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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/29/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 13, 20, and 25 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, claims 1-12 have been cancelled, and new claims 26-31 have been added. Thus, claims 13-31 are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 13-17 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rober et al. (US 20150289324) in view of Hallgren et al. (US 20130186887).
Regarding claim 13, Rober discloses a method for operating a household microwave appliance 20 (fig. 2, i.e. called a microwave oven) (¶ 0065), said method comprising:
loading a cooking compartment (56) with food (Abstract, i.e. called food items) to be cooked;
performing an initial scan by supplying microwaves into the cooking compartment using at least two different parameter configurations (¶ 0015, 0039, i.e. a set of temperature signals and cooking parameters: cooking temperatures, power levels, cooking time, rotational platter positions, rotational platter speeds,…) set in a control apparatus (¶ 0020-0022, 0031, i.e. called a controller including a control panel 22 and a control module 68), with the food treatable differently in a localized manner using the microwaves having the at least two different parameter configurations (¶ 0019-0020, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0068),
measuring with a thermal imaging sensor temperature distributions (62, 64, 66) associated with the at least two different parameter configurations (¶ 0015, 0039, i.e. a set of temperature signals and cooking parameters: cooking temperatures, power levels, cooking time, rotational platter positions, rotational platter speeds,…) on a surface of the food (¶ 0026).
Rober et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for determining heating patterns from differences of the temperature distributions, and following the initial scan
(a) setting at least one target temperature distribution for the food, based on a standardized target state and a prevailing temperature distribution;
(b) determining, based on the prevailing temperature distribution, a most suitable heating pattern of the heating patterns for achieving the at least one target temperature distribution;
(c) applying to the food microwaves having a sequence of the at least two different parameter configurations associated with the most suitable heating pattern; and
(d) determining as a new prevailing temperature distribution the previously prevailing temperature distribution in addition to the most suitable heating pattern.
However, Hallgren teaches determining heating patterns (303) from differences of the temperature distributions (¶ 0008-0010, 0073), and following the initial scan
(a) setting at least one target temperature distribution (301, i.e. a desire temperature pattern) for the food (102, i.e. called a load), based on a standardized target state (¶ 0026, i.e. called a suitable finishing temperature) and a prevailing temperature distribution (¶ 0026-0027, i.e. instantaneous temperature) (¶ 0050, 0083);
(b) determining, based on the prevailing temperature distribution (¶ 0027, i.e. instantaneous temperature), a most suitable heating pattern (¶ 0027, i.e. a corresponding heating pattern) for achieving the at least one target temperature distribution (301, i.e. a desire temperature pattern) (¶ 0027, 0046);
(c) applying to the food microwaves having a sequence of the at least two different parameter (¶ 0059, i.e. operating parameters from look-up table or memory in which suitable finishing temperatures of different food types are stored.) configurations associated with the most suitable heating pattern (¶ 0078); and
(d) determining as a new prevailing temperature distribution (¶ 0030, i.e. a more suitable desired temperature pattern) the previously prevailing temperature distribution (i.e. instantaneous temperature) in addition to the most suitable heating pattern (¶ 0035).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a microwave heating apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such heating patterns from differences of temperature distributions of Hallgren because they automatically obtain a desired
temperature pattern based on the information provided by the recognizing means (typically a set of sensors) and thereby determine a corresponding heating pattern. Information about the type of food in a region of the load is useful in determining a suitable finishing temperature for the region. Information about the weights and/or volumes of the regions of the load is useful in determining how much microwave energy is needed to heat a particular region, and therefore in determining the time required for heating such a region. Information about the instantaneous temperatures of the regions of the load is useful for dynamic control of the heating and in particular for determining if further heating of any of the regions is necessary, and in that case how much heating is needed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the efficiency of the heating as taught by Hallgren (¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 14, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses repeating steps (a) to (d) (see claim 13 above) until the prevailing temperature distribution (i.e. instantaneous temperature) meets a predetermined cancellation criterion (¶ 0040, i.e. the load has reached a certain temperature).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such condition/criterion of Hallgren because based on the desired temperature pattern, different zones of the cavity are provided with different levels of microwave intensities. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the risk of damaging the microwave heating apparatus.
With respect to claims 15-16, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses wherein the predetermined cancellation criterion comprises that the prevailing temperature distribution (i.e. instantaneous temperature) reaches or exceeds a predetermined limit temperature calculated from a quantity of energy that is required to perform a phase transformation in the food (¶ 0077); and (Claim 16) wherein the phase transformation is performed of water (¶ 0035).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such condition/criterion of Hallgren because based on the desired temperature pattern, different zones of the cavity are provided with different levels of microwave intensities. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the risk of damaging the microwave heating apparatus.
With respect to claim 17, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses measuring, in addition to steps (a) to (d) (see claim 13 above), with the thermal imaging sensor the temperature distribution of the food (102, i.e. called a load) (¶0030-0033), wherein the cancellation criterion comprises that the measured temperature distribution reaches or exceeds a predetermined limit temperature (¶ 0077).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such condition/criterion of Hallgren because based on the desired temperature pattern, different zones of the cavity are provided with different levels of microwave intensities. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the risk of damaging the microwave heating apparatus.
With respect to claim 21, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Rober further discloses wherein the at least one setting parameter comprises at least one setting parameter selected from the group consisting of angle of rotation of a rotary antenna, angle of rotation of a rotary plate (58, i.e. called a rotating platter), position of a mode stirrer, microwave frequency of a semiconductor-based microwave generator, and phase difference between microwaves that are supplied into the cooking compartment from different feed-in locations or ports (¶ 0039, 0046).
With respect to claim 22, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses wherein the food (102, i.e. called a load) that is introduced into the cooking compartment (101, i.e. called cavity) is frozen food (¶ 0002, 0030).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such food item(s) of Hallgren because multiple items of different types can be heated simultaneously and differently, thereby saving both time and energy. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it ensures that all parts of the food in the microwave oven are properly heated (¶ 0002).
With respect to claim 23, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses wherein the food (abstract, i.e. called food items) that is introduced into the cooking compartment is food that is not frozen (e.g. popcorn, burrito,...) (¶ 0022).
With respect to claim 24, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Hallgren further discloses performing a further initial scan after multiple repetitions of steps (a) to (d) (see claim 13 above), and subsequently repeating steps (a) to (d) based on the further performed initial scan (¶ 0009, 0085).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such steps of Hallgren because they automatically obtains a desired temperature pattern based on the information provided by the recognizing means (typically a set of sensors) and thereby determine a corresponding heating pattern. Information about the type of food in a region of the load is useful in determining a suitable finishing temperature for the region. Information about the weights and/or volumes of the regions of the load is useful in determining how much microwave energy is needed to heat a particular region, and therefore in determining the time required for heating such a region. Information about the instantaneous temperatures of the regions of the load is useful for dynamic control of the heating and in particular for determining if further heating of any of the regions is necessary, and in that case how much heating is needed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the efficiency of the heating (0024).
With respect to claim 25, Rober in view of Hallgren discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Rober further discloses a household microwave appliance 20 (fig. 2, i.e. called a microwave oven), comprising:
a cooking compartment (56) configured to be loaded with food (abstract, i.e. called food items);
a microwave generator (¶ 0015, i.e. called a microwave radiation generator) generating microwaves to which the food (abstract, i.e. called food items) and located in the cooking compartment (56) is exposed (¶ 0020);
a thermal imaging sensor (62, 64, 66) oriented into the cooking compartment (56) and configured to determine temperature distributions on a surface of the food to be cooked (abstract; ¶ 0031); and
a control apparatus (¶ 0020-0022, i.e. called a controller including a control panel 22 and a control module 68.) configured to set multiple parameter configurations of setting parameters of the household microwave appliance (20), with at least two parameter configurations (¶ 0039, i.e. cooking parameter setpoints (such as desired cooking temperatures. And a secondary cooking parameter controller (¶ 0040, i.e. a temperature controller))) treating the food to be cooked differently with the microwaves in a localized manner,
wherein the household microwave appliance 20 (fig. 2, i.e. called a microwave oven) is configured to implement a method as set forth in claim 16 (see claim 16 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rober and Hallgren before him or her, to include such a phase transformation, in particular of water of Hallgren because based on the desired temperature pattern, different zones of the cavity are provided with different levels of microwave intensities. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the risk of damaging the microwave heating apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The dependent claims 26-31 are allowable for at least their dependence on dependent claims 18-20.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record are Rober in view of Hallgren, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 18, “further comprising prior to performing the initial scan, performing a tuning phase of the microwave generator by
measuring a heating pattern as a difference between a temperature distribution at a beginning of the tuning phase and a temperature distribution at an end of the tuning phase;
determining from the heating pattern a segment having a highest local temperature increase;
determining from the segment a maximum duration of an initial phase until water in the food reaches a phase transition; and thereafter
setting a duration of the initial phase such as not to exceed the maximum duration”.
Similarly, the closest prior art of record are Rober in view of Hallgren, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 19, “wherein in step (a), the at least one target temperature distribution <Ttarget> is calculated in accordance with
< Ttarget > = T · <Z>,
wherein T is an average temperature of the prevailing temperature distribution averaged over associated segments and <Z> is the standardized target state, and wherein in step (b), the most suitable heating pattern is determined by calculating for each selected heating pattern an evaluating value Bp,q in accordance with
PNG
media_image1.png
44
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein <T> is the prevailing temperature distribution, <AT>p,q are the heating patterns determined from the differences of the temperature distributions, and by
selecting as the most suitable heating pattern the heating pattern with the highest evaluating value Bp,q.”
Similarly, the closest prior art of record are Rober in view of Hallgren, the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 20, “comprising in step (a), calculating a first target temperature distribution <Ttarget> in accordance with
< Ttarget > = T · <Z>,
wherein T is an average temperature from the prevailing temperature distribution averaged over the associated segments and <Z> is the standardized target state, and calculating for all selected heating patterns a respective second target temperature distribution
< Ttarget*>p,q in accordance with
PNG
media_image2.png
38
163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Tp,q is the average temperature from the prevailing temperature distribution plus the selected heating pattern averaged over the associated segments, and
in step (b), determining the most suitable heating pattern, calculating for each selected heating pattern an evaluating value Bp,q in accordance with and selecting as the most suitable heating pattern the heating pattern having the highest evaluating value Bp,q.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the REMARKS that “However, as shown in the paragraph above, Rober does not teach or suggest "performing an initial scan by supplying microwaves into the cooking compartment using at least two different parameter configurations," as recited in claim 13 (emphasis added). While Rober might discuss what might be considered different parameters (temperatures, power levels and/or cooking times; paragraph 0055), Applicant notes that Rober does not teach or suggest using different parameter configurations in any situation, especially not in an initial scan. Applicant submits that Rober does not teach or suggest performing an initial scan using a first parameter configuration and using a second parameter configuration.”
In response to applicant’s argument(s) with respect to “at least two different parameter configurations” as set forth above, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, first of all, what exactly is the “at least two different parameter configurations” defined by the claim 13. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed in the Office Action, Rober discloses at least two different parameters at the beginning of the microwave oven cooking process, that is “The cooking parameters may comprise cooking temperatures, cooking times, rotational platter positions, rotational platter speeds, and/or power levels.” (¶ 0061, 0068).
Furthermore, Applicant also argues on page 11 of the REMARKS that “However, Applicant could find no mention in any of the cited paragraphs of Rober teaching or suggesting "measuring with a thermal imaging sensor temperature distributions associated with the at least two different parameter configurations," as recited in claim 13 (emphasis added).” Applicant submits that Rober does not teach or suggest measuring temperature distributions associated with a first parameter configuration and a second parameter configuration.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to "measuring with a thermal imaging sensor temperature distributions associated with the at least two different parameter configurations," as set forth above, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner disagrees the argument(s) because Rober defines that “The term “cooking parameters” includes variables that may be adjusted to carry out a desired cooking operation, including cooking time, power level, food item temperature, rotational platter 58 rotational position, rotational platter 58 rotational speed, humidity, and food weight. The autonomy module (122) compares a measured variable/parameters (i.e. various temperature setpoints) from the infrared thermal imaging cameras 62, 64, and 66 setpoints to cooking parameter setpoints in order to determine the temperature distribution of the food item in the microwave oven (¶ 0039, 0040, 0042, 0045).
Therefore, the combination of Rober in view of Hallgren fully meets all the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
