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. Examiner’s Response to Tra v ersal Claims 4-7, 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species or a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 14, 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 and Group 1 (claims 1-3, 8 & 9 ) in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no appreciable search or examination burden on the Examiner for examination of the various allegedly distinct embodiments. In particular, the various embodiments of the present invention involve overlapping subject matter.” (Response to Election, pg 7) This is not found persuasive because the inventions require different fields of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “unique resistance” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “value directly associated with the cooking accessory” (Specifications, para. 6) wherein it allows identification of the accessory type “via a constant resistor.” (Specifications para. 41) However, the accepted meaning is “being one of its kind; unequaled.” The term will be understood to be a constant resistor. Nevertheless, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) or (a)(2) as anticipated by Koch et al. ( EP 2,639,511 ). Koch anticipates : Regarding claim 1, a cooking appliance assembly [ Fig. 1 ] , comprising: a cooking appliance [ (101) ] defining a port [ Fig. 1 ] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses a socket, which is necessarily contained in a port.) comprising a socket [ (105) ] ; at least one cooking accessory [ (102) ] selectively coupled to the port [ Fig. 1 , para. 59 ] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses the accessory is coupled via a connection between the plug and socket, which lie s within a port, and thus reads onto this limitation.) , the at least one cooking accessory [(102)] comprising: an accessory sensor [ (108) ]; a plug [ (104) ] selectively engaged with the socket [ (105) ] ; a first resistive element [ ( 109 ) ] provided on the plug [ (104 ) , para. 41 ] ( Examiner Note : Claims do not recite or require any specific structure for providing the resistive elements on the plug. The Specifications further disclose that the resistive elements are provided on the plug “for contact engagement with the socket.” ( para . 40). As electrical contact occurs when current can pass through 2 components, contact engagement will be understood as any contact allowing current to pass from the resistive element to the socket. Koch discloses a resistive element connected to a corresponding plug contact (112) that provides electrical contact engagement with the socket, and thus reads onto this limitation. ) , the first resistive element being configured to obtain a voltage change relating to the cooking accessory [para s. 9 , 26 ] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses a circuit where the voltage across first resistive element (109) relates to the temperature measured by the cooking accessory , and therefore anticipates this limitation . ) and a second resistive element [ ( 110 ) ] provided on the plug [ (104) ] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses a second resistive element connected to a corresponding plug contact (113) that provides electrical contact engagement with the socket, and thus reads onto this limitation.) adjacent to the first resistive element [ Fig. 1 (113) , para s . 4 1-42 ] (Koch discloses the plug contact is adjacent to the first plug contact.) , the second resistive element having a unique resistance [ (113) ] (As discussed above, this limitation has been interpreted to mean a resistor of constant value. Koch discloses the second resistive element is a resistor of constant value, and thus reads onto this limitation.) value directly associated with the cooking accessory ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses the second resistive element is used to identify the accessory type by comparing the voltage across the resistor to the source voltage, which directly depends on the value of the resistive element in the accessory . Therefore, the value of the resistive element directly relates to the type of cooking accessory, and reads onto this limitation. ) to adjust a resolution of a determined voltage change sensed by the accessory sensor . [para. 68] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses the use of a second resistive element helps verify the sensor resistance value. As the determination of the sensor resistance affects the resolution, it can be understood to read onto this limitation. Moreover, t he addition of resistors as disclosed in Koch will increase the resolution of the sensor as it helps reduce noise by allowing more accurate calibration of the sensor signal, and increase the gain of the signal . ) Regarding claim 9, t he cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein the accessory sensor [ (102) ] further comprises at least one temperature sensor [ (109- 1 11) ] for measuring a temperature of an item within the cooking appliance . [ “The thermometer 102 has a probe on the front side, which is designed as a three-point probe 108, which can be introduced into a food to be cooked.” Para. 39 ] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (EP 2,639,511) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gregory (2016/0095469). As discussed above , Koch discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Koch further discloses the controller ([107]) is communicatively coupled ([106]) with the at least one cooking accessory and the controller performs an operation of determining the accessory type. [para. 34] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses the apparatus automatically detect s whether the device is a 1- or 3-point thermometer, and thus determines the accessory type.) Koch further discloses that the voltage change relating to the cooking accessory corresponds to a temperature change of an item within the appliance , but does not explicitly disclose a method to determine the temperature corresponding to the voltage. [paras. 3, 9, 39] ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses that the measured voltage change detected by the sensor is converted to determine the temperature of the item, but does not disclose a table or equation to determine this temperature.) Koch does not disclose the controller selecting a corresponding temperature table or equation based on the determined type of the at least one cooking accessory. However, Gregory discloses, “programmed options can be made available for user selection of various types of food that can are intended to be cooked with the particular configuration of accessory 10 identified. Such selections can have corresponding, associated cook times and temperatures (and corresponding ranges of power output required to achieve such temperatures) that can be automatically implemented based on selection of one of such options.” [para 25] In other words, a temperature table for the determined type of accessory is selected by the controller and thus meets this limitation. Regarding claim 8, Koch does not disclose retrieving a unique temperature table from a plurality of stored temperature tables within the cooking appliance, the unique temperature table being directly associated with the determined accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory. However, Gregory discloses, the device provides a selection of cooking programs “specifically tailored to the type of accessory” that include “specific cooking durations, [and] temperatures.” [para 32] A number of stored temperature tables relating to the accessories is implicit, as these tables would be required for the oven to accurately control the temperature of the cooking cycles. In other words , a temperature table directly associated with the accessory type is selected from the plurality of stored cooking program options, and thus, meets this limitation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to incorporate the selection and retrieval of temperature tables associated with the determined device type as disclosed in Gregory with Koch. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Gregory could be combined with Koch with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both related to the communication of powered cooking accessories with in an appliance assembly. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gregory with Koch because Gregory discloses these features allow the cooking assembly to facilitate communication between components so the oven can “provide specific functionality related to the control of the accessor y. ” [para. 2] The claimed feature s help improve user experience and overall utility of appliance as a user can more easily utilize the full range of functionality of the appliance and its accessories and allows the oven to easily accommodate a variety of cooking accessories. Accordingly, claims 2 and 8 are rejected as obvious over Koch further in view of Gregory. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (EP 2,639,511) in view of Gregory (2016/0095469) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mok et al. (2003/0109905). As discussed above, all of the limitations of claim 2 are disclosed by Koch in view of Gregory. Regarding claim 3, neither Koch nor Gregory discloses a user interface that emits a request to identify the accessory type and receives the selection. Koch implicitly discloses a user interface capable of processing requests and selections as Koch disclose s using the apparatus for the “automated control of the cooking appliance … to control a cooking process for a food,” based on user instructions, but does not explicitly disclose the controller operation as claimed. [para. 9] ( Examiner Note : Koch clearly requires a user interface in order to implement the step of cooking cycle selection. However, Koch does not disclose manual identification of the accessory to be used with the oven.) Gregory discloses a user interface that requests and receives selections for cooking cycles, but does not disclose a step requiring the user to identify the sensor type. [para. 25, 32] However, Mok discloses a user interface with “a display for indicating electrode programming information… a keypad or buttons for user requested inputs… and LEDs for visually indicating error, alarm or programming status,” [para. 48] wherein each electrode (sensor) is provided with “its own sensor serial number and user-selected ID number.” [para 46] This identification is a coded command that requires the user to manually select the identification code from the interface via the DIP switch, and then the data is encoded into the controller for subsequent operation. [para. 40, 52] In other words, the user interface emits a request to identify the sensor (via request for user to en code on the DIP switch ) and then receives the selection to produce the sensor readings , and thus, reads onto this limitation . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to incorporate an operation of emitting a request to identify the accessory type and receiving the selection as disclosed in Mok with the user interface as disclosed in Koch in view of Gregory . One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Mok could be combined with Koch with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both related to user interfaces in the identification and control of sensors. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mok because manual input of sensor identification information makes it more customizable for the user experience, creates fewer potential points of failure, and decreases the complexity and processing power of the control system. Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to m odify a controller designed for automatic detection of a sensor to instead require manual user input of sensor information. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Koch in view of Gregory, and further in view of Mok. 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. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,747,023 (Reference Patent 1 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of Reference Patent 1 anticipates instant claim 9. The table below compares instant claims with that of Reference Patent 1 . Instant Application (18/163,634) Reference Patent 1 (11,747,023) Claim 1: A cooking appliance assembly, comprising: a cooking appliance defining a port comprising a socket; at least one cooking accessory selectively coupled to the port, the at least one cooking accessory comprising: a n accessory sensor; a plug selectively engaged with the socket; a first resistive element provided on the plug, the first resistive element being configured to obtain a voltage change relating to the cooking accessory; and a second resistive element provided on the plug adjacent to the first resistive element, the second resistive element having a unique resistance value directly associated with the cooking accessory to adjust a resolution of a determined voltage change sensed by the accessory sensor. Claim 14: An oven appliance assembly, comprising : an oven appliance , comprising: a cabinet defining an oven cavity; a heat source disposed within the oven cavity; and a port comprising a socket ; a plurality of oven accessories compatible with the oven appliance, each of the plurality of oven accessories comprising a probe, a plug, and at least one resistive element adjacent to and contacting the plug, each of the plugs comprising a unique configuration for engagement with the socket of the port , wherein the socket comprises a tip-ring-ring-sleeve (TRRS) configuration and the plug comprises a corresponding TRRS configuration; and a controller communicatively coupled with the oven appliance for determining a type of each of the plurality of oven accessories when a respective plug is engaged with the port based on a resistance value of each of the resistive elements of each of the plurality of oven accessories. Claim 2: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein the cooking appliance comprises a controller communicatively coupled with the at least one cooking accessory , the controller configured to perform an operation , the operation comprising : determining an accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory engaged with the socket of the cooking appliance; and selecting a corresponding temperature table or equation based on the determined type of the at least one cooking accessory, wherein the voltage change relating to the cooking accessory corresponds to a temperature change of an item within the cooking appliance. Claim 14 (above) discloses the controller is communicatively coupled to the oven accessory . Claim 15: The oven appliance of assembly claim 14, wherein the controller further comprises one or more memory devices having at least one of a table or equation stored therein, the table or equation relating a plurality of types of oven accessories with respective resistance values . Claim 16: The oven appliance of assembly claim 15, wherein the controller is further configured to identify a cooking cycle to use with each of the plurality of types of oven accessories . ( Examiner Note : This will be understood as a controller configured to perform a function to determine the accessory type, as the accessory type must be determined in order to identify compatible cooking cycles.) Claim 3: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 2 , wherein the cooking appliance further comprises a user interface, and wherein determining the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory comprises : emitting, via the user interface, a request to identify the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory; and receiving, via the user interface, a selection identifying the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory engaged with the socket. Claim 16: The oven appliance of assembly claim 15 , wherein the controller is further configured to identify a cooking cycle to use with each of the plurality of types of oven accessories . ( Examiner Note : This will be understood as a controller configured to perform a function to determine the accessory type, as the accessory type must be determined in order to identify compatible cooking cycles. Furthermore, the accessory must be engaged with a socket for any operation to be performed . ) Claim 8: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 2, wherein obtaining the corresponding temperature table or equation comprises: retrieving a unique temperature table from a plurality of stored temperature tables within the cooking appliance, the unique temperature table being directly associated with the determined accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory. Claim 15: The oven appliance of assembly claim 14, wherein the controller further comprises one or more memory devices having at least one of a table or equation stored therein, the table or equation relating a plurality of types of oven accessories with respective resistance values . Claim 9: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein the accessory sensor further comprises at least one temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of an item within the cooking appliance. Claim 17: The oven appliance assembly of claim 16, wherein the probes of the plurality of oven accessories each comprise at least one temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of an item during the cooking cycle within the oven cavity. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Koch et al. ( 11,747,023 ). Regarding claim 1, is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Koch et al. While Reference Patent 1 implicitly discloses additional resistive elements, Koch discloses the use of a second resistive element to improve sensor resolution. [para. 68] (Examiner Note: Koch discloses the use of a second resistive element, and further discloses that the resistor helps verify the sensor resistance value. As accurate determination of the sensor resistance affects the sensor resolution ). One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate Koch because the additional resistive elements would enable the apparatus to improve sensor resolution , improving its accuracy and functionality . Furthermore, the addition of a resistor is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan, and they would recognize that the additional element would improve sensor-measurement quality. Accordingly, claim 1 is obvious on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 14 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Koch. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 16 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Gregory ( 2016/0095469). Regarding claim 2, is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Gregory. While Reference Patent 1 implicitly discloses a temperature table is selected (accessory temperature table would necessarily be included in selecting an appropriate cooking cycle), Gregory explicitly discloses the selection of a cooking cycle based on the determined accessory type . [para. 25] As described in the 103 rejection of claim 2 above , Gregory teaches the selection of a cooking cycle, and therefore it would have been obvious to include this limitation for the same reasons. Regarding claim 8, is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Gregory. As described in the 103 rejection of claim 8 above, Gregory teaches retrieving a temperature table directly associated to the determined accessory type, and therefore it would have been obvious to include this limitation for the same reasons. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Gregory ( 2016/0095469), and further in view of Mok (2003/0109905). Regarding claim 3, is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Reference Patent 1 in view of Gregory , and further in view of Mok . One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize Mok could be combined with Gregory with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both related to user interfaces in the identification and control of sensors. As described in the 103 rejection of claim 3 above, Gregory in view of Mok teaches a user interface that emits a request to identify the accessory and receives a selection, and therefore it would have been obvious to include this limitation for the same reasons. Claims 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 & 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,449,317 (Reference Patent 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Reference Patent 2 anticipates instant claims 1 and 2, claim 4 of Reference Patent 2 anticipates instant claim 3, and claim 7 of Reference Patent 2 anticipates instant claim 8, and claim 9 of R eference P atent 2 anticipates instant claim 9. The table below compares instant claims with claims of Reference Patent 2. Instant Application (18/163,634) Reference Patent 2 (12,449,317) Claim 1: A cooking appliance assembly, comprising: a cooking appliance defining a port comprising a socket; at least one cooking accessory selectively coupled to the port, the at least one cooking accessory comprising: an accessory sensor; a plug selectively engaged with the socket; a first resistive element provided on the plug, the first resistive element being configured to obtain a voltage change relating to the cooking accessory; and a second resistive element provided on the plug adjacent to the first resistive element, the second resistive element having a unique resistance value directly associated with the cooking accessory to adjust a resolution of a determined voltage change sensed by the accessory sensor. Claim 1: A cooking appliance assembly, comprising : a cooking appliance comprising : a heat source; and a port comprising a socket ; at least one cooking accessory comprising an accessory sensor, a plug, and at least one resistive element, the plug being removably received within the socket ; a variable resistance module provided within the cooking appliance and operably connected with the port ; and a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the controller communicatively coupled with the cooking appliance and the at least one cooking accessory, the controller configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising: determining an accessory type of the cooking accessory with a value of the at least one resistive element, when the plug engaged with the port of the cooking appliance; adjusting, via the variable resistance module, a reference resistance at the variable resistance module based on the determined accessory type; and selecting a corresponding temperature table or equation based on the determined accessory type of the cooking accessory. ( Examiner Note : Koch discloses the use of a second resistive element, and further discloses that the resistor helps verify the sensor resistance value. As accurate determination of the sensor resistance affects the sensor resolution, it reads onto this limitation. Furthermore, as the resistance is adjustable, the element can have a unique ( ie constant) resistance value for each accessory and thus still reads onto this limitation. ) Claim 2: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein the cooking appliance comprises a controller communicatively coupled with the at least one cooking accessory, the controller configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising: determining an accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory engaged with the socket of the cooking appliance; and selecting a corresponding temperature table or equation based on the determined type of the at least one cooking accessory, wherein the voltage change relating to the cooking accessory corresponds to a temperature change of an item within the cooking appliance. Claim 1: A cooking appliance assembly, comprising: a cooking appliance comprising: a heat source; and a port comprising a socket; at least one cooking accessory comprising an accessory sensor, a plug, and at least one resistive element, the plug being removably received within the socket; a variable resistance module provided within the cooking appliance and operably connected with the port; and a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the controller communicatively coupled with the cooking appliance and the at least one cooking accessory, the controller configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising: determining an accessory type of the cooking accessory with a value of the at least one resistive element, when the plug engaged with the port of the cooking appliance ; adjusting, via the variable resistance module, a reference resistance at the variable resistance module based on the determined accessory type; and selecting a corresponding temperature table or equation based on the determined accessory type of the cooking accessory. Claim 3: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 2, wherein the cooking appliance further comprises a user interface, and wherein determining the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory comprises: emitting, via the user interface, a request to identify the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory; and receiving, via the user interface, a selection identifying the accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory engaged with the socket. Claim 4: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a user interface provided on the cooking appliance , and wherein determining the accessory type comprises: emitting, via the user interface, a request to identify the accessory type; and receiving, via the user interface, a selection identifying the accessory type engaged with the port. Claim 8: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 2, wherein obtaining the corresponding temperature table or equation comprises: retrieving a unique temperature table from a plurality of stored temperature tables within the cooking appliance, the unique temperature table being directly associated with the determined accessory type of the at least one cooking accessory. Claim 7: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein selecting the corresponding temperature table or equation comprises : retrieving a unique temperature table from a plurality of stored temperature tables within the cooking appliance, the unique temperature table being directly associated with the reference resistance. Claim 9: The cooking appliance assembly of claim 1, wherein the accessory sensor further comprises at least one temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of an item within the cooking appliance. Claim 9: The oven appliance assembly of claim 8, wherein the accessory sensor further comprises at least one temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of an item during the cooking cycle within the cooking appliance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2614 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8 am - 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Helena Kosanovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. John Chambers Examiner, AU 3761 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761