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 .
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal et al. (20190234617).
Bhogal teaches a method comprising:
accessing a temperature map (par. 0055 pixel to physical area maps; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0140) of a food item in a cooking apparatus (par. 0095; fig. 11; par. 0135), wherein the temperature map comprises a plurality of regions of the food item (par. 0152; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0135, 0140) and associates a temperature with each region (par. 0152; par. 0095; par. 0135 exterior, interior; par. 0140), and wherein the cooking apparatus cooks according to an initial heating technique (par. 0152 cooking stage; par. 0086, par. 0129 cooking instruction; par. 0136 target operation parameter)
determining, by a computing device (par. 0055; par. 0128 “computing system”), whether a temperature associated with at least one region of the food item violates a predetermined temperature constraint (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate)
in response to a determination that the temperature associated with at least one region of the food item violates the predetermined temperature constraint (par. 0152; par. 0135; par. 0143), then
estimating one or more thermal properties of the food item based on the temperature map (par. 0094; par. 0055 pixel to physical area maps; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0140) of the food item and the initial heating technique (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate)
determining an optimal heating technique (par. 0100 foodstuff cooking progress), where Bhogal further teaches thermal partial differential equation (par. 0106) for the food item using (par. 0106) the estimated one or more thermal properties of the food item (par. 0100 internal external; par. 0094; par. 0055 pixel to physical area maps; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0140) and a state-variable constraint for the thermal PDE constraining a temperature state of a least a portion of the food item (par. 0155 target parameter; target par. 0129 cooking instruction; par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate)
then determining an optimal heating technique (par. 152 rectify; par. 0135; par. 0143 operated to rectify) and instructing the cooking apparatus to cook according to the optimal heating technique (par. 0135; 0152); and
in response to a determination that the temperature of each region does not violate the predetermined temperature constraint (par. 0155 target parameter being met; alternatively relative intent of target being met par. 0129 i.e. cooking instruction), then determining that the initial heating technique should not be changed (par. 0155 stage complete, ready to eat).
Though silent to explicitly teaching the equation variables or the parameters taught by Bhogal as variables of the taught thermal partial differential equation (par. 0106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the same taught variables, i.e. the estimated one or more thermal properties of the food item (par. 0100 internal external; par. 0094; par. 0055 pixel to physical area maps; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0140) and a state-variable constraint for the thermal PDE constraining a temperature state of a least a portion of the food item (par. 0155 target parameter; target par. 0129 cooking instruction; par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate) into the taught partial differential equation (par. 0106) for its art recognized purpose of monitoring cooking processes in real time, including image extracted features of the food including internal and external temperature (par. 0100) to achieve its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of rectifying cooking progress to achieve the target parameter (target par. 0129 cooking instruction).
With respect to claim 2, accessing a thermal image (par. 0095) of the food item in the cooking apparatus and creating the temperature map based on the thermal image (par. 0055 pixel to physical area maps; par. 0095 surface, internal temperature; fig. 11; par. 0140).
With respect to claim 10, where the thermal PDE is taken as above. Determining the optimal heating technique for the food item using a termination criterion for the heating process (par. 0152 cooking stage; par. 0086, par. 0129 cooking instruction; par. 0136 target operation parameter)
Claim 11, where the thermal PDE is taken as above
wherein determining the optimal heating technique comprises:
predicting, based on the food stuff features from the image (par. 0106), a thermal evolution of the food item over time (par. 0140 time vs. internal temperature) and
determining, based on the predicted thermal evolution of the food item over time (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate par. 0140), the optimal heating technique (par. 152 rectify; par. 0135; par. 0143 operated to rectify).
Claim 12, where the thermal PDE is taken as above
wherein predicting the thermal evolution of the food item over time comprises predicting, based on the food stuff features from the image (par. 0106), a temperature evolution of the food item over time (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate par. 0140).
Claim 13, determining that an observed temperature evolution of the food item differs from the predicted temperature evolution (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate par. 0140) of the food item by a predetermined amount (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate par. 0140);
in response to the determination that the observed temperature evolution of the food item differs from the predicted temperature of the food item by a predetermined amount, then updating the estimate of the one or more thermal properties of the food item ((par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate par. 0140; cooking parameters updated) and
updating the optimal heating technique based on the updated estimate of the thermal properties of the food item (par. 152 rectify; par. 0135; par. 0143 operated to rectify).
With respect to claim 14, wherein determining, based on the predicted thermal evolution of the food item over time, the optimal heating technique comprises minimizing a cost function for a thermal property of the food item (par. 0119; foodstuff features specific vs generic i.e. any; par. 0131 frozen; par. 0134 determine future), wherein the cost function is at least in part a function of an amount of thermal energy provided by the cooking apparatus (par. 0131 adjust to frozen vs no adjustment; par. 0134 rectify differences i.e. prevent waste).
With respect to claim 15, further comprising minimizing the cost function subject to at least one of: (1) one or more thermal constraints (par. 0119; foodstuff features specific vs generic i.e. any; par. 0131 frozen; par. 0134 determine future) or (2) one or more constraints on one or more control variables that define a heating technique (par. 0131 adjust to frozen vs no adjustment; par. 0134 rectify differences i.e. prevent waste).
Claim 16, wherein the one or more thermal constraints comprise: a minimum temperature that each region of the food item must exceed (par. 0089 temperature schedule foodstuff; par. 0155 target temperature) and a maximum temperature that each region of the food item must not exceed (par. 0155 target temperature).
Claim 17, wherein the thermal property comprises a completion time for cooking the food item (par. 0131 last 3 lines; par. 0138).
Claim 18, wherein: estimating one or more thermal properties of the food item comprises estimating a completion time for cooking the food item (par. 0131, 0138) and the method further comprises providing, for display to a user (par. 0155), the estimated completion time for cooking the food item (par. 0155).
Claim 19, wherein estimating one or more thermal properties of the food item comprises predicting, comprising a plurality of zones that are each defined by an associated temperature range (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate), one or more aggregate temperature measures for at least a portion of the food item (par. 0152 cooking too slowly; par. 0135 exterior temperature increase faster than target rate, interior temperature increase slower than target rate)
Though silent to explicitly teaching a heat exchange model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the same taught variables, relative a model which provides a same desired information as taught by Bhogal for its art recognized purpose of monitoring cooking processes in real time, including image extracted features of the food including internal and external temperature (par. 0100) to achieve its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of rectifying cooking progress to achieve the target parameter (target par. 0129 cooking instruction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792