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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 3 the term “cooling” should be amended to “cooking”.
In line 7, insert “of” before “the core of the cooking product”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 3 delete “of the” before “energy source of” and insert “other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 14 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) and Mills et al. (US 2013/0092682 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 program (path) by which the cooking product is cooked to obtain desired characteristics e.g., internal temperature, moisture, browning, etc. (paragraphs 15 and 20), wherein the cooking path is associated with the amount of 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). The method includes 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 e.g., power level of a microwave element, a set temperature of a heating element, and a duty cycle of a heating element (paragraph 28). The cooking process, including a reference time and cooking power, is controlled to ensure the amount of energy delivered to the food is maintained (paragraph 34).
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 microwave 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 minimum core temperature is desirable to ensure uniform doneness and consumer safety, and to obtain a desired quality, characteristic, flavor, and mouthfeel/texture.
Morandotti et al. does not teach the regulating comprises dynamically adjusting energy fractions of the at least two energy sources during the cooking process such that when the energy fraction of one energy source of the at least two energy sources is increased, the energy fraction of at least one other energy source of the at least two energy sources is corresponding decreased.
Mills et al. teaches a cooking process in an oven having multiple energy sources (abstract), where the total energy delivered to the food product is defined by the equation Ef = Eµ + Ec, where Eµ is the energy delivered by an RF energy source and Ec is the energy delivered by a convection energy source (paragraph 48). The reference suggests to one of ordinary skill that the energy fractions (i.e., Eµ/Ef and Ec/E-f) of respective sources would have necessarily been adjusted when maintaining the total energy Ef delivered to the food.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Morandotti et al to regulate at least one of the energy sources by dynamically adjusting energy fractions such that the energy fraction of one energy source is increased while the fraction of another source is decreased to maintain total energy introduced since the reference teaches selectively controlling rate of energy transfer from one or more of the heating sources (Morandotti paragraphs 28-29) while maintaining total energy introduced into the food (paragraph 34) over a user defined cooking duration (paragraph 25), since the prior art recognizes total energy input is defined by the energy fractions of each energy source, and therefore to ensure optimal cooking quality is achieved within said user defined cooking duration.
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 can also be 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 limitation “minimum cooking time is displayed to a user as a default selection” is not defined by specification. Therefore, the limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to be the shortest cooking time among one or more possible cooking items initially 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 i.e., heating by excitation of water within the food compared to convective heat transfer at the food surface.
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 as stated for claim 1.
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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, 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 when said total energy is maintained.
Morandotti et al. does not teach the energy fraction of the microwave source is “greater than the energy fraction of any other energy source of the at least two energy sources” for the minimum cooking time.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Morandotti et al. such that the energy fraction of the microwave source is greater than any other fraction since the prior art recognizes using microwave energy to accelerate heating, and therefore to ensure desired final temperature and characteristics are obtained for the food within the user defined cooking duration.
Regarding claim 10, 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. Likewise, each energy source would have necessarily had an energy fraction predetermined by the cooking path for the associated cooking time.
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 a first energy source having a lower penetration to be regulated such that the energy fraction thereof in the total energy increases, or causes the second energy source to be regulated such that the fraction thereof in the total energy decreases.
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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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).
Regarding claim 14, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a method of cooking a product as recited for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 14 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The difference between the claims is that claim 14 recites “receiving a user-selected desired cooking time” and regulating “on the basis of the target temperature profile of the core, the actual temperature of the core, and the user-selected desired cooking time such that the total energy to be introduced is achieved in the user-selected desired cooking time, wherein the regulating comprises adjusting energy fractions of the at least two energy sources.”
Morandotti et al. teaches said features as stated for claims 2-4.
Response to Arguments
The objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) or second paragraph raised in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of the respective amendments.
Applicant argues Morandotti and Sigrist do not teach the dynamic adjustment of energy fractions among multiple sources as a function of core temperature deviations.
The amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection. Mills et al. is relied on to teach the prior art recognizes total energy is defined by respective fractions of each energy source, which suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that respective energy fractions require dynamic adjustments in order to maintain total energy input. Morandotti teaches controlling power level of a microwave element, a set temperature of a heating element, and a duty cycle of a heating element during a cooking program while maintaining total energy input. While the reference does not explicitly recite adjusting respective energy fractions while maintaining total energy, the prior art combination cited in the instant rejection nonetheless renders obvious the process.
Applicant argues the amended process ensure the desired internal and external doneness are achieved simultaneously, which is not predictable from the prior art.
This is not persuasive since the feature would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Morandotti teaches acceptability curves for features such as desired temperature, moisture level, browning level or crispness, etc. based on cooking power and duration parameters (paragraph 26). Sigrist teaches monitoring core temperature and adjusting microwave energy input based on deviations from an actual and a target temperature (page 17 lines 22-32). One of ordinary skill understands different results are obtained with different heating sources e.g., microwave heating versus radiative heating versus convective heating. Mills et al. suggests relative energy fractions must be adjusted in order to maintain total energy input. One of ordinary skill would have been capable of determining the appropriate energy fractions between the sources for obtaining simultaneous internal and external doneness through routine experimentation and optimization.
Further, it is not immediately clear if the claimed method is actually required to simultaneously reach internal and external doneness as argued. The claim does not indicate a concern for the external doneness, and does not indicate a relationship thereof with internal doneness. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
New claim 14 is addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McFadden (US 2004/0118392 A1) teaches a cooking oven comprising multiple energy sources for high-speed cooking (paragraphs 2-3), where “tailoring or modulation of both the microwave and the convection energy systems is an important feature in achieving a rapidly cooked food product with high food quality” (paragraph 75). The process includes adjusting energy input of the various sources throughout cooking by modulating microwave output and gas flow.
Eke (US 4,661,670) teaches increasing the delivery of microwave power while decreasing the delivery of thermal power during cooking large food items (column 1 lines 10-31; column 2 lines 28-36 and 41-50).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights