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 filed 03/08/2023 and 02/29/2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledge. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s restriction requirement have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments: (see details on page 6 of the Remarks dated 12/29/2025)
Applicant alleged that there is no appreciable search or examination burden on the Examiner for examination of the various alleged inventions because “For example, the various embodiments of the present invention involve overlapping subject matter in the exact same classes and subclasses. As a result, the searches required for each embodiment would necessarily overlap one another, allowing examination of all embodiments in a single application to conserve the limited resources of the Patent Office. The filing fee charged by the Patent Office entitles Applicant to a full examination of each claim presented in the present application, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present requirement to limit the present invention to particular embodiments.”, see details on page 6 of the Remarks dated 12/29/2025.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments that there is no appreciable search or examination burden on the Examiner for examination of the various alleged inventions, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Invention I (consisting of claims 1-9) is drawn to a cooking appliance, while Invention II (consisting of claims 10-18) is drawn to a method of operating a cooking appliance. Thus, Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. According to MPEP, the inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (see MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed in Invention II can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus that does not require a controller operably connected with at least one heating element and the temperature sensor as claimed in Claim 1 of the Invention I. For instance, the process as claimed in Invention II can be practiced by an electric kettle that does not comprise a controller operably connected with at least one heating element and the temperature sensor. Thus, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Therefore, the restriction requirement is proper. Accordingly, Invention II (claims 10-18) is withdrawn from consideration, and Invention I (claims 1-9) is examined in this Office Action.
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: “102” and “106” are included in Fig.2 of the drawings 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the set of controller gain values” in line 10. This should read “the default set of controller gain values” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 9).
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item” in claim 1 (line 2), and “heating element” in claim 7 (line 2) & claim 8 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “to selectively supply heat to a cookware item” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “heating element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “heating element” will be interpreted as “resistive heating element or coil” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0021: “In certain exemplary embodiments, cooktop 12 is a radiant cooktop with resistive heating elements or coils mounted below cooking surface 14.”.
“heating source” in claim 9 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “source” (Prong A); the term “source” is modified by functional language “heating” (Prong B); and the term “source” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “heating source” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “heating source” will be interpreted as “resistive heating element or coil” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0021: “In certain exemplary embodiments, cooktop 12 is a radiant cooktop with resistive heating elements or coils mounted below cooking surface 14.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-6, 9 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 4 recites the limitation “the accumulated integral term” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 4 depends on claim 2, and claim 2 depends on claim 1; however, there is no “accumulated integral term” recited previously in claim 1, 2, or 4.
Claims 5-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the at least one heating source” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “heating source” recited previously. Additionally, claim 9 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one heating element” in line 2. Thus, it is unclear if the limitation “the at least one heating source” recited in claim 9 refers to the limitation “at least one heating element” recited in claim 1, or the limitation “the at least one heating source” recited in claim 9 refers to a different heating source. For examination purposes, the limitation “the at least one heating source” recited in claim 9 will be interpreted as refer to the limitation “at least one heating element” recited previously in 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vengroff (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vengroff discloses a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A) comprising:
at least one heating element (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) to selectively supply heat to a cookware item (cooking device 18 (e.g., cooking pan), Vengroff Figs.1A-1B & Par.0039) (Vengroff Par.0039 discloses: “The cooking system 10 further includes a heat source system 46 (e.g., a gas burner system, an electric burner system, or an induction burner system) that includes a heat source 50 (e.g., the front left gas burner of a stove top). To cook a food item, the heat source system 46 may change the amount of energy (e.g., heat) provided to the cooking device 18 based on the current measured temperature associated with the food item and further based on a desired cooking temperature (e.g., the temperature indicated in the cooking recipe), in some examples.”);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensors 22 includes sensors 22a-22d, Vengroff Fig.1B & Par.0048) (Vengroff Par.0048 discloses: “A measurement sensor 22 (e.g., measurement sensors 22a-22d)”) configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) (Vengroff Par.0048 discloses: “the measurement sensors 22 are temperature sensors that measure a temperature of various portions of the cooking device 18.”); and
a controller (processor 58, Vengroff Fig.1B) operably connected with the at least one heating element (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) and the temperature sensor (temperature sensors 22 includes sensors 22a-22d, Vengroff Fig.1B & Par.0048) (Vengroff Par.0060 discloses: “The network interface 54, user interface system 56, processor 58, and memory unit 62 may be positioned at any location on, in, and/or adjacent the heat source system 46 so as to allow the network interface 54 and processor 58 to communicate with the heat source(s) 50 of the heat source system 46 and/or communicate with the cooking device system 14.”; it is noted that the cooking device system 14 includes cooking device 18, measurement sensors 22 (e.g., measurement sensors 22a-22d), network interface 26, processor 30, and memory unit 34, and Vengroff Par.0040 discloses: “To assist in proper heating of the cooking device 18, one or more measurement sensors 22a-22d may measure a current temperature associated with the food item, and that current temperature may be transmitted to the heat source system 46.”; therefore, the processor 58 operably connected with the heat source 50 and the temperature sensors 22), the controller (processor 58, Vengroff Fig.1B) configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation (Vengroff Fig.2 shows the cooking method 1000, and Vengroff Par.0080 discloses determination of one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment by PID controller tuning process; it is noted that PID is feedback controlled system and Vengroff Fig.2 also shows feedback loop control; therefore, the processor 58 is configured to perform feedback controlled heating operation), the feedback controlled heating operation (as shown in Vengroff Fig.2) comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint (“requested cooking temperature”, Vengroff Par.0077) (Vengroff Par.0077 discloses: “The indication of the requested cooking temperature may be data (or other information) that may allow the heat source system 46 to determine the requested cooking temperature. For example, the indication may be the requested temperature itself (e.g., 325° F.) or may be a signal or pointer (or any other type of data) that may be used by the heat source system 46 to determine that the requested temperature is 325° F.”);
retrieving a default set of controller gain values of the feedback controlled heating operation, the set of controller gain values comprising a proportional gain value, an integral gain value, and a derivative gain value (Vengroff Pars.0080, 0085-0087 discloses gain values include proportional gain value (α, Vengroff Pars.0080 & 0085), integral gain value (β, Vengroff Pars.0080 & 0086), and derivative gain value (γ, Vengroff Pars.0080 & 0087); furthermore, Vengroff Par.0088 discloses: “A gain constant may be determined in any manner. As a first example, the gain constant may be a single fixed value that is used for every application of the cooking system 10. In such an example, the gain constant may be determined by retrieving the gain constant from storage (e.g., from storage in the cooking instructions 70), or by receiving the gain constant from an outside source (such as an electronic cookbook)”, Vengroff Par.0090 discloses: “The gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from storage (e.g., where different gain constants are stored for different heat source system 46/cooking device systems 14/food item(s)). In such an example, the heat source system 46 may receive a signal that specifies what cooking device 18 is being used and/or what food item is being cooked. Based on this, the heat source system 46 may retrieve the predetermined gain constants based on the cooking device 18 and/or food item.”, and Vengroff Par.0139 discloses: “one or more (or all) of a default proportional term, a default integral term, a default derivative term, and/or a default heat loss term may be used”);
directing the at least one heating element (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) over a thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137 & Fig.2);
determining a thermal behavior of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) after an expiration of the thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137) (Vengroff Par.0134 discloses: “the time interval may be fixed (e.g., it may be the same every time). In other examples, the time interval may vary”, Vengroff Par.0137 discloses if it is determined that a new time interval for temperature measurement has been reached, the method 1000 may return to step 1008, where current measurement information 74 may be received by the heat source system 46 from the cooking device system 14. Therefore, Vengroff discloses after expiration of the time interval (i.e., after the time interval is reached), the method 1000 returns to step 1008, where current measurement information 74 is received by the heat source system 46 from the cooking device system 14; it is noted that the current measurement information 74 is current temperature measurement of the cooking pan 18; therefore, Vengroff discloses determining thermal behavior of the cooking pan 18 after an expiration of the time interval); and
adjusting one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation in response to determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) (Vengroff discloses adjusting proportional gain value, integral gain value, and derivative gain value of the feedback controlled heating operation in response to determining the thermal behavior of the cooking pan because Vengroff Par.0080 discloses adjusting proportional gain value, integral gain value, and derivative gain value in step 1020, and Vengroff Fig.2 shows step 1020 happens after step 1008 of determining thermal behavior of the cooking pan 18, and step 1020 depends on the temperature measurements obtained from the step 1008; specifically, Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprise the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value (as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1 above, Vengroff discloses the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprise the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value because Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also discloses:
wherein determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) comprises: determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature (“measured temperatures” obtained from temperature sensors 22) and the temperature setpoint (“requested cooking temperature”, Vengroff Abstract) over the thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137) (Vengroff Abstract discloses: “The processors are further operable to determine an integral term based on differences between the requested cooking temperature and the measured temperatures, to determine a heat loss term based on the integral term”, and Vengroff Par.0117 discloses: “Using the optional I variable (I′) to determine the heat loss term may allow the heat loss term to be calculated from an accumulated fraction of the integral term”, and it is noted that the time interval is time interval for temperature measurements, as indicated by Vengroff Par.0132 and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, Vengroff discloses determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises determining accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the temperature setpoint over the time interval).
Regarding claim 4, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also discloses:
wherein adjusting the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprises adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term).
Regarding claim 6, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and also discloses:
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term).
Regarding claim 7, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137) is defined between an initiation of the at least one heating element (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) and 3 minutes (it is noted that the time interval is time interval for temperature measurements, as indicated by Vengroff Par.0132 and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above; in this case, Vengroff Par.0071 discloses: “The method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point during the cooking process of the food item. For example, the process of cooking a food item may include various steps that result in the food item being prepared for consumption. In such an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point before, during, or after one or more of these cooking steps. As an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at the beginning of the cooking process, such as when the heat source 50 is activated.”; Vengroff Par.0132 discloses: “the time interval is generally between 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds”; therefore, Vengroff discloses the time interval within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses wherein the feedback controlled heating operation (as shown in Vengroff Fig.2) further comprises:
directing the at least one heating source (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) according to the one or more adjusted parameters (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses adjusting each of the proportional gain value, integral gain value, and derivative gain value in step 1020; Vengroff Par.0103 discloses the energy adjustment is determined by determining each (or one or more) of the proportional term, integral term, and derivative term, and then summing these terms in order to determine the energy adjustment; and Vengroff Par.0130 discloses step 1028, where the energy provided by heat source 50 is modified in accordance with the determined energy adjustment; therefore, Vengroff discloses directing the heat source 50 according to the one or more adjusted proportional gain value, integral gain value, and derivative gain value).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vengroff (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070756 A1) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0280651 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and also discloses:
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in a lookup data, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; Vengroff Par.0090 discloses: “The gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from storage (e.g., where different gain constants are stored for different heat source system 46/cooking device systems 14/food item(s)). In such an example, the heat source system 46 may receive a signal that specifies what cooking device 18 is being used and/or what food item is being cooked. Based on this, the heat source system 46 may retrieve the predetermined gain constants based on the cooking device 18 and/or food item.”, and Vengroff Par.0091 discloses: “the gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from other storage locations (e.g., retrieving the gain constant from a manufacturer's website or a chef's blog). As a further example, the gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from social websites (e.g., retrieving the gain constant from a website that aggregates other users' experiences with a particular gain constant for a particular application) or other crowd sourcing sites (e.g., blogs, twitter, etc.)”; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in a lookup data, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term).
However, Vengroff is not specific enough about:
the lookup data is lookup table
In the same field of using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) system for controlling heating operation, Liu teaches (Liu Fig.37):
predetermined values provided in a lookup table (Liu Par.0302 teaches: “In some embodiments, the PID controllers can implement a PID control scheme 3700 as shown in FIG. 37, which will be described in more detail below. The controller can determine an output of each term (i.e. proportional, integral and derivative terms) based on the error and the set of constants. The constants can be predetermined for the system and stored in a memory or in a lookup table or any other suitable format.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vengroff, by adding the teachings of predetermined values provided in a lookup table, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce overshoot and settling time, improve stability and robustness because when a large disturbance occurs, the accumulated integral term changes, the lookup table can immediately provide a new set of gains that are optimized for recovery, leading to much faster return to the setpoint. Furthermore, lookup table provides a structured way to manage diverse gain sets while direct data without tables might miss critical non-linearities or be computationally inefficient for complex mappings.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vengroff (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070756 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Vengroff discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 7, it is noted that the thermal classification length of time is the time interval as indicated by Vengroff Par.0132 and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above. In this case, Vengroff Par.0071 discloses: “the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point before, during, or after one or more of these cooking steps. As an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at the beginning of the cooking process, such as when the heat source 50 is activated. As another example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 when a new food item is added to the cooking device system 18 (possibly resulting in a drop in temperature). As a further example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 when the cooking temperature is adjusted, such as when a user manually adjusts the cooking temperature up or down (such as at the beginning of a new step in the cooking recipe), or when a device (such as a wireless device and electronic cookbook of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238749) adjusts the cooking temperature up or down (such as at the beginning of a new step in the cooking recipe)”; and Vengroff Par.0132 further discloses: “The time interval for temperature measurement may be any amount of time. In some examples, the time interval is generally between 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds. Such a time interval may be sufficient in cooking applications to account for thermal lags that arise from the thermal mass of ingredients and the cooking device 18. In other examples, the time interval may be a time within a range of approximately 0.5 seconds (e.g., 0.5 seconds +/−0.2 seconds) and approximately 2 seconds, approximately 0.5 seconds and approximately 3 seconds, approximately 0.5 seconds and approximately 5 seconds, approximately 1 second and approximately 2 seconds, or any other range.”.
However, Vengroff does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element.
Regarding the limitation that the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Vengroff Pars.0071 & 0132 where the reference Vengroff teaches certain thermal classification length of time), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Vengroff discloses certain thermal classification length of time, and having a specific thermal classification length of time is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thermal classification length of time is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying thermal classification length of time would impact the time of measuring the temperature of cookware, which directly impacts the accuracy of temperature control, the stability of the cooking power, and the safety of the cooking process. A control process with an optimized thermal classification length of time would improve temperature measurement accuracy, enhance energy efficiency by precisely controlling the temperature, lead to reduce power consumption, increase safety and improve responsiveness; thus, improve the overall cooking/heating process. Therefore, the thermal classification length of time 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 Vengroff thermal classification length of time by making the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element 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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 8 of copending Application No. 18/665,105. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they encompass the same closed-loop feedback control algorithm of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) system for controlling heating operation. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses a cooking appliance (“A cooking appliance”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105) comprising:
at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item (“at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105);
a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item (“a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105); and
a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising (“a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105):
determining a temperature setpoint (“determining a temperature setpoint”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105);
retrieving a default set of controller gain values of the feedback controlled heating operation, the set of controller gain values comprising a proportional gain value, an integral gain value, and a derivative gain value (“retrieving a first set of controller gain values for the feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105);
directing the at least one heating element over a thermal classification length of time (“directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values; detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105 and “wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed after directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values”, see Claim 8 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105);
determining a thermal behavior of the cookware item after an expiration of the thermal classification length of time (“detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105 and “wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed after directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values”, see Claim 8 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105); and
adjusting one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation in response to determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item (“retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105).
Regarding claim 2, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprise the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value (“retrieving a first set of controller gain values for the feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value”, “detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values; retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value; see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105).
Regarding claim 9, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also discloses wherein the feedback controlled heating operation further comprises:
directing the at least one heating source according to the one or more adjusted parameters (“directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values.”, see Claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/665,105).
Claims 3-4, 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 8 of copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070756 A1).
Regarding claim 3, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, but does not disclose:
wherein determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises: determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the temperature setpoint over the thermal classification length of time.
Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A) comprising determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) (Vengroff Par.0072 discloses step 1008, where current measurement information 74 is received by the heat source system 46 from the cooking device system 14; it is noted that the current measurement information 74 is current temperature measurement of the cooking pan 18):
wherein determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item (cooking pan 18, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) comprises: determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature (“measured temperatures” obtained from temperature sensors 22) and the temperature setpoint (“requested cooking temperature”, Vengroff Abstract) over the thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137) (Vengroff Abstract discloses: “The processors are further operable to determine an integral term based on differences between the requested cooking temperature and the measured temperatures, to determine a heat loss term based on the integral term”, and Vengroff Par.0117 discloses: “Using the optional I variable (I′) to determine the heat loss term may allow the heat loss term to be calculated from an accumulated fraction of the integral term”, and it is noted that the time interval is time interval for temperature measurements. Therefore, Vengroff discloses determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises determining accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the temperature setpoint over the time interval).
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 control for heating operation of the copending Application No. 18/665,105, by adding the teachings of determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the temperature setpoint over the thermal classification length of time, as taught by Vengroff, in order to achieve precise temperature regulation and ensure the cooking system to reach exactly on the target temperature, rather than hovering slightly below (or above) it.
Regarding claim 4, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein adjusting the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprises adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term.
Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A):
wherein adjusting the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprises adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term).
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 control for heating operation of the copending Application No. 18/665,105, by adding the teachings of adjusting the one or more parameters of the feedback controlled heating operation comprises adjusting each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value according to the accumulated integral term, as taught by Vengroff, in order to determine each optimum gain constant, thereby optimizing the PID controller, as recognized by Vengroff [Vengroff Par.0080]. The modification would achieve precise temperature regulation and ensure the cooking system to reach exactly on the target temperature, rather than hovering slightly below (or above) it.
Regarding claim 6, copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, the copending Application No. 18/665,105 does not disclose:
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term.
Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A):
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term).
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 control for heating operation of the copending Application No. 18/665,105, by adding the teachings of each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to a predetermined equation based on the accumulated integral term, as taught by Vengroff, in order to allow for precise system tuning, balancing speed, eliminating steady-state errors, and damping oscillations for optimal performance.
Regarding claim 7, copending Application No. 18/665,105 discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the thermal classification length of time is defined between an initiation of the at least one heating element and 3 minutes.
Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A):
wherein the thermal classification length of time (“time interval” as shown in step 1032 of Vengroff Fig.2 & explained by Vengroff Pars.0132-0137) is defined between an initiation of the at least one heating element (heat source 50, Vengroff Figs.1A-1B) and 3 minutes (it is noted that the time interval is time interval for temperature measurements, as indicated by Vengroff Par.0132 and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above; in this case, Vengroff Par.0071 discloses: “The method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point during the cooking process of the food item. For example, the process of cooking a food item may include various steps that result in the food item being prepared for consumption. In such an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point before, during, or after one or more of these cooking steps. As an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at the beginning of the cooking process, such as when the heat source 50 is activated.”; Vengroff Par.0132 discloses: “the time interval is generally between 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds”; therefore, Vengroff discloses the time interval within the claimed range)
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 control for heating operation of the copending Application No. 18/665,105, by making the thermal classification length of time is defined between an initiation of the at least one heating element and 3 minutes, as taught by Vengroff, in order to capture the temperature measurement in the initial ramp-up period, thus, preventing temperature overshoot, reducing burn risk, and achieving faster, smoother transitions by anticipating PID tuning, leading to better product quality, consistency, and efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 7, but does not explicitly teaches:
wherein the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element.
It is noted that the thermal classification length of time is the time interval as indicated by Vengroff Par.0132 and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above. In this case, Vengroff Par.0071 discloses: “the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at any point before, during, or after one or more of these cooking steps. As an example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 at the beginning of the cooking process, such as when the heat source 50 is activated. As another example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 when a new food item is added to the cooking device system 18 (possibly resulting in a drop in temperature). As a further example, the method 1000 may move to step 1008 when the cooking temperature is adjusted, such as when a user manually adjusts the cooking temperature up or down (such as at the beginning of a new step in the cooking recipe), or when a device (such as a wireless device and electronic cookbook of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238749) adjusts the cooking temperature up or down (such as at the beginning of a new step in the cooking recipe)”; and Vengroff Par.0132 further discloses: “The time interval for temperature measurement may be any amount of time. In some examples, the time interval is generally between 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds. Such a time interval may be sufficient in cooking applications to account for thermal lags that arise from the thermal mass of ingredients and the cooking device 18. In other examples, the time interval may be a time within a range of approximately 0.5 seconds (e.g., 0.5 seconds +/−0.2 seconds) and approximately 2 seconds, approximately 0.5 seconds and approximately 3 seconds, approximately 0.5 seconds and approximately 5 seconds, approximately 1 second and approximately 2 seconds, or any other range.”.
However, the copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff does not explicitly teach:
wherein the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element.
Regarding the limitation that the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Vengroff Pars.0071 & 0132 where the reference Vengroff teaches certain thermal classification length of time), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Vengroff discloses certain thermal classification length of time, and having a specific thermal classification length of time is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the thermal classification length of time is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying thermal classification length of time would impact the time of measuring the temperature of cookware, which directly impacts the accuracy of temperature control, the stability of the cooking power, and the safety of the cooking process. A control process with an optimized thermal classification length of time would improve temperature measurement accuracy, enhance energy efficiency by precisely controlling the temperature, lead to reduce power consumption, increase safety and improve responsiveness; thus, improve the overall cooking/heating process. Therefore, the thermal classification length of time 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 copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff, by making the thermal classification length of time is defined between 1 minute and 2.5 minutes from the initiation of the at least one heating element 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 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 8 of copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0070756 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0280651 A1).
Regarding claim 5, copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, the copending Application No. 18/665,105 does not disclose:
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in a lookup table, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term.
Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, Vengroff Fig.1A):
wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in lookup data, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term (Vengroff Par.0080 discloses: “At step 1020, one or more gain constants for an energy adjustment are determined. Gain constants (α, β, and γ) may refer to parameters that allow a PID controller to be tuned, so as to optimize the PID controller. During a PID controller tuning process, the value of each of the gain constants may be individually changed (e.g., increased) until each optimum gain constant is determined, thereby optimizing the PID controller.”; it is noted that α is proportional gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0085], β is integral gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0086], and γ is derivative gain constant [as indicated by Vengroff Par.0087]; Vengroff Par.0090 discloses: “The gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from storage (e.g., where different gain constants are stored for different heat source system 46/cooking device systems 14/food item(s)). In such an example, the heat source system 46 may receive a signal that specifies what cooking device 18 is being used and/or what food item is being cooked. Based on this, the heat source system 46 may retrieve the predetermined gain constants based on the cooking device 18 and/or food item.”, Vengroff Par.0091 discloses: “the gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from other storage locations (e.g., retrieving the gain constant from a manufacturer's website or a chef's blog). As a further example, the gain constant may further be determined by retrieving the gain constant from social websites (e.g., retrieving the gain constant from a website that aggregates other users' experiences with a particular gain constant for a particular application) or other crowd sourcing sites (e.g., blogs, twitter, etc.)”; it is further noted that Vengroff Par.0081 discloses PID equation including integral term, and Vengroff Par.0086 discloses: “The integral term accounts for past values of the time variant error, ε(t). For example, if the current amount of provided energy is not sufficiently strong, the integral of the time variant error will accumulate over time, and the PID controller will respond by applying a stronger action. As seen above, the equation for the integral term is I(t)β.”; therefore, Vengroff discloses wherein each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in lookup data, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term).
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 control for heating operation of the copending Application No. 18/665,105, by adding the teachings of each of the proportional gain value, the integral gain value, and the derivative gain value is adjusted according to predetermined values provided in lookup data, the predetermined values being associated with the accumulated integral term, as taught by Vengroff, in order to achieve faster, more efficient system responses because the system avoids the lag associated with calculating new PID parameters in real-time by using pre-calculated values based on previous performance data; thus, avoiding complex real-time modeling because lookup data are computationally efficient. It offers the performance benefits of adaptive control without requiring complex, real-time recalculation of optimal gains.
However, the copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff is not specific enough about:
the lookup data is lookup table
In the same field of using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) system for controlling heating operation, Liu teaches (Liu Fig.37):
predetermined values provided in a lookup table (Liu Par.0302 teaches: “In some embodiments, the PID controllers can implement a PID control scheme 3700 as shown in FIG. 37, which will be described in more detail below. The controller can determine an output of each term (i.e. proportional, integral and derivative terms) based on the error and the set of constants. The constants can be predetermined for the system and stored in a memory or in a lookup table or any other suitable format.”)
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 copending Application No. 18/665,105 in view of Vengroff, by adding the teachings of predetermined values provided in a lookup table, as taught by Liu, in order to reduce overshoot and settling time, improve stability and robustness because when a large disturbance occurs, the accumulated integral term changes, the lookup table can immediately provide a new set of gains that are optimized for recovery, leading to much faster return to the setpoint. Furthermore, lookup table provides a structured way to manage diverse gain sets while direct data without tables might miss critical non-linearities or be computationally inefficient for complex mappings.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Frank et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0014363 A1) discloses a method for operating a hob for maintaining a state, which exists at the time of activation of the maintaining operation, at a cooking point of the hob with a cooking vessel on it detects a change in temperature of the cooking vessel as a change in state, wherein supplied power and/or a change in temperature of the cooking vessel are evaluated.
Boedicker (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0370267 A1) discloses a method for operating an oven appliance includes establishing a set temperature, operating a heating element of the oven appliance in order to heat a cooking chamber of the oven appliance to a target temperature with the heating element, and continually reducing the target temperature to the set temperature.
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 01/24/2026