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Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3, 10, 15-16 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 3 recites “the unit watt or a value correlating therewith”. It is not clear what the other “value” might be. It is not clear if it would simply be a different unit for expressing power, or not.
Claim 10 recites “the predefined maximum temperature (TMAX) is greater than 105C or 110C”. It is not clear if TMAX must be above 105C or above 110C, or whether the TMAX must be between 105 and 110C.
Claim 15 recites “the predefined slope threshold (DTS) is at least 0.2 C/minute and/or 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 5 /min, or simply at least 0.2C.
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/or at most 5C”. 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).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites a time period “of at least 0.5 minutes and/or at most 10 minutes” 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.
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 5-6, 9-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehoe et al [US 2008/0118614A1] in view of Pampered Chef NPL [How to Simmer] and Kowalics et al [Pat. No. 4,817,510].
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).
Kehoe et al do not explicitly recite a fixed mode with electrical energy at a fixed value (claim 5).
Pampered Chef NPL teaches a method for simmering food by initially using medium-high heat to bring the liquid to a boil (Steps 1-3), immediately reducing the heat to medium or medium-low (Step 4), and setting the timer for the desired simmer time (Step 6-7).
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), 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 fixed mode into the invention of Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL and Kowalics et al, since all are directed to methods of boiling and/or simmering foods, since Kehoe et al simply did not mention a specific power setting for the simmer stage, since foods were commonly simmered at a fixed lower wattage power during simmering as shown by Pampered Chef NPL and Kowalics et al, since a fixed power setting was a simple and effective means for simmering food, since a constant power setting would prevent temperature fluctuations due to periodic increases or decreases in power in the method of Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL; and since a fixed power setting would not have required the user to manually monitor temperature or a complicated controller to automatically monitor temperature during the simmering process of Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL.
Regarding the use of a fixed power setting vs a power setting using cycles (eg on/off), the use of a fixed power setting would further have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”.
MPEP 2144.04 discusses Automating of Manual Activity:
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Claims 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL and Kowalics et al, as applied above, and further in view of Gisslen [Professional Cooking, Third Edition].
Kehoe et al, Kowalics et al, and Pampered Chef NPL teach the above mentioned concepts. Kehoe et al do not explicitly recite first and second values for power if the boiling temperature is below 100C or at/above 100C (claim 1, 7), and the boil temperature being above 95C (claim 8). Gisslen teaches methods of simmering and boiling food wherein water boiled at 100C when at sea level and at 95C when at 5,000 ft elevation (pg 55), while simmering typically occurred at 85-96C (pg 55). 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 Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL and Gisslen, since all are directed to methods of preparing foods, since Kehoe et al already included boiling and simmering, since Pampered Chef NP already included a fixed mode, since water at higher elevations was known to boil at temperatures below 100C as shown by Gisslen, since many consumers lived at higher altitudes where water naturally boils at less than 100C, since a lower boiling temperature would naturally require a lower power input, and since differing power inputs and temperature values would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures to compensate for elevation differences in user’s locations in the system of Kehoe et al, in view of Gisslen.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehoe et al, in view of Kowalics et al and Pampered Chef NPL, as applied above, and further in view of Caide et al [CN 102283564A].
Kehoe et al, Kowalics et al, and Pampered Chef NPL teach the above mentioned concepts. Kehoe et al do not explicitly recite 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 Kehoe et al, in view of Caide et al, since both are directed to methods of cooking food, since Kehoe et al already included a boil sensor/detection unit but simply did not mention how it functioned, 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, and since this would have enabled the system of Kehoe et al to be used at locations with different elevations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehoe et al, in view of Pampered Chef NPL, Kowalics et al, and Gisslen, as applied above, and further in view of Caide et al [CN 102283564A].
Kehoe et al, Kowalics et al, Gisslen, and Pampered Chef NPL teach the above mentioned concepts. Kehoe et al do not explicitly recite storing the power and temperature values in a memory (claim 4). 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 memory feature into the invention of Kehoe et al, in view of Gisslen, Pampered Chef NPL, Kowalics et al, and Caide et al; since all are directed to methods of cooking food, since Kehoe et al already included a user input and automated controller but simply did not mention a memory, since Pampered Chef NPL already included a fixed power mode for simmering, since cooking systems commonly included storing a temperature value for an elevated location as shown by Caide et al, since storing plural values for boiling temperature and associated power would have enabled more accurate and precise operations of the system of Kehoe et al, in view of Gisslen, Pampered Chef NPL, and Caide et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leeuwen et al, Cheng et al, Gross et al, Psarologos et al, Yu et al, Kersten et al, Larsen, Mosebach et al, Wang et al, Nolte, and Stulen et al teach methods of controlling boiling and/or simmering of food products.
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