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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-4 and 6-17 as amended, claim 5 as cancelled, and claims 18-20 as withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 6-17 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the previously indicated rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), as well as, the prior art rejections.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office action on 03/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 objected to because of the following informalities: “the one period” (third to last line) in claims 1 and 17 should be “the one period of time.” 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as amended, requires continuing operation of the heater/fan at an initial operation level among a plurality of operation levels for a period of time, where the initial operation level corresponds to an operation level at which the set temperature was reached. Claim 1 also requires setting an operation level among the plurality of operation levels of the heater/fan by considering a temperature of the cooking chamber measured by the temperature sensor at an end of the current period of time and a temperature of the cooking chamber measured by the temperature sensor at a start of the current period of time. It is not clear in what way, if any, the initial operation (which is an operation level at which the set temperature was reached) relates to the operation level set (when temperature at the start/end of a current period of time is considered). Is the setting an operation level in addition to, or does it include, the initial operation level? This confusion is further compounded as it is unclear in what way, if any, the “period of time” relates to the “current period of time.” For instance, is the “current period of time” subsequent to the “period of time?”
Claim 1 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels, the at least one of the heater and the circulation fan are operated for each operation level among the plurality of operation levels in the one period” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by operating the heater/fan for each operation level in the one period for the operation level. For instance, is the intention that the operation level that is set includes operating the heater/fan at each operation level? Claim 1 requires a temperature maintaining step in which the heater/fan is operated for one period of time according to the operation level that was set. The amended language of the heater/fan operating for each operation level in the one period of time create confusion as the two limitations require distinct operations: 1) performing temperature maintaining operation for one period of time according to the operation level set and 2) operating the heater/fan for each operation level in the one period. In other words, the claim requires that the heater/fan are operated in the one period of time at the set operation level and at each operation level. The two limitations have varying scopes as to what operation level(s) are being used during the one period of time, which makes the intended scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 1 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels…in a combination among a plurality of combinations” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what combination is being referenced. For instance, does the combination (among a plurality of combinations) refer to the at least one of the heater and the fan (e.g., the combination referring to the heater operating alone, the fan operating alone, or both operating together) or to the operation level among the plurality of operation levels (e.g., operating the heater/fan at a combination of operating levels)?
Claim 1 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels, the at least one of the heater and the circulation fan are operated for each operation level among the plurality of operation levels in the one period, in a combination among a plurality of combinations, and in an order for a time allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “respectively” is intended to refer. Specifically, the use of “respectively” implies that the aforementioned limitations occur for “respective” steps. However, it is unclear to which step(s) each of the limitations pertain.
Claim 2 recites “operating, in a combination among a plurality of combinations, in an order, and for periods of time which are allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively” the heater/fan which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “respectively” is intended to refer. Specifically, the use of “respectively” implies that the aforementioned limitation occurs for “respective” step. However, it is unclear to which step(s) each of the limitations pertain.
Claim 3 recites “operating, in a [first and second] combination among a plurality of [first and second] combinations, in an order, and for [first/second] periods of time which are allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively” the heater/fan which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “respectively” is intended to refer. Specifically, the use of “respectively” implies that the aforementioned limitation occurs for “respective” step. However, it is unclear to which step(s) each of the limitations pertain.
Claim 6 recites “operated in a combination among a plurality of combinations and in an order for a time allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively” the heater/fan which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “respectively” is intended to refer. Specifically, the use of “respectively” implies that the aforementioned limitation occurs for “respective” step. However, it is unclear to which step(s) each of the limitations pertain.
Claim 6 also recites “in one period” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if reference is to the one period of time recited in claim 1 or to another one period.
Dependent claims not explicitly addressed, nonetheless, inherit the above indicated deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 17, as amended, requires continuing operation of the heater/fan at an initial operation level among a plurality of operation levels for a period of time, where the initial operation level corresponds to an operation level at which the set temperature was reached. Claim 17 also requires setting an operation level among the plurality of operation levels of the heater/fan by considering a temperature of the cooking chamber measured by the temperature sensor at an end of the current period of time and a temperature of the cooking chamber measured by the temperature sensor at a start of the current period of time. It is not clear in what way, if any, the initial operation (which is an operation level at which the set temperature was reached) relates to the operation level set (when temperature at the start/end of a current period of time is considered). Is the setting an operation level in addition to, or does it include, the initial operation level? This confusion is further compounded as it is unclear in what way, if any, the “period of time” relates to the “current period of time.” For instance, is the “current period of time” subsequent to the “period of time?”
Claim 17 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels, the at least one of the heater and the circulation fan are operated for each operation level among the plurality of operation levels in the one period” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by operating the heater/fan for each operation level in the one period for the operation level. For instance, is the intention that the operation level that is set includes operating the heater/fan at each operation level? Claim 17 requires a temperature maintaining step in which the heater/fan is operated for one period of time according to the operation level that was set. The amended language of the heater/fan operating for each operation level in the one period of time create confusion as the two limitations require distinct operations: 1) performing temperature maintaining operation for one period of time according to the operation level set and 2) operating the heater/fan for each operation level in the one period. In other words, the claim requires that the heater/fan are operated in the one period of time at the set operation level and at each operation level. The two limitations have varying scopes as to what operation level(s) are being used during the one period of time, which makes the intended scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 17 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels…in a combination among a plurality of combinations” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what combination is being referenced. For instance, does the combination (among a plurality of combinations) refer to the at least one of the heater and the fan (e.g., the combination referring to the heater operating alone, the fan operating alone, or both operating together) or to the operation level among the plurality of operation levels (e.g., operating the heater/fan at a combination of operating levels)?
Claim 17 recites “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels, the at least one of the heater and the circulation fan are operated for each operation level among the plurality of operation levels in the one period, in a combination among a plurality of combinations, and in an order for a time allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “respectively” is intended to refer. Specifically, the use of “respectively” implies that the aforementioned limitations occur for “respective” steps. However, it is unclear to which step(s) each of the limitations pertain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of steps taken including “wherein for the operation level among the plurality of operation levels, the at least one of the heater and the circulation fan are operated for each operation level among the plurality of operation levels in the one period, in a combination among a plurality of combinations, and in an order for a time allocated for each combination among the plurality of combinations, respectively.”
Further, there is no evidence of record that suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, or otherwise have considered it obvious, to modify the prior art and arrive at the claimed invention.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights