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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2023, 09/26/2024, 07/02/2025, 01/07/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, 20) in the reply filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledge. Group II (claims 11-19) are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “106” is shown in Figs.1-2 but not mentioned in the description, “152” is shown in Fig.4 but not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEM OF CONTROLLING A MICROWAVE HEATING CYCLE.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more microwave sources to heat the food product in the food container temperature to within a tolerance of the temperature selection, wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.” in lines 1-4. This should be changed to “wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more microwave sources to heat the food product in the food container a temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection, wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “The method of claim 1” in line 1. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 1 recites a microwave appliance, not a method. It is unclear if claim 20 is meant to depend on the microwave appliance of claim 1, or the method of claim 11. For examination purposes, claim 20 will be interpreted as to depend on the microwave appliance of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (U.S. Patent No. 6,111,239 A).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a microwave appliance (microwave oven as shown in Park Fig.4 & indicated by Col.4 line 1), comprising:
one or more microwave sources (heating unit 3, Park Fig.4) (it is noted that the limitation “one or more” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Park discloses heating unit 3 is microwave source because Park Col.4 lines 2-4 discloses: “a heating unit 3 for generating microwaves to heat a container 7 containing food of the like”);
a microwave chamber (cooking chamber 1, Park Fig.4) in electromagnetic communication with the one or more microwave sources (heating unit 3, Park Fig.4) (it is noted that microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation; therefore, the cooking chamber 1 in electromagnetic communication with the heating unit 3);
a product holder (rotatable turntable 2, Park Fig.4) configured to support a food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) (Park Col.4 lines 3-4 discloses: “a container 7 containing food of the like”) within the microwave chamber (cooking chamber 1, Park Fig.4);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 5, Park Fig.4) configured to sense a temperature of the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) supported within the product holder (rotatable turntable 2, Park Fig.4) (Park Col.4 lines 4-6 discloses: “a temperature sensor 5 of thermopile type for detecting the temperature of the container 7 in the cooking chamber 1 in on-contact manner”);
a user interface (user interface includes key input unit 6A, set temperature storing unit 6B, and display unit 6D; Park Fig.5) configured to receive a temperature selection (Park Col.4 lines 11-15 discloses: “The judging unit 6 comprises key input unit 6a by which the cooking temperature of the selected food is set to an appropriate temperature and by which the heating operation is started (with a "start" key). Set temperature storing unit 6B stores the set cooking temperature.”); and
a controller (output controlling unit 6E, Park Fig.5) in communication with the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 5, Park Fig.4) and the user interface (user interface includes key input unit 6A, set temperature storing unit 6B, and display unit 6D; Park Fig.5) configured to determine a target temperature of the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) based on the temperature selection and operate the one or more microwave sources (heating unit 3, Park Fig.4) to heat a food product (Park Col.4 lines 3-4 discloses: “a container 7 containing food of the like”) in the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) until the temperature of the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) is equal to the target temperature of the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) (Park discloses the output controlling unit 6E configured to determine target temperature of the food container based on the temperature selection and operate the heating unit 3 to heat the food product in the food container until the temperature of the food container is equal to the target temperature of the food container because Park Col.4 lines 19-26 discloses: “the judging unit 6 includes output controlling unit 6E for controlling the output by comparing the current temperature with the set cooking temperature, a timer 6F for measuring the cooking time, a first storing unit 6G for storing the gradient of the change in the initial temperature of container 7, and a second current temperature storing unit 6H for estimating and storing the current estimated temperature of the food 9 in the container 7.”, Park Col.4 line 63 to Col.5 line 2 discloses: “By the above method, the output controlling unit 6E judges the amount of the food or the like in the container 7 and estimates the temperature of the food on the basis of its quantity. Further, the output controlling unit 6E compared the thus estimates temperature with the set cooking temperature to operate in the cooking mode until the estimates temperature is raised to the cooking temperature.”, and as shown by steps in Park Fig.6 and explained in details in Park Col.5 line 43 to Col.6 line 63).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Patent No. 6,111,239 A) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008108595 A).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, Park does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container to a temperature of the food product in the food container.
Hashimoto teaches a microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
wherein the controller (“controller”, Hashimoto Translated Abstract) is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) to a temperature of the food product in the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park, by adding the teaching of the controller is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container to a temperature of the food product in the food container, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to allow the controller to estimate the internal food temperature accurately by monitoring the container’s exterior, thus bypassing the technical challenges of internal, real-time food temperature measurements; thus, ensure the food reaches safe, consistent temperatures, reducing the risk of underheating or overcooking. It also allows for optimized power, improving energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Park does not explicit disclose:
wherein the food product is sealed within the food container.
Hashimoto teaches the microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
wherein the food product is sealed within the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Figs.1-2 show the food product is sealed within the PET bottle X).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park in view of Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of the food product is sealed within the food container, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to offer faster and more even cooking because the trapped steam surrounds the food facilitates faster cooking times. The modification also prevents food from bubbling over or exploding to keep the microwave chamber clean, and also protects food from odors in the microwave chamber to prevent the absorption of other odors and preserve the original taste, aroma, and texture.
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Park does not explicit disclose further comprising:
a second temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the microwave chamber, wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber.
Hashimoto teaches the microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
a second temperature sensor (temperature sensor 16, Hashimoto Fig.2) configured to sense a temperature of the microwave chamber (storage cylinder 13, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – first paragraph teaches: “The storage cylinder temperature sensor 16 is composed of a known thermistor, and is provided inside the vicinity of the upper surface opening of the storage cylinder 13 to measure the temperature in the storage cylinder 13.”), wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber (storage cylinder 13, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park in view of Hashimoto, by adding second temperature sensor configured to sense temperature of the microwave chamber, wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to improve heating precision and safety because the model having environmental reading to the target temperature of the food to account for heat transfer dynamics, such as the initial ambient temperature of the microwave chamber, thus, the microwave appliance can avoid overheating or undercooking, ensuring the food hits the desired temperature regardless of whether the microwave chamber started cold or hot.
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 8, and also teaches:
a linear extrapolation therebetween for other temperatures of the microwave chamber (as shown in Hashimoto Fig.5; and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”)
Park in view of Hashimoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C
Regarding the limitation that the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Hashimoto Fig.5 and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber (see Hashimoto Fig.5 and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”), and having a specific the cavity temperature adjustment based on a specific the temperature of the microwave chamber is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber affects the uniformity of heating, the efficiency of energy transfer, and the prevention of hot/cold spots within the food product. A microwave appliance with optimized cavity temperature adjustment based on temperature of microwave chamber can maintain optimal cavity resonance, ensuring that the electromagnetic fields remain properly distributed. Thus, the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Park in view of Hashimoto microwave appliance by making the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, and 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Patent No. 6,111,239 A) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008108595 A), and further in view of APMonitor.com (NPL, “Linear and Polynomial Regression in Microsoft Excel”, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke8oVXsD4UM, Published on Aug 20, 2015).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Park in view of Hashimoto also teaches the model is linear equation [as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above].
Park in view of Hashimoto does not teach:
wherein the model is a second-order polynomial equation,
Tc = (X * Tp2) − (Y * Tp) + Z,
where Tc is the target temperature of the food container, Tp is the temperature selection, and each of X, Y, and Z are constants determined based on the experimental results.
APMonitor.com teaches:
deriving second-order polynomial equation from linear equation (see the YouTube video from 2:30 – 5:10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park in view of Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of deriving second-order polynomial equation from linear equation, as taught by APMonitor.com, in order to achieve better fit and lower error so that the model fits the curvature of the data better, reducing the error, and thus, resulting in better predictive accuracy.
Park in view of Hashimoto and APMonitor.com teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
Tc = (X * Tp2) − (Y * Tp) + Z,
where Tc is the target temperature of the food container, Tp is the temperature selection, and each of X, Y, and Z are constants determined based on the experimental results.
However, the court has held that, based on Ex Parte Griesinger, BPAI Appeal 2007-2345, Mar. 8, 2008, a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶. In the case that Park in view of Hashimoto and APMonitor.com is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Patent No. 6,111,239 A) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008108595 A), and further in view of Musial (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0075069 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, but does not explicit teach:
a product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container, wherein the controller is configured to determine a product attribute of the food container based on the identifier.
Musial teaches a microwave appliance (14, Musial Fig.1) (Musial Par.0014 teaches the appliance 14 is microwave oven), comprising:
a product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container (Musial Par.0018 teaches: “Therefore, in other embodiments, it is contemplated that a food to be processed may be prepackaged in the quantities required for cooking. Each package may be provided with a barcode or a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip which is scanned by the appliance and directly input to controller 16-N without prompting as a quantity and food type.”, and Musial Claim 5 teaches: “a food package encoded with information for food contained in said food package; a scanning device associated with said controller for obtaining said information from said food package”), wherein the controller is configured to determine a product attribute of the food container based on the identifier (Musial teaches the controller is configured to determine quantity and food type based on the identifier because Musial Par.0018 teaches: “Therefore, in other embodiments, it is contemplated that a food to be processed may be prepackaged in the quantities required for cooking. Each package may be provided with a barcode or a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip which is scanned by the appliance and directly input to controller 16-N without prompting as a quantity and food type.”, and Musial Claim 5 teaches: “a food package encoded with information for food contained in said food package; a scanning device associated with said controller for obtaining said information from said food package”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park in view of Hashimoto, by adding product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container, wherein the controller is configured to determine a product attribute of the food container based on the identifier, as taught by Musial, in order to automate the cooking process by identifying the food and its specific cooking requirements, and ensure food is cooked to the manufacturer’s specification every time. Thus, overcooking or undercooking can be prevented; accurate and precise processing steps of food can be achieved. The modification would also eliminate the need for manual input of cooking times and power levels, reducing human error and guesswork.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Hashimoto and Musial teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Hashimoto also teaches:
wherein the model includes an attribute multiplier that scales the target temperature of the food container based on the product attribute (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 –paragraph 6 teaches equation (3): “yn = ax + cnz + dn”; wherein the temperature (yn) of the beverage in the plastic bottle after stopping the heating for each beverage volume (n) is expressed by the formula (3) [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], z is outside air temperature [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 3], a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”, cn & dn are different constants for each beverage capacity (n), and n is a positive integer [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 –paragraph 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park in view of Hashimoto and Musial, by adding the teaching of the model includes an attribute multiplier that scales the target temperature of the food container based on the product attribute, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to accurately determine the required energy for the specific weight of the product, the microwave avoids unnecessary heating, saving electricity and reducing time. The modification would also ensure that the same food product heats to the same temperature regardless of whether it is a single serving or a larger, family-sized portion.
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Hashimoto and Musial teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, Musial also teaches:
wherein the product attribute is selected from the group of product attributes consisting of: a type of food product, a type of packaging, a size of packaging, and combinations thereof (It is noted that the limitation “selected from the group of product attributes consisting of: a type of food product, a type of packaging, a size of packaging, and combinations thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Musial teaches a type of food product and a size of packaging because Musial Par.0018 teaches: “Therefore, in other embodiments, it is contemplated that a food to be processed may be prepackaged in the quantities required for cooking. Each package may be provided with a barcode or a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip which is scanned by the appliance and directly input to controller 16-N without prompting as a quantity and food type.”, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 5 above).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Patent No. 6,111,239 A) in view of Crawford et al. (CN 106762043 A).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, Park also discloses:
wherein the controller (output controlling unit 6E, Park Fig.5) is configured to operate the one or more microwave sources (heating unit 3, Park Fig.4) to heat the food product (Park Col.4 lines 3-4 discloses: “a container 7 containing food of the like”) in the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) to temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection (Park discloses the output controlling unit 6E is configured to operate the heating unit 3 to heat the food product in the food container 7 to temperature selection because Park Col.4 line 63 to Col.5 line 2 discloses: “By the above method, the output controlling unit 6E judges the amount of the food or the like in the container 7 and estimates the temperature of the food on the basis of its quantity. Further, the output controlling unit 6E compared the thus estimates temperature with the set cooking temperature to operate in the cooking mode until the estimates temperature is raised to the cooking temperature.”. It is noted that in practice, there is always a tolerance, fluctuation, or margin of error in the temperature. Therefore, the output controlling unit 6E is configured to operate the heating unit 3 to heat the food product in the food container 7 to temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection).
Park does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.
Crawford teaches:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5% (Crawford Translated Document on page 28 – first paragraph teaches: “the acceptable tolerance of the range from less than 1% to 5% and corresponding but not limited to component values, integrated circuit process variations, temperature changes, rising and falling time and/or thermal noise.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park, by adding the teaching of the tolerance is +/- 5%, as taught by Crawford, in order to account for practical, environmental, and equipment limitations while maintaining safety.
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, Park also discloses:
wherein the food product (Park Col.4 lines 3-4 discloses: “a container 7 containing food of the like”) in the food container (container 7, Park Fig.4) is heated to a temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection (Park discloses the output controlling unit 6E is configured to operate the heating unit 3 to heat the food product in the food container 7 to temperature selection because Park Col.4 line 63 to Col.5 line 2 discloses: “By the above method, the output controlling unit 6E judges the amount of the food or the like in the container 7 and estimates the temperature of the food on the basis of its quantity. Further, the output controlling unit 6E compared the thus estimates temperature with the set cooking temperature to operate in the cooking mode until the estimates temperature is raised to the cooking temperature.”. It is noted that in practice, there is always a tolerance, fluctuation, or margin of error in the temperature. Therefore, the output controlling unit 6E is configured to operate the heating unit 3 to heat the food product in the food container 7 to temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection)
Park does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.
Crawford teaches:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5% (Crawford Translated Document on page 28 – first paragraph teaches: “the acceptable tolerance of the range from less than 1% to 5% and corresponding but not limited to component values, integrated circuit process variations, temperature changes, rising and falling time and/or thermal noise.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Park, by adding the teaching of the tolerance is +/- 5%, as taught by Crawford, in order to account for practical, environmental, and equipment limitations while maintaining safety.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application 18/022,206 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they teach similar microwave appliance.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses a microwave appliance (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “A microwave appliance”), comprising:
one or more microwave sources (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a plurality of microwave sources”);
a microwave chamber in electromagnetic communication with the one or more microwave sources (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a microwave chamber in electromagnetic communication with the plurality of microwave sources”);
a product holder configured to support a food container within the microwave chamber (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a product holder configured to support a food container within the microwave chamber”);
a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the food container supported within the product holder (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the food container supported within the product holder”);
a user interface configured to receive a temperature selection (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a user interface configured to receive a temperature selection”); and
a controller in communication with the temperature sensor and the user interface configured to determine a target temperature of the food container based on the temperature selection and operate the one or more microwave sources to heat a food product in the food container until the temperature of the food container is equal to the target temperature of the food container (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a controller in communication with the temperature sensor and the user interface configured to operate the plurality of microwave sources to heat a food product in the food container to a temperature corresponding to the temperature selection”).
Claims 2-3, 5-9 of the Instant Application 18/022,206 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008108595 A).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container to a temperature of the food product in the food container.
Hashimoto teaches a microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
wherein the controller (“controller”, Hashimoto Translated Abstract) is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) to a temperature of the food product in the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2, by adding the teaching of the controller is configured to determine the target temperature of the food container based on a model of experimental results that relates the temperature of the food container to a temperature of the food product in the food container, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to allow the controller to estimate the internal food temperature accurately by monitoring the container’s exterior, thus bypassing the technical challenges of internal, real-time food temperature measurements; thus, ensure the food reaches safe, consistent temperatures, reducing the risk of underheating or overcooking. It also allows for optimized power, improving energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 does not explicit disclose:
wherein the food product is sealed within the food container.
Hashimoto teaches the microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
wherein the food product is sealed within the food container (PET bottle X, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Figs.1-2 show the food product is sealed within the PET bottle X).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2, by adding the teaching of the food product is sealed within the food container, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to offer faster and more even cooking because the trapped steam surrounds the food facilitates faster cooking times. The modification also prevents food from bubbling over or exploding to keep the microwave chamber clean, and also protects food from odors in the microwave chamber to prevent the absorption of other odors and preserve the original taste, aroma, and texture.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 also discloses further comprising:
a product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container, wherein the controller is configured to determine a product attribute of the food container based on the identifier (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container, wherein the controller is configured to estimate a volume of the food product in the microwave chamber based on a reading from the electric field detector and a reading of the identifier from the product identification scanner.”).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, and Hashimoto also teaches:
wherein the model includes an attribute multiplier that scales the target temperature of the food container based on the product attribute (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 –paragraph 6 teaches equation (3): “yn = ax + cnz + dn”; wherein the temperature (yn) of the beverage in the plastic bottle after stopping the heating for each beverage volume (n) is expressed by the formula (3) [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], z is outside air temperature [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 3], a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”, cn & dn are different constants for each beverage capacity (n), and n is a positive integer [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 –paragraph 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of the model includes an attribute multiplier that scales the target temperature of the food container based on the product attribute, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to accurately determine the required energy for the specific weight of the product, the microwave avoids unnecessary heating, saving electricity and reducing time. The modification would also ensure that the same food product heats to the same temperature regardless of whether it is a single serving or a larger, family-sized portion.
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, and U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 also discloses:
wherein the product attribute is selected from the group of product attributes consisting of: a type of food product, a type of packaging, a size of packaging, and combinations thereof (Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses: “a product identification scanner in communication with the controller and configured read an identifier on the food container, wherein the controller is configured to estimate a volume of the food product in the microwave chamber based on a reading from the electric field detector and a reading of the identifier from the product identification scanner.”).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 does not explicit disclose further comprising:
a second temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the microwave chamber, wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber.
Hashimoto teaches the microwave appliance (Hashimoto Figs.1-2), comprising:
a second temperature sensor (temperature sensor 16, Hashimoto Fig.2) configured to sense a temperature of the microwave chamber (storage cylinder 13, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – first paragraph teaches: “The storage cylinder temperature sensor 16 is composed of a known thermistor, and is provided inside the vicinity of the upper surface opening of the storage cylinder 13 to measure the temperature in the storage cylinder 13.”), wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber (storage cylinder 13, Hashimoto Fig.2) (Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2, by adding second temperature sensor configured to sense temperature of the microwave chamber, wherein the model includes a cavity temperature adjustment that is added to the target temperature of the food container based on the temperature of the microwave chamber, as taught by Hashimoto, in order to improve heating precision and safety because the model having environmental reading to the target temperature of the food to account for heat transfer dynamics, such as the initial ambient temperature of the microwave chamber, thus, the microwave appliance can avoid overheating or undercooking, ensuring the food hits the desired temperature regardless of whether the microwave chamber started cold or hot.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 8, and also teaches:
a linear extrapolation therebetween for other temperatures of the microwave chamber (as shown in Hashimoto Fig.5; and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”)
U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C
Regarding the limitation that the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Hashimoto Fig.5 and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber (see Hashimoto Fig.5 and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph teaches equation (1): “y = ax + b”; wherein y is the temperature of the beverage inside the PET bottle [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 4 – last paragraph], x is the difference between the temperature of the outer surface of the PET bottle and the temperature of the air inside the storage cylinder 13 [as indicated by Hashimoto Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph: “the difference (x) between the temperature of the bottle outer surface and the temperature in the storage cylinder 13”], and a & b are constants determined based on experimental results because Fig.5 shows the graph of equation (1) and Hashimoto Translated Document on page 5 – second paragraph from the bottom teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the results of an experiment for measuring the temperature in the storage cylinder 13 before heating, the temperature of the outer surface of the plastic bottle when heating is stopped, and the temperature of the beverage in the PET bottle after heating is stopped.”), and having a specific the cavity temperature adjustment based on a specific the temperature of the microwave chamber is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber affects the uniformity of heating, the efficiency of energy transfer, and the prevention of hot/cold spots within the food product. A microwave appliance with optimized cavity temperature adjustment based on temperature of microwave chamber can maintain optimal cavity resonance, ensuring that the electromagnetic fields remain properly distributed. Thus, the cavity temperature adjustment based on the temperature of the microwave chamber is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto microwave appliance by making the cavity temperature adjustment is 0°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 22°C, and 4°C when the temperature of the microwave chamber is 85°C as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 4 of the Instant Application 18/022,206 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2008108595 A), and further in view of APMonitor.com (NPL, “Linear and Polynomial Regression in Microsoft Excel”, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke8oVXsD4UM, Published on Aug 20, 2015).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto also teaches the model is linear equation [as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above].
U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto does not teach:
wherein the model is a second-order polynomial equation,
Tc = (X * Tp2) − (Y * Tp) + Z,
where Tc is the target temperature of the food container, Tp is the temperature selection, and each of X, Y, and Z are constants determined based on the experimental results.
APMonitor.com teaches:
deriving second-order polynomial equation from linear equation (see the YouTube video from 2:30 – 5:10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of deriving second-order polynomial equation from linear equation, as taught by APMonitor.com, in order to achieve better fit and lower error so that the model fits the curvature of the data better, reducing the error, and thus, resulting in better predictive accuracy.
U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto and APMonitor.com teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
Tc = (X * Tp2) − (Y * Tp) + Z,
where Tc is the target temperature of the food container, Tp is the temperature selection, and each of X, Y, and Z are constants determined based on the experimental results.
However, the court has held that, based on Ex Parte Griesinger, BPAI Appeal 2007-2345, Mar. 8, 2008, a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶. In the case that U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Hashimoto and APMonitor.com is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
Claims 10 and 20 of the Instant Application 18/022,206 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 in view of Crawford et al. (CN 106762043 A).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 also discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more microwave sources to heat the food product in the food container to temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).
U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.
Crawford teaches:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5% (Crawford Translated Document on page 28 – first paragraph teaches: “the acceptable tolerance of the range from less than 1% to 5% and corresponding but not limited to component values, integrated circuit process variations, temperature changes, rising and falling time and/or thermal noise.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2, by adding the teaching of the tolerance is +/- 5%, as taught by Crawford, in order to account for practical, environmental, and equipment limitations while maintaining safety.
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1 above, U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 also discloses:
wherein the food product in the food container is heated to a temperature within a tolerance of the temperature selection (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above)
U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5%.
Crawford teaches:
wherein the tolerance is +/- 5% (Crawford Translated Document on page 28 – first paragraph teaches: “the acceptable tolerance of the range from less than 1% to 5% and corresponding but not limited to component values, integrated circuit process variations, temperature changes, rising and falling time and/or thermal noise.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,096,540 B2, by adding the teaching of the tolerance is +/- 5%, as taught by Crawford, in order to account for practical, environmental, and equipment limitations while maintaining safety.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Yin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0362378 A1) discloses a method of determining core temperature of food in a closed container.
Rado et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0011613 A1) discloses a method for calibrating the temperature of a cooking appliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/05/2026