DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 101 rejection has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Rafii’s system does not consider a … extent of coverage of a lid as recited in amended claims 25 and 29 respectively. At best, Rafii teaches that the camera 2 may consider if a lid is present or not when determining the edge of the pot, but this is not the same as, and cannot reasonably be construed to be considering a position or extent of coverage of a lid when predicting a probability of food boiling over as recited in amended claims 25 and 29 respectively” [only portions directed toward claims 25 and 29 are included] (Page 13 of applicant’s remarks fil 02/17/2026). However, the terms position and extent of coverage are not limited to partial coverings and reasonably include a vessel being completely covered as well as completely uncovered. For example, it would be reasonable when detecting a position of a lid relative to the cooking receptacle to conclude that the position of the lid covers the cooking receptacle vs a position not covering the cooking receptacle. Similarly, evaluating a lid by calculating the extent of coverage of said lid is 100% completely covered or 0% not covered is similarity reasonable. Furthermore, Paragraphs 41 and 96-99 of Rafii also utilizes the position of the lid to determine the type of calculation by which the probability calculation is performed and thus reasonably uses the position of the lid as part of the process to predict a probability of the food boiling over.
Applicant further argues that “Raffii’s camera is expressly designed to trigger a response based solely on whether the liquid level surpasses a predetermined threshold, without regard to the underlying cause or rate of change leading to that condition” (Page 13 of applicant’s remarks filed 02/17/2026). However, Paragraph 65 of Rafii teaches that the threshold is not simply a liquid level but instead a change in liquid level in a predetermined time period. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to consider any variables which could affect the rate of change in the liquid level when performing said probability calculation.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 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. A new rejection has been made over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1).
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.
Claim 35 is 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.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “adjusting the sampling rate comprises increasing the sampling rate in response to an increase in the probability of the food boiling over” is not properly supported in the specifications. Applicant’s remarks filed 02/17/2026 recites support for claims 35 to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the applicant’s specifications filed 02/14/2023. However, Paragraph 23 does not specifically discuss the sampling rate. Paragraph 22 does discuss the sampling rate but only recites that the “sampling rate can optically be set here as a function of the detected food to be cooked”. This limitation only provides support that a relationship between the sampling rate and the detected food can be set, but does not provide sufficient support for increasing the sampling rate in response to an increase in the probability of food boiling over. Outside of the applicant’s cited support for claim 35, Paragraph 18 recites the limitation of the term “sampling rate” but also does not provide support for the relationship stated in claim 35. Paragraph 59 also mentions the term “sampling frequency” but similarity does not provide support for the relationship in claim 35.
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.
Claim(s) 25-27, 29, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAFII (US 20170367151 A1).
Regarding claim 25, RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) teaches a control device for a cooking system (Figure 5), the control device comprising:
a detection unit (cooking support system) configured to detect:
a cooking receptacle on a cooking zone of a cooktop (Paragraph 132, cooking support system performs cookware detection process to detect the cookware based on the thermal image of the background region); and
a position of a lid relative to the cooking receptacle (determination of whether position of lid is on the cooking receptacle or not; Paragraph 41, detecting an outside of the lid of the cookware based on the thermal image);
an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the cooking receptacle (Paragraph 76, thermal image camera detects the content level within the cookware 52) and a surface level of a food contained in the cooking receptacle by measuring changes in the surface level and calculating rate of change of the surface level with respect to time (Paragraph 79, while the prior art doesn’t explicitly use the term rate of change it does teach determining the increase in content level over a predetermined time period which means that the increase in content level equates to a rate of rising over the predetermined period of time and thus ascertaining the rising rate of food is obvious; the office further notes that measuring the raising rate of liquid level is well known in the art as evidence by STIPE (US 20200367692 A1));
a prediction unit configured to predict a probability of the food boiling over based on the rate of change of the surface level with respect to time calculated by the evaluation unit (Paragraphs 76 and 81-82, cooking support system determines whether the increase calculated is not less than the second threshold which determines whether there is a risk of the content boiling over or whether a boil over has occurred) and the position of the lid detected by the detection unit (Paragraphs 41 and 96-99, type of calculation to determine the probability of a boil over is dependent upon whether a lid is present or not); and
a control unit configured to output a warning signal based on the probability of the food boiling over (Figure 4 Paragraphs 76 and 84-85, cooking support system notifies the user of the possibility of boiling over to the notification device and transmitting a control signal indicating an instruction to lower the output of the cooking heater).
The Office further notes that further amending the claim such as to state that the lid partially covers the cooking receptacle and predicting a probability of the food based on detecting said partially covered lid would be obvious. This is because lids are well known in the art to have an effect on the possibility of a boiling over event. For example, Blonski (US 11337550 B2) teaches a system for detecting a possibility of boiling over, and in response to said possibility, invokes a height actuator of a lid such as to cause said lid to rise and for apertures within the lid to open (Figure 3a Column 7 Lines 5-32). This clearly indicates that removing a lid from the top of a cooktop, through raising the lid, and decreasing the surface area of the lid over the opening of the cooking vessel, through opening the apertures in the lid, each have an effect of reducing the possibility of a boil over from occurring. Having a lid be partially placed over the container would be equivalent with opening apertures in the lid; both situations decrease the surface area of the lid which is placed over the cooking vessel. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, who was seeking the calculate the probability of a boil-over such as that in RAFII, would have found it obvious to considered how much surface of the opening of the vessel the lid was covering in their determinations such as to provide a more accurate reading when determining the possibility of a boil-over.
Regarding claim 26, RAFII teaches the control device of claim 25, further comprising
a communication unit configured to wirelessly transmit data between the control device and the cooktop (Paragraph 59, when the boil-over detector detects a possibility of a boil over the heating controller transmits a control signal indicating instruction to lower the output of the cooking heater; Paragraphs 142-147, various devices including detection software include a computer system and wherein control signals are transmitted through a wireless communication line).
Regarding claim 27, RAFII teaches the control device of claim 25, wherein
the detection unit comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a camera (Paragraph 72, cooking support system performs thermal image acquisition acquires a thermal image of a region including the cookware at the predetermined time intervals from the thermal image camera 2 through the network 7) and a sensor.
Regarding claim 29, RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) teaches a fume extraction device, comprising:
a control device (cooking support system 1), wherein the control device comprises:
a detection unit (thermal image camera 2) configured to:
detect a cooking receptacle on a cooking zone of a cooktop (Paragraph 132, cooking support system performs cookware detection process to detect the cookware based on the thermal image of the background region; Paragraph 135, thermal image camera 2 performs said detection process); and
detect a lid (Paragraph 98, lid determiner 5 determines whether there is or not a lid on the cookware);
an evaluation unit (boil-over detector 10) configured to
evaluate the cooking receptacle and a surface level of a food contained in the cooking receptacle by measuring changes in the surface level and calculating a rate of change of the surface level of the food with respect to time (Paragraph 79, while the prior art doesn’t explicitly use the term rate of change it does teach determining the increase in content level over a predetermined time period which means that the increase in content level equates to a rate of rising over the predetermined period of time and thus ascertaining the rising rate of food is obvious; the office further notes that measuring the raising rate of liquid level is well known in the art as evidence by STIPE (US 20200367692 A1)); and
evaluate the lid by calculating an extent of coverage of an opening of the cooking receptacle by the lid (extent of coverage of whether the cooking receptacle is covered or not; Paragraphs 96-99, lid determiner 17 determines whether or not there is a lid on the cookware or not);
a prediction unit configured to predict a probability of the food boiling over based on the rate of change of the surface level with respect to time (Paragraphs 76 and 81-82, cooking support system determines whether the increase calculated is not less than the second threshold which determines whether there is a risk of the content boiling over or whether a boil over has occurred) and the extent of coverage (Paragraphs 41 and 96-99, type of calculation to determine the probability of a boil over is dependent upon whether a lid covers the cooking receptacle or not); and
a control unit configured to output a warning signal based on the probability of the food boiling over (Figure 4 Paragraphs 76 and 84-85, cooking support system notifies the user of the possibility of boiling over to the notification device and transmitting a control signal indicating an instruction to lower the output of the cooking heater).
The Office further notes that further amending the claim such as to state that the lid partially covers the cooking receptacle and predicting a probability of the food based on detecting said partially covered lid would be obvious. This is because lids are well known in the art to have an effect on the possibility of a boiling over event. For example, Blonski (US 11337550 B2) teaches a system for detecting a possibility of boiling over, and in response to said possibility, invokes a height actuator of a lid such as to cause said lid to rise and for apertures within the lid to open (Figure 3a Column 7 Lines 5-32). This clearly indicates that removing a lid from the top of a cooktop, through raising the lid, and decreasing the surface area of the lid over the opening of the cooking vessel, through opening the apertures in the lid, each have an effect of reducing the possibility of a boil over from occurring. Having a lid be partially placed over the container would be equivalent with opening apertures in the lid; both situations decrease the surface area of the lid which is placed over the cooking vessel. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, who was seeking the calculate the probability of a boil-over such as that in RAFII, would have found it obvious to considered how much surface of the opening of the vessel the lid was covering in their determinations such as to provide a more accurate reading when determining the possibility of a boil-over.
Regarding claim 31, RAFII teaches the fume extraction device,
embodied as an extractor hood (Figure 1 Paragraph 53, thermal image camera which is part of the control device is attached to a kitchen stove hood 4).
Regarding claim 32, RAFII teaches the fume extraction device, wherein
the control device further comprises a communication unit configured to wirelessly transmit data between the extractor hood and the cooktop (Paragraph 59, when the boil-over detector detects a possibility of a boil over the heating controller transmits a control signal indicating instruction to lower the output of the cooking heater; Paragraphs 142-147, various devices including detection software include a computer system and wherein control signals are transmitted through a wireless communication line).
Regarding claim 33, RAFII teaches the fume extraction device, wherein
the detection unit of the control device comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a camera (Paragraph 72, cooking support system performs thermal image acquisition acquires a thermal image of a region including the cookware at the predetermined time intervals from the thermal image camera 2 through the network 7) and a sensor.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) teaches a method for monitoring a cooking process (Figure 5), the method comprising:
determining a heat setting of the cooking zone (Paragraph 90, calculating the temperature for the cooktop burner);
predicting a probability of the food boiling over based data received from one or more sensors of the cooking appliance (Paragraph 93, controller receives sensor data from one or more sensors and include temperature sensors) and the heat setting of the cooking zone (Paragraph 95, controller can detect the occurrence of a safety event as a result of the calculated temperature in combination with received sensor data); and
outputting a warning signal based on the predicted probability of the food boiling over (Paragraph 15, detecting a safety event and providing an audio and/or visual alert of the safety event wherein the safety even is a boil-over event).
Hooker fails to explicitly teach:
detecting a cooking receptacle on a cooking zone of a cooktop;
determining a surface level of a food to be cooked which is contained in the cooking receptacle;
measuring, using a camera, changes in the surface level of the food;
calculating a rate of change of the surface level of the food with respect to time;
predicting a probability of the food boiling over based on the rising rate of change of the surface level of the food
RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) teaches a cooking support method and cooking support system, wherein:
detecting a cooking receptacle on a cooking zone of a cooktop (Paragraph 132, cooking support system performs cookware detection process to detect the cookware based on the thermal image of the background region);
determining a surface level of a food to be cooked which is contained in the cooking receptacle (Paragraph 76, detecting the content level within the cookware 52);
measuring, using a camera, changes in the surface level of the food (Paragraphs 78-79, checks if information indicating the content level detected a predetermined time ago is stored in the storage; Paragraph 79, calculate an increase in the content level detected; Paragraph 96, camera is used to detect boil-over);
calculating a rate of change of the surface level of the food with respect to time (Paragraph 79, while the prior art doesn’t explicitly use the term rate of change it does teach determining the increase in content level over a predetermined time period which means that the increase in content level equates to a rate of rising over the predetermined period of time and thus ascertaining the rising rate of food is obvious; the office further notes that measuring the raising rate of liquid level is well known in the art as evidence by STIPE (US 20200367692 A1));
predicting a probability of the food boiling over based on the rising rate of change of the surface level of the food (Paragraphs 81-82, determine whether the increase calculated is not less than the second threshold which determines whether there is a risk/probability of the content boiling over or whether a boil over has occurred)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with RAFII and have the additional sensors detect the rate of change of the surface level of the food with respect to time and predicting a probability based on the detected rate. This would have been done to prevent the content in the cookware from boiling over regardless of the material of the cookware (RAFII Paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 16, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein
the warning signal comprises an information output and/or a notification to a user (Paragraph 15, detecting a safety event and providing an audio and/or visual alert of the safety event wherein the safety even is a boil-over event)
RAFII further teaches:
the warning signal comprises an information output and/or a notification to a user (Paragraph 84, notifying the user of the possibility of boiling over to the notification device)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
adjusting an operating mode of a fume extraction device and/or of the cooktop based on the predicted probability of the food boiling over (Paragraph 98, controller can automatically shut off a corresponding cooktop burner in response to detecting a boil-over safety event)
RAFII further teaches:
adjusting an operating mode of a fume extraction device and/or of the cooktop based on the predicted probability of the food boiling over (Figure 4 Paragraph 85, the cooking support system performs heating control processing to transmit a control signal indicating an instruction to lower the output of the cooking heater when it is determined that there is the possibility of boiling over)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
RAFII further teaches:
detecting a presence of a lid (Paragraph 133, cooking support system performs lid detection processing).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 20.
RAFII further teaches:
the detecting of the presence of the lid comprises a determination of a position of the lid relative to the cooking receptacle (determination of whether position of lid is on the cooking receptacle or not; Paragraph 41, detecting an outside of the lid of the cookware based on the thermal image), and wherein the probability of the food boiling over is further predicted based on the position of the lid (Paragraphs 41 and 96-99, type of calculation to determine the probability of a boil over is dependent upon whether a lid is present or not).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of STIPE (US 20200367692 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
RAFII further teaches:
wherein the prediction of the probability of the food boiling over further comprises a determination of the surface level of the food to be cooked exceeding a predetermined level and/or a predetermined volume (Paragraph 36, determining whether or not the calculated value indicating the change in level is not less than a predetermined threshold from the acquired thermal image and determining that there is a possibility of the content boiling over the cookware during cooking when it is determined that the calculated value indicating the change in level is not less than the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15 above.
Hooker as modified fails to teach:
the camera comprises a depth camera
STIPE (US 20200367692 A1) teaches an over boil identifying cooking appliance, wherein:
the camera comprises a depth camera (Paragraph 58, camera used for developing 3D thermal maps of the cooking appliance can be a three-dimensional camera capable of stereoscopic reconstruction; Paragraph 59, sensors can be a depth sensor), and wherein the prediction of the probability of the food boiling over further comprises a determination of the surface level of the food to be cooked exceeding a predetermined level and/or a predetermined volume (Paragraph 109, cooking assistance appliance can emit a warning when the detected amount of liquid is with a predetermined amount of a full capacity of the pot to determine that a boil-over mess condition is likely).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with STIPE and used a depth camera to detect a depth image. This would have been done such as to generate a 3D image to determine the rate at which the height of liquid is increasing in a cooking vessel (STIPE Paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 19, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
Hooker as modified fails to teach:
the determination of the surface of the food comprises determining a type of the food.
STIPE (US 20200367692 A1) teaches a cooking appliance for determining a boil over event, wherein:
the determination of the surface of the food comprises determining a type of the food (Paragraph 93, a sensor is used to detect the type of food without requiring the user to identify the food item).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with STIPE and have the determination of the surface of the food comprise an identification of the type of food. This would have been done to use historic data based on the type of cooking to predict a boil over without requiring the user to identify the food item (STIPE Paragraph 80).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Guan (US 9330469 B2).
Regarding claim 22, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein:
the probability of the food boiling over is further predicted based on the ascertained temperature (Paragraph 93, controller receives sensor data from one or more sensors and include temperature sensors; Paragraph 95, controller can detect the occurrence of a safety event as a result of the calculated temperature in combination with received sensor data)
RAFII further teaches:
wherein the probability of the food boiling over is further predicted based on the ascertained temperature (Paragraphs 62-65, predetermined temperature region of having 70 degrees C or higher are detected and used to determine areas where the content level should be measured).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15 above.
Hooker as modified fails to teach:
ascertaining a temperature of the food contained in the cooking receptacle based on a specific movement of the surface level of the food
Guan (US 9330469 B2) teaches a system for boil detection, wherein:
ascertaining a temperature of the food contained in the cooking receptacle based on a specific movement of the surface level of the food (Column 5 Lines 7-15, plurality of motion vectors exhibited by frames of imagery depict a boiling event),
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with Guan and determine whether the temperature of the food within the pot is at a certain temperature or not based on the type of movement of the food within the pot. This would have been done to determine when the food is boiling and to alert the user whether the water or other liquid has reached a boiling state (Guan Column 5 Lines 52-56).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of STIPE (US 20200367692 A1) and ÜNVER (EP 3431881 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 21.
Hooker fails to explicitly teach:
closing the cooking receptacle by an at least partially transparent lid, wherein the probability of the food boiling over is predicted based on a property of the food to be cooked which is detected through the lid by the camera.
STIPE (US 20200367692 A1) teaches a cooking appliance for determining a boil over event, wherein:
the probability of the food boiling over is predicted based on a property of the food to be cooked (Paragraph 93, a sensor is used to detect the type of food without requiring the user to identify the food item).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with STIPE and have the determination of the surface of the food comprise an identification of the type of food. This would have been done to use historic data base don the type of cooking to predict a boil over without requiring the user to identify the food item (STIPE Paragraph 80).
Hooker modified with STIPE fails to teach:
closing the cooking receptacle by an at least partially transparent lid, wherein the food to be cooked is detected through the lid by the camera
ÜNVER (EP 3431881 A1) teaches a monitoring device for a cooker, comprising:
closing the cooking receptacle by an at least partially transparent lid, wherein the food to be cooked is detected through the lid by the camera (Paragraphs 39-40, stereo camera is used to determine the distance to the content of the cooking vessel through a glass lid on the cooking vessel to determine the content distance to the content in the cooking vessel)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with ÜNVER and have the method include measuring the cooking receptable through a transparent lid. Performing measurements through a transparent lid is known in the art and would have been done such as to allow for accurate measurements while still providing a lid for the food (ÜNVER Paragraphs 39-40).
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US 20200292392 A1) in view of RAFII (US 20170367151 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Stewart (US 20030107648 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 15.
Hooker as modified fails to teach:
adjusting a sampling rate during the measuring of changes in the surface level of the food, based on the probability of the food boiling over.
Stewart (US 20030107648 A1) teaches a surveillance system and method with adaptive frame rate, comprising:
adjusting a sampling rate during the measuring of changes in detected values (Paragraph 30, frame rate can be increased when a detected value is above a certain threshold)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hooker with Stewart and adjusted the sampling rate during the measuring of changes in the detected values upon the change in level or temperature being above a predetermined threshold indicating a high probability of boil-over (RAFII Paragraphs 112-117 and 124). This would have been done to minimize bandwidth requirements of a transmission system that is used to transmit the frames which still performing high data rate detection during important events (Stewart Paragraph 6) which Hooker (Paragraph 44) and RAFII (Paragraph 147) both use to communicate between sensors and control systems.
Since RAFII teaches that a detected content level or temperature is above a certain threshold indicates an increased possibility of a boil-over (RAFII Paragraphs 112-117 and 124), it would have been obvious to perform the steps of “adjusting a sampling rate during the measuring of changes in the surface level of the food, based on the probability of the food boiling over”.
Regarding claim 35, Hooker as modified teaches the method of claim 34.
Stewart further teaches:
adjusting the sampling rate comprises increasing the sampling rate in response to an increase in detected values (Paragraph 30, frame rate can be increased when a detected value is above a certain threshold)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 34.
Since RAFII teaches that a detected content level or temperature is above a certain threshold indicates an increased possibility of a boil-over (RAFII Paragraphs 112-117 and 124), it would have been obvious to perform the steps of “adjusting the sampling rate comprises increasing the sampling rate in response to an increase in the probability of the food boiling over”.
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761