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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-12 remain rejected. Claim 13 remains withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/24/2026, except where otherwise stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining a spatial browning profile by comparing the first surface state to the second surface state” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0012) “a spatial browning profile is determined by comparing the degrees of browning of the food to be cooked at at least two mutually spaced positions of the food to be cooked”. Nothing in the Specification indicates that “comparing the degrees of browning” is specifically a comparison of “the first surface state to the second surface state”, as opposed to, for example, comparing degrees of browning of the food to be cooked at at least two mutually spaced positions each to a target value or to a prior surface state rather than to each other. Consequently, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as a result of depending upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein an air guide plate of the cooking appliance is arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the at least one fan” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0020, 0026) “adjusting the guide vanes arranged in the air flow of the fan” and “an air guide plate of the cooking appliance arranged upstream of the fan”. However, this is not an adequate disclosure to support the claimed “arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the at least one fan.” While the Specification discloses that the air guide is upstream of the at least one fan, there is no support for the air guide being upstream of the fan in an airflow direction. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/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 11, the meaning of “an air guide plate of the cooking appliance is arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the at least one fan” is unclear. The Applicant’s Specification indicates (Paragraph 0038) the direction of rotation of the fan can be reversed which changes the conveying direction of the fan. It is unclear how the air guide plate can be arranged upstream of the airflow direction, if the airflow direction is not consistent and can be changed. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0015) a method for operating a cooking appliance in which food is heated in a cooking chamber by means of at least one heating device, wherein a camera device (image recording device) is used to photograph the food, and resulting image is subjected to image analysis by a control unit. Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0016) preferably, the surface of the food is considered as a grid consisting of a plurality of grid segments (mutually spaced positions of the food to be cooked), and a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment based on the corresponding images of the food, wherein the tanning (browning) distribution is, in particular, a distribution of a measure of tanning (browning) across the grid segments (thus, performing image analysis on multiple grid segments at least includes evaluating the at least one image to determine at least a first surface state and a second surface state of the food to be cooked, the first surface state and the second surface state corresponding, respectively, to two mutually spaced positions of the food to be cooked). Additionally, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0017, 0020, 0039, 0042) spatial segments are browned by heating according to setpoint values based on target values stored in a control unit, wherein the heat source may be a hot air heat source (circulating device) that can supply the heating medium via multiple hot air nozzles which can be opened and/or closed automatically in an embodiment (i.e., the circulating device is controlled as a function of the spatial browning profile since the heat source used for browning may be a hot air source and the supply of the heating medium may be determined by control of the hot air nozzles). Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0017) the target value can be set to brown the food evenly (i.e., to the same target value). While not explicitly stated, comparing multiple grid segments (mutually spaced positions) to the same target value and controlling the circulating device in response functions essentially the same as comparing the mutually spaced positions to each other (i.e. if a first segment was closer to the target value than a second segment, the circulating device would adjusted to increase the browning of the second segment, which would be the same result if the segments were compared to each other). Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0014) heating elements are preferably controlled based on the browning distribution, which allows the food to be heated specifically where the surface is cold compared to other areas, or where there is not yet sufficient browning (the spatial browning profile shows a change in browning value as a function of local position of the food to be cooked), which suggests that the first and second surface states are compared.
In view of Nieten, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to compare surface states and mutually spaced positions to achieve even browning and prevent overcooking or undercooking of parts of the food.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not appear to actively recite a food treatment step, since the steps of “recording”, “evaluating”, “determining” do not require any physical processing, and “controlling the circulating device as a function of the spatial browning profile” is silent on the effect of the circulating device on the food to be cooked, and “controlling” can include turning off the circulating device. Dependent claim 5, which recites that the “heating device is controlled as a function of the spatial browning profile” also does not is also silent on the effect of the heating device on the food to be cooked, and “controlling” can include turning off the heating device. Nor do any other dependent claims appear to explicitly require food treatment. Thus, controlling the circulating device as a function of the spatial browning profile determined by comparing the first surface state to the second surface state appears to lack criticality, as the claim limitations do not require treating the food in a manner that would actively modify the food (e.g., change color, temperature, etc.).
Nieten is silent on the circulating device comprising a fan.
Bratton teaches (Col. 1, lines 8-11; Col. 2, lines 44-48) an improved air delivery system (circulating device) for an impingement food preparation oven for providing uniform cooking temperatures for a food product, wherein a flow of heated air from a fan is directed into the duct members and nozzles thereby providing a uniform cooking temperature for the food product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten to include at least one fan in the circulating device as taught by Bratton since both are directed to methods of treating food products in cooking chambers with heated air via nozzles, since a circulating device comprising at least one fan is known in the art as shown by Bratton, since the fan directs the flow of heated air into the duct members and the nozzles thereby providing a uniform cooking temperature for the food product (Bratton, Col. 2, lines 44-48), since the fan produces a dynamic air flow continuously moving into air ducts without a significant buildup of static pressure or the accompanying heat loss (Bratton, Col. 6, lines 21-25), and since a fan is a common and readily available and replaceable device for moving air, and since a single fan can be used with multiple nozzles to move air, so separate mechanisms are not needed for each individual nozzle.
Regarding claim 3, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0015, 0032) preferably, the surface temperature is determined using at least one infrared image of the food being cooked, using an infrared camera, and the tanning (browning) pattern, used to determine the degree of tanning (browning), can also be captured in the infrared range.
Regarding claim 4, as shown above with regard to claim 1, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0017, 0020, 0039, 0042) spatial segments are browned by heating according to setpoint values based on target values stored in a control unit, wherein the heat source may be a hot air heat source (circulating device) that can supply the heating medium via multiple hot air nozzles which can be opened and/or closed automatically in an embodiment. Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0027) the heating power provided by the heating medium is regulated at least partially and in particular completely via the actual value of the browning distribution (browning profile). Also, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0069) instead of one item of food 3, the user can also place two or more pieces (separate food components) into the cooking chamber 11 and select a different browning distribution for each of them. Therefore, in embodiments where the heating medium is provided and regulated by the circulating device, control of the circulating device for each individual food component of the plurality of separate food components is determined and taken into account if the food to be cooked has a plurality of separate food components (i.e., respective spatial browning profiles are determined for each individual food component).
Regarding claim 5, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0016, 0017) preferably, the surface of the food is considered as a grid consisting of a plurality of grid segments, and a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment, wherein spatial segments are browned by heating according to setpoint values based on target values stored in a control unit. Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0043) the heating system includes at least one heat source with a plurality of heating elements that can be controlled separately by the control unit, and, in this way, at least one spatial segment of a plurality of spatial segments in the cooking chamber can be specifically heated using at least one heating medium (the heating device is controlled as a function of the spatial browning profile).
Regarding claim 9, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0016) preferably, the surface of the food is considered as a grid consisting of a plurality of grid segments (monitoring zones), and a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment based on the corresponding images of the food, wherein the tanning (browning) distribution is, in particular, a distribution of a measure of tanning (browning) across the grid segments (determining the spatial browning profile based on a comparison of degrees of browning of the monitoring zones). Furthermore, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0057-0058; Fig. 2 #7, 17) rectangles with solid lines illustrate a grid 7 with individual grid segments 17 (monitoring zones). As shown in Figures 2 and 5-9 these grid segments/monitoring zones are non-overlapping and substantially equal.
Regarding claim 10, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0057-0058; Fig. 2 #7, 17) rectangles with solid lines illustrate a grid 7 with individual grid segments 17 (monitoring zones). As shown in Figures 2 and 5-9, due to the rectangular profile of the cooking chamber and the grid, the monitoring zones are divided such that at least two of the monitoring zones are arranged next to one another in a first direction perpendicular to each side wall of the cooking chamber (including the rear wall), and in a second direction parallel to each side wall of the cooking chamber (including the rear wall). Furthermore, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0051) a hot air heat source 22 may be included in the cooking chamber 11, where Figure 1 depicts the hot air heat source 22 at the far or rear side wall of the chamber (where the grid segments/monitoring zones are divided such that at least two of the monitoring zones are arranged next to one another in a first direction perpendicular to each side wall of the cooking chamber, including the far or rear, and in a second direction parallel to each side wall of the cooking chamber).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and further in view of Abdoo (US 20190128531 A1) and Fusion Marketing (Printing: What Does RGB Stand For).
Regarding claim 2, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0015) to determine the browning distribution, the food being cooked is, for example, photographed with the camera device and the image is subjected to a corresponding image analysis. Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0016) preferably, the surface of the food is considered as a grid consisting of a plurality of grid segments (mutually spaced positions of the food to be cooked), and a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment based on the corresponding images of the food, wherein the tanning (browning) distribution is, in particular, a distribution of a measure of tanning (browning) across the grid.
Nieten is silent on the image recording device comprising an RBG camera configured to determine RGB or LAB color values in the at least one image, and wherein the first surface state and the second surface state correspond, respectively, to a degree of browning of the two mutually spaced positions determined based on the RGB or LAB color values.
Abdoo teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0018; Fig. 1 #68, 72; Fig. 2 #72) a cooking appliance includes a cooking chamber, an imaging device for capturing an image of a food item inside the cooking chamber, a computing device in communication with the imaging device and including a software module configured to receive the captured image from the imaging device and compute a real-time degree of browning, wherein a real-time image 72 of the food item 30 may be captured by a camera 68, which, as shown in Figure 1, is positioned exterior to the food item, and therefore captures the surface state of the food item. Abdoo further teaches (Paragraph 0036-0041) analyzing the red-green-blue (RGB) color value of each pixel in the image 72 associated with the food item 30 to determine a real-time degree of browning.
The benefits of RGB images are also known. For example, Fusion Marketing teaches (What Are its Benefits?) image files using the RGB color model tend to be much smaller, meaning they take up less space on a device, which can be a significant benefit in some instances; RGB is also a simple and effective model which can make it more cost-effective for many people to use the red, green, and blue model as well; and red, green, and blue are also ideal for computers and image displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten, as modified above, to provide an RBG camera configured to determine RGB or LAB color values in the at least one image as the image recording device, wherein the first surface state and the second surface state correspond, respectively, to a degree of browning of the two mutually spaced positions determined based on the RGB or LAB color values in view of Abdoo since both are directed to methods of cooking food comprising determining a degree of browning of the food using a camera, since determining a degree of browning as the surface state based on RGB color values of an image recorded by an RGB camera as an image recording device is known in the art as shown by Abdoo, since using RGB color values of an image recorded by an RGB camera allows for a real-time determination of the degree of browning (Abdoo, Paragraph 0036-0041), thus ensuring that there is not a delay in control of the heating process based on the degree of browning, and since image files using the RGB color model tend to be much smaller, meaning they take up less space on a device, which can be a significant benefit in some instances; RGB is also a simple and effective model which can make it more cost-effective for many people to use the red, green, and blue model as well; and red, green, and blue are also ideal for computers and image displays (Fusion Marketing, What Are its Benefits?).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and further in view of Ruan (CN 112021958 A).
Regarding claim 6, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0014) the heating system includes at least one heat source with a plurality (at least two) of separately controllable heating elements, wherein at least one heating element is used to selectively heat at least one spatial segment of a plurality of spatial segments in the cooking chamber, and the heating elements are preferably controlled based on the browning distribution (heating elements are separately controlled as a function of the spatial browning profile).
Nieten is silent on the heating element arrangement being arranged around the at least one fan.
Ruan teaches (Paragraph 0008-0012, 0027) a method of operating a kitchen appliance for baking food, the kitchen appliance comprising an inner cavity and a heating element used to heat the inner cavity, wherein, in an embodiment, the kitchen equipment further includes a fan, and multiple heating elements arranged around the fan on a functional wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten, as modified above, to arrange the heating elements around the fan as taught by Ruan since both are directed to methods of cooking food products in devices comprises cooking chambers with heating devices, since arranging heating elements around a fan is known in the art as shown by Ruan, since providing multiple heating elements around the fan allows heat to be dissipated into the inner cavity (cooking chamber) by the blowing of the fan (Ruan, Paragraph 0074), since the heating temperature of the heating elements at different locations can be adjusted based on sensor measurements including temperature distribution to improve the heating effect on food (Ruan, Paragraph 0075), and since placing heating elements around the fan will ensure that air blown by the fan will be heated to the required extent.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and further in view of Zhang (CN 109567615 A).
Regarding claim 7, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0016) tanning (browning) distribution is a distribution of a measure of tanning (browning) across grid segments, wherein a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment, and, as shown in Figures 2 and 5-9, due to the rectangular profile of the cooking chamber and the grid, the grid segments 17 are divided such that grid segments are arranged next to one another in a first direction perpendicular to the rear wall of the cooking chamber (i.e., the spatial browning profile is controlled along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber). Also, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0026-0027) a measure of the browning in a grid segment is determined as an actual value and compared with a target value for this segment, and the heating system is regulated by comparing the actual value with the target value.
Nieten, as modified above, is silent on a conveying speed of the at least one fan being adjusted based on the spatial browning profile along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber, deviating from a desired browning profile in the first direction.
Zhang teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0014, 0015, 0029) a method of operating a an oven with a uniform baking temperature, wherein factors such as the speed of the rear fan affect the intensity of convection heat transfer and determining the uniformity of the temperature distribution inside the cavity, where boundary conditions including the speed of the rear fan are set based on the heat transfer characteristics. While Zhang does not explicitly state that the heat transfer and temperature distribution affected by the fan are along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber, Zhang teaches (Paragraph 0007) the air intake and outlets are located on a fan cover plate located at the rear of the inner cavity to form a circulating air system (where air traveling into the intake, i.e., towards the rear, and out of the outlets, i.e., towards the front, will be perpendicular to the rear wall of the cooking chamber), and Zhang teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0006) that the disclosed invention overcomes defects including uneven browning and large temperature differences between the front and back (along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber), which are directly related to the uniformity of the internal temperature of the oven. Additionally, as shown in Figure 1 of Zhang, the rear wall of the cooking chamber is understood to be arranged at and/or behind the rear fan 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten, as modified above, to adjust a conveying speed of the at least one fan based on the spatial browning profile along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber, deviating from a desired (target) browning profile in the first direction in view of Zhang since both are directed to methods of heating food products in a cooking chamber with heated air, since controlling the spatial browning profile along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber by comparison with a target value is already known from Nieten, since adjusting a speed of at least one fan based on the uniformity of the temperature distribution, which is directly related to browning between the front and back (along a first direction perpendicular to a rear wall of the cooking chamber) is known in the art as shown by Zhang, since the distribution of the internal temperature field of an oven directly affects the cooking effect of food, including browning, and factors such as the speed of the rear fan affect the intensity of convection heat transfer and determine the uniformity of the temperature distribution inside the cavity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004, 0014), since temperature inside the cavity can be evenly distributed under the action of the air field produced by the fan (Zhang, Paragraph 0041) thus ensuring consistent cooking, and since the air flow speed inside the cavity affects the intensity of convection heat transfer and determines the uniformity of the temperature distribution inside the cavity (Zhang, Paragraph 0064) allowing for specific control of spatial browning to give the food a desired appearance and texture.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and Zhang (CN 109567615 A), and further in view of Okamura (JP 2019052801 A).
Regarding claim 8, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0016) tanning (browning) distribution is a distribution of a measure of tanning (browning) across grid segments, wherein a measure of browning is determined for each grid segment, and, as shown in Figures 2 and 5-9, due to the rectangular profile of the cooking chamber and the grid, the grid segments 17 are divided such that grid segments are arranged next to one another in a first direction parallel to the rear wall of the cooking chamber (i.e., the spatial browning profile is controlled along a first direction parallel to a rear wall of the cooking chamber). Also, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0026-0027) a measure of the browning in a grid segment is determined as an actual value and compared with a target value for this segment, and the heating system is regulated by comparing the actual value with the target value.
Nieten, as modified above, is silent on a conveying direction of the at least one fan being adjusted based on the spatial browning profile along a second direction parallel to the rear wall of the cooking chamber, deviating from a desired browning profile in the second direction.
Okamura teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0086; Fig. 2 #2, 11, 13) a cooking appliance equipped with an oven heating function that heats food by sending heated air into the cooking chamber, wherein a hot air unit 11 comprising a hot air fan 13 for sending and circulating heated air into the cooking chamber 2 is located at the rear of cooking chamber 2. Okamura further teaches (Paragraph 0105-0106) the direction in which the air flows is determined by the orientation of airflow control fins 52, wherein as shown in Figures 13-15 airflow can be directed, for example, to the left side of the cooking chamber, to the left and right of the cooking chamber, or towards the center of the cooking chamber 2, such that a food to be cooked located in the center of the cooking chamber 2 can be heated intensively (a conveying direction of the at least one fan is adjusted such that hot air/heat is adjusted along a second direction parallel to the rear wall of the cooking chamber). Also, Okamura teaches (Paragraph 0111) the heating cooker can also control the rotation of the airflow control fins 52 in accordance with the color distribution of the food surface, such as whether it is burnt or undercooked, and the airflow control fins 52 are rotated so that hot air directly hits the parts that need heating, thereby suppressing uneven cooking and heating (Okamura, Paragraph 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten, as modified above, to adjust a conveying direction of the at least one fan based on the spatial browning profile along a second direction parallel to the rear wall of the cooking chamber, arranged at and/or behind the at least one fan, deviating from a desired browning profile in the second direction in view of Okamura since both are directed to methods of heating food products in a cooking chamber with heated air, since controlling the spatial browning profile along a second direction parallel to a rear wall of the cooking chamber by comparison with a target value is already known from Nieten, since adjusting a conveying direction of at least one fan to direct hot air to the left, right, or center relative to the rear wall (along a second direction parallel to a rear wall of the cooking chamber) is known in the art as shown by Okamura, since when the food to be cooked is located in the center of the cooking chamber 2, the food to be cooked can be heated intensively (Okamura, Paragraph 0106) allowing heat and, therefore, browning to be controlled in the direction parallel to the rear wall to have the desired texture and appearance, since the heating appliance can control the rotation of the airflow control fins 52 in accordance with the temperature distribution of the food being cooked 9 detected by the internal temperature distribution detection means 43 to concentrate the hot air on the parts of the food that are not hot, such that uneven heating of the food can be suppressed (Okamura, Paragraph 0110), and since the heating cooker can also control the rotation of the airflow control fins 52 in accordance with the color distribution of the food surface, such as whether it is burnt or undercooked, and the airflow control fins 52 are rotated so that hot air directly hits the parts that need heating, thereby suppressing uneven cooking and heating (Okamura, Paragraph 0111).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and further in view of Kim (US 20090090347 A).
Regarding claim 11, Nieten teaches (Paragraph 0017, 0020, 0039, 0042) spatial segments are browned by heating according to setpoint values based on target values stored in a control unit, wherein the heat source may be a hot air heat source (circulating device) that can supply the heating medium via multiple hot air nozzles which can be opened and/or closed automatically in an embodiment.
Nieten, as modified above, is silent on an air guide plate of the cooking appliance being arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the at least one fan, wherein a size of at least one opening of the air guide plate is changed as a function of the spatial browning profile by an adjusting element which is actuatable by the control device by closing the at least one opening.
Kim teaches (Paragraph 0003, 0057, 0069, 0073; Fig. 1 #20, 30; Fig. 2 #32, 40, 45, 46, 47, and 48) a method for controlling a cooking apparatus, wherein a hot-air feeder 30 is provided to feed hot air into a cooking chamber 20, the hot air feeder 30 comprising a fan cover 40 (air guide plate) with discharge holes 45, 46, 47, and 48 to suction or discharge the air forcibly blown by the blowing fan 32. Kim further teaches (Paragraph 0078; Fig. 1 #50; Fig. 2 #51, 52, 53, and 54) air-direction regulator 50 includes air-direction regulating members 51, 52, 53, and 54 pivotally rotatably coupled to the discharge holes 45, 46, 47, and 48, respectively, so as to open or close the respective discharge holes 45, 46, 47, and 48 and also, to regulate the direction of air to be discharged from the discharge holes 45, 46, 47, and 48, wherein the air-direction regulator 50 further includes drive units (adjusting elements) to provide the respective air-direction regulating members 51, 52, 53, and 54 with a rotating force. Also, Kim teaches (Paragraph 0034) a control unit to control the air-direction regulator, so as to close the plurality of discharge holes, or to regulate the direction of the hot air to be discharged. As shown in Figure 7, fan cover 40 (air guide plate) is arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the fan 32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten to provide an air guide plate of the cooking appliance being arranged upstream, in an airflow direction, of the at least one fan, wherein a size of at least one opening of the air guide plate is changed as a function of the spatial browning profile by an adjusting element which is actuatable by the control device by closing the at least one opening (e.g., by providing the air guide plate as a substitute for or in addition to the hot air nozzles) by closing the at least one opening in view of Kim since both are directed to methods of treating food products with heated air in cooking chambers, since Nieten teaches controlling the opening and closing of a heated air source as a function of the spatial browning profile, since Kim teaches changing a size of at least one opening of an air guide plate of the cooking appliance arranged upstream in an airflow direction of the at least one fan by an adjusting element which is actuatable by the control device, since rotation of the air-direction regulating members (changing of the size of the openings of an air guide plate) allows for concentration or dispersion of hot air onto the object being cooked (Kim, Paragraph 0101-0102), since the rotation of the air-direction regulating member (changing of the size of the openings of an air guide plate) can change the flow rate and direction of air to be discharged (Kim, Paragraph 0142) thus allowing air to be sent to a desired location at a desired flow rate for more precise control over the heating process, and since the air-direction regulating members 51, 52, 53 and 54 can be pivotally rotated, to ensure the optimum feeding of hot air based on the position of the object to be cooked (Kim, Paragraph 0110).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieten (DE 102017101183 A1) in view of Bratton (US 4556043 A), and further in view of Bhogal (US 20200182481 A1) and McVeagh (US 20130004639 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nieten, as modified above, is silent on the at least one fan comprising a plurality of fans actuated together, individually, or in groups as a function of a determined degree of browning.
Bhogal teaches (Paragraph 0085-0086, 0088) a method of operating a food preparation system, comprising automatically adjusting oven operation during a cooking session to achieve a target food parameter, wherein the target food parameter is browning in some embodiments. Bhogal further teaches (Paragraph 0043, 0045) fans mounted to the back wall of an oven can exhaust the air into a cooking cavity. Also, Bhogal teaches (Paragraph 0128, 0140, 0143) the oven can be operated according to cooking instructions to achieve target food parameter values, wherein cooking instructions can be oven operation instructions including control instructions for a set of fans, such as the rotation speed for each individual fan.
McVeagh teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0028) a continuous cooking oven system for efficiently cooking and browning food products, wherein fans may be controlled to allow the heated gaseous medium to be directed toward both the top and bottom surfaces of food products as they are transported through the chamber and thereby allow a user to control the color development (i.e., browning) of the food products.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nieten, as modified above, to provide a plurality of fans actuated together, individually, or in groups as a function of a determined degree of browning in view of Bhogal and McVeagh since each of Nieten, Bhogal, and McVeagh is directed to a method of treating food products with heated air in cooking chambers, since providing a plurality of fans which are actuated together, individually, or in groups as a function of a determined degree of browning is known in the art as shown by Bhogal and McVeagh, since multiple fans can increase the volume of air provided and thus ensure the food is browned completely in the desired time, since multiple fans can ensure that the entirety or any particular part of the cooking chamber receives the desired heating and browning by increasing the total area that air can be directed in the cooking chamber, since fans can be rotated in the same or opposite directions (Bhogal, Paragraph 0137) allowing for different methods of air distribution to achieve the desired browning, and since fans may be operated at different speeds to ensure that a bottom surface of the food products browns at a level comparable to an upper surface of the food products (McVeagh, Paragraph 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
However, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has cited the Specification, particularly [0013]-[0017] for support for amendments to claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0012) “a spatial browning profile is determined by comparing the degrees of browning of the food to be cooked at at least two mutually spaced positions of the food to be cooked”. Nothing in the Specification indicates that “comparing the degrees of browning” is specifically a comparison of “the first surface state to the second surface state”, as opposed to, for example, comparing degrees of browning of the food to be cooked at at least two mutually spaced positions each to a target value or to a prior surface state rather than to each other. Nothing in Paragraphs 0013-0017 appears to disclose the amended subject matter either. Consequently, claim 1 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Nieten explains that any comparative analysis it performs with respect to a specific grid segment is based on a temperature "setpoint," not by comparison of the surface state of some other grid segment, the Examiner notes that Paragraph 0017 of Nieten, cited by the Applicant, states “a heating medium used to heat a spatial segment in which a grid segment has a browning and/or surface temperature below a setpoint is operated with a higher heating power than a heating medium used to heat a spatial segment in which a grid segment has a browning and/or surface temperature above a setpoint” refers to the use of either browning or temperature setpoints, not temperature setpoints alone. Furthermore, as stated above with regard to claim 1 in response to the claim amendments, Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0017) the target value can be set to brown the food evenly (i.e., to the same target value). While not explicitly stated, comparing multiple grid segments (mutually spaced positions) to the same target value and controlling the circulating device in response, functions essentially the same as comparing the mutually spaced positions to each other (i.e. if a first segment was closer to the target value than a second segment, the circulating device would be adjusted to increase the browning of the second segment, which would be the same result if the segments were compared to each other). Nieten further teaches (Paragraph 0014) heating elements are preferably controlled based on the browning distribution, which allows the food to be heated specifically where the surface is cold compared to other areas, or where there is not yet sufficient browning (the spatial browning profile shows a change in browning value as a function of local position of the food to be cooked), which suggests that the first and second surface states are compared.
In view of Nieten, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to compare surface states and mutually spaced positions to achieve even browning and prevent overcooking or undercooking of parts of the food.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that claim 1 does not appear to actively recite a food treatment step, since the steps of “recording”, “evaluating”, “determining” do not require any physical processing, and “controlling the circulating device as a function of the spatial browning profile” is silent on the effect of the circulating device on the food to be cooked, and “controlling” can include turning off the circulating device. Dependent claim 5, which recites that the “heating device is controlled as a function of the spatial browning profile” also does not is also silent on the effect of the heating device on the food to be cooked, and “controlling” can include turning off the heating device. Nor do any other dependent claims appear to explicitly require food treatment. Thus, controlling the circulating device as a function of the spatial browning profile determined by comparing the first surface state to the second surface state appears to lack criticality, as the claim limitations do not require treating the food in a manner that would actively modify the food (e.g., change color, temperature, etc.).
Therefore, claim 1 and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eiter (US 20210386239 A1) teaches a method for treating food to be cooked in a household cooking appliance wherein a respective measure of deviation is calculated from the measured distribution of the at least one surface condition and multiple local power distributions that are known in advance in the region of the food to be cooked, wherein the at least one surface condition comprises a degree of browning, and wherein regions of the food to be cooked that have the low values of the surface condition such as for example less browning (because said regions have been treated with less energy than regions of the food to be cooked having high values of the surface condition) are subsequently treated more intensely (for example heated) than regions of the food to be cooked having high values of the surface condition.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights