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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10/4/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the apparatus of claim 13 is specifically linked to claim 1 since it is suited to perform the intended method as claimed. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the restriction requirement, the method as claimed does not require steps of selecting, determining, and regulating to be performed by a control and/or regulating unit as required by the apparatus as claimed; the steps can be performed manually by an individual (i.e., an operator selects a cooking path, determines an actual temperature by reading a measuring device such as a thermometer, and regulates the energy sources by manually changing the energy introduced by each source). Likewise, the method as claimed does not require “a cooking chamber” as recited by the apparatus, and can instead apply the energy to an object in an open area. Further, the apparatus as claimed does not require the at least two different energy sources to have different penetration depths. The apparatus as claimed only requires the “control and/or regulating unit” to be “configured and set up to perform a method according to claim 1”, and does not suggest or otherwise indicate that the energy sources must have different penetration depths as required by the method as claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/5/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification should be amended to include reference to the foreign priority.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 2 after “the cooking product” insert “,” to place the claim in better form.
In line 2, after “of which” delete “into the cooking product have different penetration depths” and amend to instead recite “have different penetration depths into the cooking product” in order to place the claim in better form.
In line 5, after “the cooking product” delete “to be cooked” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 7, before “into the cooking product” delete “which is to be introduced” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 9 after “profile of” delete “a cooking product core” and amend to instead recite “the core of the cooking product” since the cooking product would have necessarily comprised a core and to place the claim in better form.
In line 12, before “two energy sources” insert “at least” for consistency since line 1 recites “at least two different energy sources”.
In line 13, after “of the core” delete “temperature” since the term is redundant and for consistency with the language of lines 8-9.
In line 14, after “of the core” delete “temperature” since the term is redundant and for consistency with the language of lines 8-9.
Regarding claim 2, in line 2 after “wherein” delete “a desired cooking time can be set, based on which the cooking process is carried out” and amend to instead recite “the cooking process is carried out based on a desired cooking time.
Regarding claim 4, in line 1 after “wherein the” delete “regulation of the at least one energy source” and amend to instead recite “regulating” since the latter sufficiently encompasses the features already recited in claim 1, and since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 6, in line 1 before “energy” insert “at least two” for consistency with the language of claim 1 line 1.
In line 3 after “than” delete “the other energy source” and amend to instead recite “at least one other energy source of the at least two energy sources” in order to place the claim in better form and for consistency.
Regarding claim 7, in line 2 after “wherein” delete “a desired cooking time can be set, based on which the cooking process is carried out” and amend to instead recite “the cooking process is carried out based on a desired cooking time.
Regarding claim 8, in line 4 after “the cooking time” delete “predetermined by the cooking path and associated with” and amend to instead recite “assigned to” since the limitation is redundant and for consistency with the language of claim 7 line 2.
Regarding claim 11, in line 2 after “the core” delete “temperature detected” since the terms are redundant and to place the claim in better form.
In line 3, after “the core” delete “temperature” for the same reason stated above.
In line 5, after “or” insert “causes” to place the claim in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, in line 12 the limitation “the at least one target temperature profile” renders the claim indefinite since lines 8-9 recite “a target temperature profile”. The limitation of line 12 encompasses embodiments having multiple target temperature profiles, whereas the limitation of lines 8-9 encompasses only a single target temperature profile. It is unclear if the method requires a minimum of one or two temperature profiles.
In line 14 the limitation “taking the total energy into account” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear it differs from “such that the total energy to be introduced is maintained”. Maintaining the total energy to be introduced necessarily requires “taking the total energy into account” since the value of the total energy must be known prior to “regulating”. It is unclear if the two limitations encompass the same, different, or overlapping subject matter. It is noted that the rejection may be overcome by removing the limitation “taking the total energy into account”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a user input and/or by selection” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the two are actually alternatives, and how the limitation “a user input” differs from “by selection”. The specification recites “the selection may be made by a user, for example by the user making inputs by means of the input and output device” (page 10 lines 5-6). This indicates the two are the same, thus it is unclear how the limitation in question should be interpreted.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “offered and/or displayed” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the difference is between the two. The specification does not provide clarifying detail (page 4 lines 25-26). One of ordinary skill would consider options that are “displayed” to also be “offered” as a choice between said options. It is unclear if the limitations encompass the same, different, or overlapping subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “is maximized” renders the claim indefinite since the term is relative. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the term means the energy fraction of the microwave source is simply increased, increased by or to a certain value, increased to 100%, etc. The specification does not provide clarifying detail.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “in particular wherein the energy sources each have an energy fraction predetermined by the cooking path for a cooking time predetermined by the cooking path” renders the claim indefinite since a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “a ratio of the respective energy fractions of the energy sources in the total energy is variable”, and the claim also recites “in particular wherein the energy sources each have an energy fraction predetermined by the cooking path for a cooking time predetermined by the cooking path” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “an energy source having a lower penetration depth” and “an energy source having a higher penetration depth” render the claim indefinite since the terms “lower” and “higher” are relative.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a cooking product caliber” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) are encompassed by the term “caliber”. The specification recites “the cooking caliber can be specified in particular by the mass, the volume and the shape of the cooking product” (page 10 lines 16-17), but it is unclear if this is a definition. It is unclear if other features e.g., moisture content, are encompassed by “cooking product caliber”, particularly since the term “caliber” is not commonly used in the claimed context.
Claims 2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morandotti et al. (US 2019/0230750 A1) in view of Sigrist (WO 2017/185191 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morandotti et al. teaches a method of cooking a cooking product (abstract) using at least two different energy sources the energy inputs of which into the cooking product have different penetration depths i.e., the microwave has a higher penetration depth than the broiler and convection ovens (paragraphs 14 and 41), comprising the steps of selecting a cooking path (program) by which the cooking product is cooked (paragraphs 15 and 20), wherein the cooking path comprises a total energy which is to be introduced into the cooking product by the at least two different energy sources (paragraph 17), and wherein the cooking path comprises a target temperature profile of a cooking product e.g., quality and acceptability curves, and quality levels and parameters (paragraphs 21 and 24-26), determining an actual temperature of the cooking product during an ongoing cooking process (paragraph 35), and regulating at least one of the two energy sources on the basis of the target temperature profile and the actual temperature of the product (paragraph 28), taking the total energy to be introduced into account, such that the total energy to be introduced is maintained (paragraph 34). It is noted that the total energy would have necessarily been “taken into account” when determining the value to be maintained.
Morandotti et al. does not teach the cooking path comprises the target temperature profile of the cooking product core and the temperature of the food load measured by the sensor is the core temperature.
Sigrist teaches a method of cooking using at least two different energy sources (abstract), where the control unit monitors the state of the goods by determining actual core temperature by e.g., a core temperature sensor, and regulates the energy source based on the actual temperature and deviations from predicted (target) temperature profile (page 17 lines 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morandotti et al. to base the target temperature profile on the core temperature, determine the actual temperature of the core, and regulate at least one of the energy sources respectively since the reference already teaches measuring the temperature of the “food load” and is open to modification (paragraphs 46 and 48), where the prior art recognizes monitoring core temperature and regulating heating sources based on deviations from a target temperature profile, and since it is well understood that heating to a desired core temperature is desirable for ensuring the food is cooked all the way through and every portion of the food reaches a desired minimum temperature for safety, and to obtain a desired quality, flavor, and mouthfeel/texture.
Regarding claim 2, Morandotti et al. teaches the cooking process follows the program (path) having a cooking time assigned to the target temperature profile (paragraphs 21 and 24-26).
Regarding claim 3, Morandotti et al. teaches the cooking time is specified by user input (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 4, Morandotti et al. teaches regulation of the energy sources depends from the desired cooking time and total energy to be introduced (paragraphs 29 and 34), where the total energy is predetermined by the selected cooking path (paragraphs 17 and 20).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the limitations “minimum cooking time…a default selection” are not defined by specification. Therefore, the limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretations to be the shortest cooking time among one or more possible cooking items initially offered and/or displayed to the user for selection.
Morandotti et al. teaches the controller generates a range of available cooking times to achieve a particular cooking path (paragraph 37) and outputs the cooking times on a display screen for user selection (paragraph 38). Since the displayed range of available cooking times would have necessarily included a shortest cooking time option, said option is construed to be a “minimum cooking time” displayed as a “default selection”.
Regarding claim 6, Morandotti et al. teaches the energy sources comprise a combination of sources, including microwave, broiler oven, and convection oven. The microwave would necessarily have higher penetration depth than the other sources.
Regarding claim 7, Morandotti et al. teaches the cooking path has a cooking time assigned to the target temperature profile (paragraphs 17 and 21), and the cooking process is carried out based on a desired cooking time such as a particular cooking time corresponding to a particular cooking power required for the food type to reach a desired temperature or quality parameter (paragraph 21). The controller selectively controls the power level of the energy sources, including the microwave, to obtain a desired quality parameter or level of the food based on the desired cooking time (paragraphs 28-29). Modulation of the microwave energy source would have necessarily adjusted the energy fraction of said source in the total energy.
Morandotti et al. does not teach the energy fraction of the microwave source in the total energy is increased when an acceleration of the cooking process is desired.
Sigrist teaches measuring core temperature of the food during cooking and comparing the measured temperature to a predicted temperature profile. If the core temperature increase is slower than predicted, the control unit increases the microwave power in order to maintain the desired cooking duration (page 17 lines 24-32). The process is construed to be an “acceleration of the cooking process” since the core temperature is increased over a larger temperature range i.e., from the lower than predicted measured temperature to the desired final temperature, within the same duration. Increasing microwave power would have necessarily resulted in a respective increase in the fraction of the microwave energy when maintaining total energy to be introduced as taught by Morandotti et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morandotti et al. to increase the energy fraction of the microwave in the total energy for acceleration of cooking since the reference already teaches adjust microwave power to obtain desired results within a cooking time, since the prior art recognizes increasing microwave power to accelerate cooking, and therefore to provide feedback control when a measured temperature is below an expected temperature, thereby ensuring desired final results e.g., temperature, moisture level, color, texture, etc. are obtained within the desired cooking time.
Regarding claim 8, Morandotti et al. teaches the predetermined cooking time can be increased or decreased by a user during the cooking operation, where the energy transfer of the sources is modulated to maintain the desired final results (paragraphs 28-29). The combination applied to claim 7 increases the energy fraction of the microwave source to accelerate the cooking process. Thus, the energy fraction of the microwave source would have necessarily become “larger than a predetermined standard value of the cooking path”.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “maximized” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to mean the energy of the respective source is increased by any degree relative to a predetermined energy amount. The limitation “minimum cooking time” is interpreted as stated for claim 5.
Morandotti et al. teaches “a minimum cooking time” as stated for claim 5. The combination applied to claims 7-8 teaches accelerating the cooking process by increasing the microwave power, which would have increased the energy fraction thereof relative to the total energy. Thus, the combination applied to claim 8 is construed to teach the claimed feature.
It is noted that Sigrist further teaches maximizing microwave power when the user selects the shortest possible cooking duration in order to elevate the food temperature to a desired level (page 17 lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation following “in particular” is construed to be not required by the method.
Morandotti et al. teaches the controller can selectively control the power level of the microwave, a temperature of a heating element, a duty cycle of the heating element, etc. to provide a variety of embodiments that can be configured to provide for time modulated cooking of various food types to pre-configured quality levels based on application (paragraph 28). Since the total energy delivered to the food is maintained (paragraph 34), since the relative amounts of energy contributed by each source would have necessarily varied based on the selective control above, and since the various embodiments can be combined (paragraph 46), the reference teaches respective fractions are variable.
Regarding claim 11, Morandotti et al. teaches selective control of the power level of each energy source in order to obtain a desired result in the food (paragraphs 28-29), and Sigrist as applied to claim 1 teaches modulation of the energy sources based on a comparison of measured and predicted temperature in order to obtain a desired final result.
The combination applied to claim 1 does not teach a deviation of the actual core temperature from the target temperature profile causes regulation of lower penetration and high penetration energy sources to increase the energy fraction of the prior or decrease the energy fraction of the latter.
Sigrist further teaches different energy sources can be used based on the desired rate of cooking. If a “long” cooking duration is chosen, the cooking can be performed by “low-temperature” cooking without the addition of microwave power (page 17 lines 3-7). If a “short” duration is chosen, the microwave power can be maximized to accelerate temperature increase, and further adjusted as desired (page 17 lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Morandotti et al. to regulate the respective energy sources based on a deviation of the actual core temperature from the target temperature profile as claimed since the prior art recognizes increasing or decreasing the power of respective energy sources based on desired cooking time, in order to control rate of energy input if the actual core temperature is above the predicted temperature, thereby preventing overcooking and ensuring the total energy is maintained, and to control heating of the food core and surface to obtain a desired result e.g., increasing surface browning and crisping without overheating the core.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternatives “total energy” and “a desired cooking result” are chosen. The “desired cooking result” is construed to be any result recognized by the art e.g., final temperature, moisture level, browning level or crispness, consistency, etc.
Morandotti et al. teaches total energy delivered is integral of cooking power over cooking time (paragraph 34), the controller selectively controls the power level of the energy sources to obtain a desired quality parameter or level of the food (paragraphs 28-29), and the quality parameter or level corresponds to the desired temperature, moisture level, browning level or crispness, consistency, etc. (paragraphs 24, 26, and 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792