly used recipes for food products by specifying the exact temperature values into the system of Christiansen et al, in view of Kowalics et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different boiling styles) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al teach different boil/simmer modes for pasta vs rice (paragraph 0031-0032), Johnson et al teach a preheat stage and different target temperatures and power levels (Figure 6, abstract).
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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm 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, 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights