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
In the amendment filed 7/29/2026, claim 35 is identified as “Currently amended” but contains no markings showing changes. Because the claim text is unchanged from the immediate prior version, claim 35 has been treated as “Previously presented.” Applicant is reminded to use the correct status identifiers in future replies. See 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/29/2026, have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to the specification deletes the Cross-References to Related Applications section, and relocates the reference numeral listing of ¶ [0027]-[0028] to the detailed description. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, with respect to the objection to claim 32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 32 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reciting only a processor performing physical control of the cooking device have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, claim 40 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it recites the method of claim 21, as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, with respect to the “heating direction” and “spraying direction” limitations have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant relies on ¶¶ [0114] and [0117] of the publication. These paragraphs describe the desired result of adjusting a heating direction or spraying direction. They do not describe any structure of the heating modules 12 or spraying modules 13 that performs that adjustment. Fig. 1 likewise shows the heating modules 12 and spraying modules 13 only as dashed rectangles indicating their locations above, below, and beside chamber 10, without any structure for changing a heating or spraying direction. Because “heating modules” and “spraying modules” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims are limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, and none is disclosed, as set forth in the rejection below. “[A] mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description.” See MPEP 2181 (IV).
Applicant further asserts that one of ordinary skill would understand that heating direction could be changed by supplying power to only one heating module, and that spraying direction could be changed by supplying liquid to only one spraying module, or by physical or pressure adjustment. These examples do not appear in the disclosure, and arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145 (I). The question is whether the specification itself discloses the structure, not whether one of ordinary skill could devise a structure to perform the claimed function. See also MPEP 2181 (II)(A). Moreover, the specification presents adjusting heating power and adjusting heating direction as alternatives: “increase heating power radiated from a heating module 12 to the region or adjust a heating direction of a heating module 12 around the region to the region” (¶ [0114]). The same is true for vapor conveying capacity and spraying direction (¶ [0117]). Selectively energizing a module is an adjustment of heating power or vapor conveying capacity, not the separately claimed adjustment of direction.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis for “the cooking device monitoring data” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, with respect to the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, with respect to the “heating direction” and “spraying direction” limitations have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill would understand these limitations and “the inherent structure” of the heating and spraying modules. However, as set forth in the rejection below, “heating modules” and “spraying modules” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the specification discloses no corresponding structure for performing the claimed function. What one of ordinary skill might supply does not substitute for disclosure of that structure in the specification. See MPEP 2181 (II)(A). Further, as explained with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below, applicant’s example of supplying power or liquid to only one module is an adjustment of heating power or vapor conveying capacity, not the separately claimed adjustment of direction.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-25 and 29-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn. The amended independent claims recite specific control of the heating modules and spraying modules based on the determined region-specific thermal image difference and surface humidity, respectively, which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(a) & (e).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-24, 37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The limitation argued by applicant, determining the thermodynamic image difference for a region of the cooked object and adjusting heating power and/or heating direction accordingly, was added by amendment and is address by Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran in the rejection of claim 21 below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-18, with respect to claim 28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “determining a surface humidity of the cooked object according to the thermodynamic image of the cooked object.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which describes finding surface humidity “according to a surface temperature based on the thermodynamic image” (p. 12, lns. 23-24), this limitation encompasses 1) obtaining a surface temperature of the cooked object from the thermodynamic image; and 2) determining surface humidity based on that temperature. Yang teaches the first step: its infrared thermal imaging figure embodies “the temperature profile of diverse location” of the food, and “the temperature profile is surface temperature feature” (Yang (translation), p. 10, lns, 22-24). Zhang teaches the second: the surface humidity of the food follows from the temperature and humidity conditions maintained in the cooking cavity, which keep a water film on the surface of the food materials and prevent the surface from cracking due to drying (Zhang (translation), p, 4, lns. 14-23). The combination of Li, Yang, Zhang and Omur, as set forth in the rejection, therefore teaches the argued limitation as understood in light of the specification.
Applicant’s further argument that Zhang, Yang and Omur each fail individually to teach this limitation (Remarks, p. 18) is not persuasive, because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See MPEP 2145, (IV).
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests the limitation “wherein the dimension of the monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image of the cooked object” should read “wherein the at least one dimension of the monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image of the cooked object,” for consistency with “monitoring data of at least one dimension” recited earlier in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“heating modules” in claim 21
“spraying modules” in claim 28 and 38
“control module” in claim 38
“thermal imaging device” in claim 38
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the terms “heating modules” and “spraying modules” in claims 21, 28 and 38, no specific structure that identifies what these modules comprise can be found in the disclosure. Claims 22-25, 29-37 and 40 are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to their dependency from claim 21.
Regarding the term “control module” in claim 38, the recited function is “to adjust heating power of the heating modules, … to adjust heating directions of the heating modules, to adjust radiation angles of radiating heat from the heating modules … [and to] further adjust a heating duration of a specific heating module operating according to specific heating power,” paragraph [0039]; to “adjust vapor conveying capacities of the spraying modules … adjust a spraying duration of a specific spraying module operating according to a specific vapor conveying capacity,” paragraph [0040]. The specification describes the corresponding structure for the “control module” as including an externally connected memory, configured to store a computer program, a process configured to execute the computer program (paragraph [0042]), a communication module externally disposed to the cooking device (paragraph [0043]) configured to communicate control instructions associated with operation of the heating modules and spraying modules, and equivalent thereof. Claim 39 is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to its dependency from claim 38.
Regarding the term “thermal imaging device” in claim 38, the recited function is obtaining a thermodynamic image of the cooked object (paragraph [0049]). The specification describes the corresponding structure as a thermal imaging camera (paragraph [0045]), and equivalents thereof. Claim 39 is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to its dependency from claim 38.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 21-25 and 28-40 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.
Claim 21 recites “adjusting a heating power and/or a heating direction of at least one of the plurality of heating modules.” However, the specification does not describe sufficient structure or implementation details for selectively adjusting heating directions of the heating modules. While the specification generally describes heating operations, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed directional heating control functionality and the specific structure applicant had possession of at the time of filing. As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, “heating modules” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and no corresponding structure for performing the claimed function is disclosed. A claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without adequate disclosure of corresponding structure also lacks written description support, because “an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function.” See MPEP 2163.03 (VI); MPEP 2181 (IV). Claims 22-25 and 29-37, which depend from claim 21, and claim 40, which recites a method as set forth in claim 21, are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 28 and 38 recites “adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules.” However, the specification does not describe sufficient structure or implementation details for selectively adjusting a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules. While the specification generally describes vapor conveying and spraying operations, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed directional spraying control functionality and the specific structure applicant had possession of at the time of filing. As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, “spraying modules” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and no corresponding structure for performing the claimed function is disclosed, and therefore the claims lack written description support for the same reason. See MPEP 2163.03 (VI); MPEP 2181 (IV). Claim 39 is rejected for the same reason due to its dependency from claim 38.
Claims 21-25 and 28-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “adjusting a heating power and/or a heating direction of at least one of the plurality of heating modules.” However, this claim is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a “heating direction” of a heating module or how such heating direction is adjusted. The claim further does not recite sufficient structural features or relationships associated with the adjustment of the heating directions of the heating modules. Further, examiner cannot establish what structure, and equivalents thereof, the claim encompasses for the heating modules. As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, “heating modules” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the specification discloses no corresponding structure for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181 (III). As such the scope of the claim is unclear. Claims 22-25 and 29-37, which depend from claim 21, and claim 40, which recites a method as set forth in claim 21, are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 28 and 38 recites “adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules.” However, this claim is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a “spraying direction” of a spraying module or how such spraying direction is adjusted. The claim further does not recite sufficient structural features or relationships associated with the adjustment of the spraying direction of the spraying modules. Further, examiner cannot establish what structure, and equivalents thereof, the claim encompasses for the spraying modules. As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, “spraying modules” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the specification discloses no corresponding structure for performing the claimed function. See MPEP 2181 (III). As such the scope of the claim is unclear. Claim 39 is rejected for the same reason due to its dependency from claim 38.
Claim 40 recites “A cooking device in communication with a processor, and a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium... storing a computer program which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a method as set forth in claim 21.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim is directed to. The preamble recites both a cooking device and a computer-readable storage medium, joined by “and”, without a transitional phrase. It is therefore unclear whether the claim is directed to the cooking device, to the storage medium, or to a combination of the two, and whether the cooking device and the processor are positively recited elements of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets claim 40 as directed to a combination of a cooking device, a processor in communication with the cooking device, and the recited computer-readable storage medium.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 21-24, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), and further in view of Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran.
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses a control method (Li (translation), p. 7, ln. 17: “cooking method”) for a cooking device (Li (translation), p. 12, ln. 12: “a cooking method … including a method of determining the core temperature of a food item”; the examiner interprets “determining the core temperature of a food item” as the method to control a cooking device), the method (“cooking method”) comprising:
during operation of a cooking device (Fig. 1: “cooking device”), obtaining monitoring data (Li (translation), p. 8, ln. 2: “information”) (Li (translation), p. 9, lns. 36-37: “the temperature … is detected in real time by the temperature sensor”; the examiner interprets temperature detection by the temperature sensor in real time as “obtaining monitoring data during operation of a cooking device”), with a dimension of the monitoring data (“information”) comprising at least one of a surface temperature of a cooked object (“food”; Li (translation), p. 8, ln. 6: “food to be cooked”), a weight of the cooked object (“food”), or a chamber (10, “heating chamber”) temperature of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 1-4: “a temperature sensor monitors the temperature of the cooking medium (i.e., oven air or oil) over time and a quality sensor monitors the quality of the item to be cooked over time. Information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor is used to provide a prediction of the food core temperature and to control the cooking process in accordance with the predicted food core temperature,” which the examiner interprets as a temperature sensor monitoring the cooking medium temperature, and a mass sensor monitoring the mass of the object to be cooked, from which the monitoring data is obtained);
inputting the monitoring data (“information”) to a preset regression model to obtain a predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”), with the preset regression model representing a correlation between an internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) and the monitoring data (“information”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4: “Information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor is used to provide a prediction of the food core temperature and to control the cooking process in accordance with the predicted food core temperature”; Li (translation), p. 12, lns. 33-34: “the predicted values are consistent with the actual values. The RMS error was 1.2 °C and the maximum error (absolute) was 3.2 °C”; the examiner interprets Li’s “prediction model,” which is trained based on monitored parameters and uses model parameters to generate a predicted core temperature, as a “regression model” representing a correlation between monitoring data (e.g., temperature, mass, humidity) and internal temperature); and
adjusting an operating status of the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to at least the predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) (Li (translation), p. 8, lns. 3-4: “to control the cooking process in accordance with the predicted food core temperature,” which the examiner interprets “control the cooking process” as “adjusting an operating status of the cooking device” based on the predicted internal/core temperature of the cooked object);
wherein the cooking device (“cooking device”) comprises a plurality of heating modules (Fig. 1: 12, “heating element”) dispersedly disposed on different regions of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the heating modules), wherein the operating status is adjusted by adjusting a heating power and/or a heating direction of at least one of the plurality of heating modules (12) in the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to a difference between the predicted internal temperature (“predicted core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) and a standard internal temperature (“desired temperature range”) (Li (translation), p. 9, lns. 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Li
Regarding claim 21, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the dimension of the monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image of the cooked object, and the heating power is adjusted based on a difference between a real-time thermodynamic image of the cooked object and a standard thermodynamic image.
However, Yang teaches a control method (abstract: “control method”), wherein the dimension of monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “heated food”), and wherein
a heating power (“heating parameter”) is adjusted (Yang (translation), p. 4, lns. 9-10: “heating parameters are tuned up, … turning heating down, … closing the kitchen range”; the examiner interprets adjusting the heating parameters as adjusting the heating power) according to a difference between a real-time thermodynamic image (“infrared thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (“heated food”) and a standard thermodynamic image (“default infrared thermal imaging figure”) (Yang (translation), p. 2, lns. 19-22: “[t]he infrared thermal imaging figure is matched with default infrared imaging figure, obtains matching result … [according to which] [t]he heated condition of the [food] to be detected is determined”).
Li and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device. Therefore, 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 control method taught by Li to further include the thermodynamic image and to adjust heating power according to the thermal image-based comparison as taught by Yang, in order to “detect[] entirety [of the] infrared thermal imaging figure [of the cooked object], and not be local detection, [such that the] accuracy rate [is] higher” (Yang (translation), p. 10, lns. 29-30), and to adjust “heating parameters … to avoid superheated food [and] burn problem” (Yang (translation), p. 9, lns. 18-20), thereby improving the accuracy of monitoring and cooking control of the cooked object.
Regarding claim 21, Li in view of Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the difference between the real-time thermodynamic image of the cooked object and the standard thermodynamic image is determined for a region of the cooked object and the heating power and/or the heating direction is adjusted to correspondingly increase or decrease a temperature of the region.
However, Cochran teaches a cooking control method (abstract), wherein a difference between the real-time thermodynamic image of the cooked object and the standard thermodynamic image is determined for a region of the cooked object (¶ [00241]: “If camera 60 also has infrared camera functionality, it could verify the temperature of each topping and of the crust, cheese, and sauce. Those temperatures could then be sent to control system 15 were they could be compared to the respective expected temperatures for proper cooking”; the examiner interprets each topping, crust, cheese, and sauce as a region of the cooked object, and the comparison of each region’s infrared-camera temperature with its expected temperature as determining the difference for that region) and the heating power and/or the heating direction is adjusted to correspondingly increase or decrease a temperature of the region (¶ [00241]: “it can initiate programs subroutines to apply additional irradiation specifically where it is required to gain the correct cooking”; ¶ [00239]: “Those deflection angles set by the galvanometer will be correct for reflecting the narrowband irradiation to a particular location on the target”; the examiner interprets applying additional irradiation to the particular region as adjusting the heating power and heating direction to correspondingly increase the temperature of the region).
Li, Yang and Cochran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the control method taught by Li and Yang to determine the thermal image difference for a region of the cooked object and adjust the heating power and/or heating direction for that region as taught by Cochran, in order to “apply additional irradiation specifically where it is required to gain the correct cooking” (Cochran, ¶ [00241]), thereby improving the accuracy of cooking control of the cooked object.
Regarding claim 22, Li in view of Yang and Cochran discloses the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 21, and Li further teaches wherein the operating status is adjusted by adjusting a heating power of the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to a difference between the predicted internal temperature (“predicted core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) and a standard internal temperature (“desired temperature range”) (Li (translation), p. 9, lns. 5-7: “[i]f the predicted core temperature is below the desired range …, the cooking process will continue with a given heating program (e.g., heating at 800W); then, when the predicted core temperature falls within this range, the cooking process will stop”; the examiner interprets this process Li teaches as the operating status being adjusted by a heating power adjustment according to a difference between the predicted internal temperature of the cooked object and a standard internal temperature).
Regarding claim 23, Li in view of Yang and Cochran discloses the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 22, and Li further teaches determining the standard internal temperature (“desired temperature range”) according to a standard recipe (“doneness level”) (Li (translation), p. 8, lns. 40-41: “a desired temperature range … as required by a doneness level”; the examiner interprets the doneness level based on which the desired temperature range is determined as the “standard recipe”) and/or historical data (“experimental data obtained”; Li (translation), p. 6, lns. 30-31: “parameters related to a particular type of food may be used to predict the core temperature, … based on experimental data”) of the cooked object (“food”).
Regarding claim 24, Li in view of Yang and Cochran discloses the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 21, and Li further teaches wherein the dimension of the monitoring data (“information”) further comprises a chamber humidity (“humidity”; Li (translation), p. 6, ln. 18: “sensor[] may be provided for monitoring … humidity”) of the cooking device (“cooking device”).
Regarding claim 37, Li in view of Yang and Cochran teaches the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 21, and Li further teaches wherein the cooking device (“cooking device”) comprises an oven (“oven”; Li (translation), p. 4, ln. 3: “[t]he heating chamber is … an enclosed space in the cooking [device] … the enclosed space may be an oven”).
Regarding claim 40, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Li teaches a cooking device (Fig. 1: “cooking device”) in communication with a processor (Li (translation), p. 15, ln. 35: “processor”; abstract: “a controller (18)... to control a cooking process”), and a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium (Li (translation), p. 15, ln. 33: “storage medium”) being a non-volatile storage medium or a non-transitory storage medium (Li (translation), p. 15, lns. 32-33: “storage media, such as volatile and non-volatile computer memory”) and storing a computer program (Li (translation), p. 15, ln. 33: “[t]he storage medium may be encoded with one or more programs”) which, when executed by a processor (Li (translation), p. 15, ln. 35: “processor”), causes the processor (“processor”) to perform a method as set forth in claim 21 (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 23: “a computer program comprising code means for performing the steps of the method”).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110989388) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 25, Li in view of Yang and Cochran teaches the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 24, and Li further teaches wherein the operating status is adjusted by adjusting a heating power of the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to a difference between the predicted internal temperature (“predicted core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) and a standard internal temperature (“desired temperature range”) (Li (translation), p. 9, lns. 5-7); and
the chamber humidity (“humidity”; Li (translation), p. 6, ln. 18: “sensor[] may be provided for monitoring … humidity”) of the cooking device (“cooking device”).
Li, Yang and Cochran does not explicitly teach adjusting a vapor conveying capacity of the cooking device according to a difference between the chamber humidity of the cooking device and a standard humidity.
However, Zhang teaches a control method (abstract: “control method”), wherein
adjusting a vapor conveying capacity of the cooking device (Fig. 1: 100, “cooking apparatus”) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 6-10: “a cooking apparatus 100 including: … a steam generating device … configured to generate steam … to maintain … the humidity in the cooking cavity”) according to a difference between the chamber humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, ln. 16: “humidity in the cooking cavity”) of the cooking device (100) and a standard humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 14-22: “the processor 104 … controls the heating device and the steam generating device to operate so that … the humidity in the cooking cavity is maintained in the first humidity interval … controls the humidity in the cooking cavity to be maintained in the first humidity interval,” which the examiner interprets as controlling the operation of the steam generating device to adjust the amount or rate of vapor conveyed into the cooking cavity in order to maintain a target humidity condition).
Li, Yang, Cochran and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a control method of cooking apparatus. Therefore, 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 cooking control method taught by Li, Yang and Cochran to adjust vapor conveying capacity according to chamber humidity information as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of controlling “the humidity in the cooking cavity [to be] maintained,” and preventing “the surface of the food materials … from being cracked due to drying” (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 16-23), thereby improving humidity control during cooking and cooking quality of the food material.
PNG
media_image2.png
141
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zhang
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383), Zhang et al. (CN 110989388) hereinafter Zhang, and further in view of Omur et al. (TR 201721948) hereinafter Omur.
Regarding claim 28, Li discloses a control method (Li (translation), p. 7, ln. 17: “cooking method”) for a cooking device (Li (translation), p. 12, ln. 12: “a cooking method … including a method of determining the core temperature of a food item”; the examiner interprets “determining the core temperature of a food item” as the method to control a cooking device), the method (“cooking method”) comprising:
during operation of a cooking device (Fig. 1: “cooking device”), obtaining monitoring data (Li (translation), p. 8, ln. 2: “information”) (Li (translation), p. 9, lns. 36-37: “the temperature … is detected in real time by the temperature sensor”; the examiner interprets temperature detection by the temperature sensor in real time as “obtaining monitoring data during operation of a cooking device”), with a dimension of the monitoring data (“information”) comprising at least one of a surface temperature of a cooked object (“food”; Li (translation), p. 8, ln. 6: “food to be cooked”), a weight of the cooked object (“food”), or a chamber (10, “heating chamber”) temperature of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 1-4);
inputting the monitoring data (“information”) to a preset regression model to obtain a predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”), with the preset regression model representing a correlation between an internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) and the monitoring data (“information”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4; Li (translation), p. 12, lns. 33-34); and
adjusting an operating status of the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to at least the predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) (Li (translation), p. 8, lns. 3-4).
Regarding claim 28, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the dimension of the monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image of the cooked object.
However, Yang teaches a control method (abstract: “control method”), wherein the dimension of monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “heated food”).
Li and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device. Therefore, 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 control method taught by Li to further include the thermodynamic image taught by Yang, in order to “detect[] entirety [of the] infrared thermal imaging figure [of the cooked object], and not be local detection, [such that the] accuracy rate [is] higher” (Yang (translation), p. 10, lns. 29-30), thereby improving the accuracy of monitoring and cooking control of the cooked object.
Further, Li and Yang teach the cooking device (Li: “cooking device”) wherein the operating status is adjusted according to a thermodynamic image (Yang: “thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (Yang: “heated food”) (Yang (translation), p. 2, lns. 19-22).
Li and Yang do not explicitly teach the operating status is adjusted by determining a surface humidity of the cooked object and adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules in the cooking device according to the surface humidity of the cooked object.
However, Zhang teaches a cooking device (Fig. 1: 100, “cooking apparatus”), wherein an operating status is adjusted by determining a surface humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-23: “the steam generating device to operate so that … the humidity in the cooking cavity is maintained … so as to ensure that … food … cannot have surface collapse … and … a water film can be rapidly formed on the surface of the … food materials, [and] the surface of the food materials is prevented from being cracked due to drying,” which the examiner interprets as controlling or maintaining a surface humidity condition of the food material) of the cooked object (abstract: “food”),
and adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules (“steam generating device”) in the cooking device (100) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 6-10) according to the surface humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-23) of the cooked object (“food”).
Li, Yang and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking control for cooking apparatus. Therefore, 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 cooking control method taught by Li and Yang to further include the humidity based vapor control as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of maintaining “the humidity in the cooking cavity” such that “a water film can be rapidly formed on the surface of the … food materials” and “the surface of the food materials is prevented from being cracked due to drying” (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-22), thereby improving cooking quality based on surface humidity conditions of the cooked object.
Regarding claim 28, Li in combination with Yang and Zhang does not explicitly teach a plurality of spraying modules dispersedly disposed on different regions of the cooking device.
However, Omur teaches a cooking device (Omur, Fig. 1: 1, “microwave oven”) comprising a plurality of spraying modules (Omur, Fig. 1: 21, “steam nozzles”) dispersedly disposed on different regions (Fig. 1 of Omur shows the dispersed arrangement of the steam nozzles) of the cooking device (1).
Li, Yang, Zhang and Omur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking control for cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the cooking control method taught by Li in combination with Yang and Zhang to include the dispersed steam nozzle arrangement as taught by Omur, for the purpose of ensuring “the size of the evaporation area and the number of steam nozzles 21 are adapted to each other so that a surface that is substantially equal to the entire surface of the plate 11 [where food is placed] can be covered” (Omur (translation), p. 5, lns. 45-47), thereby improving uniformity of surface humidity control and cooking performance.
PNG
media_image3.png
368
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Omur
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 108965938) hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 29, Li in view of Yang and Cochran teaches the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 21, and Li further teaches wherein the correlation between the internal temperature (“predicted core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) and the monitoring data (“information” from the mass sensor and temperature sensor) as represented by the preset regression model is based on the prediction model (Li (translation), p. 7, ln. 2: “Information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor is used to provide a prediction of the food”; p. 11, lns. 7-9: “[t]he values of P and parameters referred to in equation (8) can then be obtained by training with sufficient test data. The training of the parameters may be based on minimizing the sum of the squares of the prediction error between the predicted and actual measured core temperatures”; the examiner interprets what Li teaches as a regression-type prediction model trained using monitoring data and prediction error minimization).
Li in view of Yang and Cochran does not explicitly teach the prediction function is a result of weighted summation on monitoring data of a plurality of dimensions, and monitoring data of different dimensions correspond to different weights.
However, Jiang teaches, a prediction function (Jiang (translation), p. 3, ln. 22: “logistic regression model”) is a result of weighted summation on monitoring data (“x”) of a plurality of dimensions, and monitoring data of different dimensions correspond to different weights (“w”) (Jiang (translation), p. 3, lns. 25-26: “x is input layer user vector, … w is the model weight vector”; p. 3, lns. 33-34: “the linear model and the depth model in training way of carrying out weighted summation”; p. 7, lns. 14-15: “combining the all user characteristic … form a complete data set”; the examiner interprets Jiang as teaching that different dimensions of input data correspond to different weights used in generating a prediction output).
Li, Yang, Cochran and Jiang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because Li, Yang and Cochran are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device, and Li and Jiang are in the same field of data-driven prediction modeling using multidimensional input data to generate predictive outputs. Therefore, 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 regression model of the control method taught by Li, Yang and Cochran to utilize weighted summation of monitoring data of multiple dimensions with different corresponding weights as taught by Jiang, in order to “provide a basis for accurate prediction” (Jiang (translation), p. 4, ln. 2), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, Li in view of Yang, Cochran, and Jiang teaches the control method (Li: “cooking method”) of claim 29, wherein the prediction function (Jiang: “logistic regression model”) further comprises an adjustment coefficient (Jiang: “b”) used for adjusting the result of weighted summation (Jiang (translation), p. 3, lns. 24-26: “y=wTxembed + b wherein … w is the model weight vector, b is the offset”; the examiner interprets the offset b as an adjustment coefficient used for adjusting the result of weighted summation) on the monitoring data (Jiang: “x”) of the plurality of dimensions (such as temperature, mass, humidity as taught by Li).
Regarding claim 31, Li in view of Yang, Cochran, and Jiang teaches the control method (Li: “cooking method”) of claim 29, further comprising obtaining a weight (Jiang: “w”) corresponding to monitoring data (Jiang: “x”) of each dimension through training according to historical data, with the historical data comprising monitoring data obtained through monitoring during historical operation of the cooking device (Li: “cooking device”) and a corresponding actually measured internal temperature (Li: “core temperature”) of the cooked object (Li: “food”) (Li (translation), p. 11, lns. 7-10: “[t]he values of P and parameters referred to in equation (8) can then be obtained by training with sufficient test data. The training of the parameters may be based on minimizing the sum of the squares of the prediction error between the predicted and actual measured core temperatures. Samples with different amounts of food were taken in the experimental training and the core temperature and weight were recorded in real time for training.”; the examiner interprets what Li teaches as teaching training a prediction model using historical monitoring data and corresponding measured core temperatures).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 108965938) hereinafter Jiang.
Claims 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran, and further in view of Pinto et al. (US 8170841) hereinafter Pinto.
Regarding claim 32, Li in view of Yang and Cochran teaches the control method (“cooking method”) of claim 21, and Li further teaches further comprising, before inputting the monitoring data (“information”) is inputted to the preset regression model (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4; p. 12, lns. 33-34), predicting the internal temperature (“core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) using a prediction model based on monitored cooking data (Li (translation), p. 7, ln. 2: “Information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor is used to provide a prediction of the food”; p. 11, lns. 7-10: “[t]he training of the parameters may be based on minimizing the sum of the squares of the prediction error between the predicted and actual measured core temperatures. … the core temperature and weight were recorded in real time for training”; the examiner interprets what Li teaches as a regression-type prediction model trained using monitoring data and prediction error minimization),
the monitoring data (“information”) obtained through monitoring during historical operation of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (Li (translation), p. 11, lns. 7-10; the examiner interprets what Li teaches as teaching training a prediction model using historical monitoring data and corresponding measured core temperatures), and
a corresponding actually measured internal temperature (“core temperature”) of the cooked object (“food”) (Li (translation), p. 11, lns. 9-10: “the core temperature … [was] recorded in real time for training”).
Li, Yang and Cochran does not explicitly teach selecting the preset regression model from a plurality of candidate models according to the monitoring data, wherein different candidate models are obtained through training based on different sample sets, each sample set comprising monitoring data obtained through monitoring during historical operation of the cooking device and a corresponding actually measured internal temperature of the cooked object.
However, Pinto teaches selecting the preset regression model (“final model”) from a plurality of candidate models (“candidate model”) according to the monitoring data (Pinto, col. 5, lns. 35-37: “candidate model generation 74, model process validation 76, final model selection 78”; col. 12, ln. 47-col. 13, ln. 4: “[a]fter a candidate model has been determined in the model development procedure, the model is applied to the holdout or validation subset for comparison … The resulting final model … will have superior robustness”), wherein different candidate models are obtained through training based on different sample sets (“development sample,” “validation dataset,” holdout subset”), each sample set comprising monitoring data obtained through monitoring during historical operation of the cooking device and a corresponding actually measured internal temperature of the cooked object (Pinto, col. 6, lns. 9-11: “cross-sample comparison statistics for the candidate model that compare the development sample and validation datasets; col. 1, lns. 43-44: “the performance of the model for at least two subsets of the historical data”; the examiner interprets what Pinto teaches as generating and selecting among multiple candidate prediction models trained using different historical sample datasets).
Li, Yang , Cochran and Pinto are considered to be analogous to be analogous to the claimed invention because Li, Yang and Cochran are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device, and Li and Pinto are in the same field of predictive control methods for cooking devices. Therefore, 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 prediction model as taught by Li, Yang and Cochran to further include Pinto’s candidate model generation and validation process, in order to improve robustness and prediction accuracy of the prediction model (Pinto, col. 13, lns. 2-4: “[t]he resulting final model … will have superior robustness”), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 33, Li in combination with Yang, Cochran and Pinto teaches the control method (Li: “cooking method”) of claim 32, wherein the monitoring data (Li: “information”) comprised in different sample sets (Pinto: “development sample,” “validation dataset,” “holdout subset”) is different in at least one dimension, and/or there are different quantities of dimensions of the monitoring data comprised in different sample sets (Pinto, col 19, lns. 11-16: “reduce the dimensionality of the model dataset … different reduction method can be used … the best predictor variables and the model regression equation”; col. 7, 29-31: “[t]he set of variables is reduced to those that are maximally predictive by dimension reduction 102”; col. 10, lns. 14-17: “[m]odel development includes a process of removing non-significant variables (dimensions) … until the hyperplane is defined by a coherent set of significant variables”; the examiner interprets what Pinto teaches as different candidate models trained using sample sets containing different dimensions and/or different quantities of dimensions of monitoring data).
Regarding claim 34, Li in combination with Yang, Cochran and Pinto teaches the control method (Li: “cooking method”) of claim 32, wherein the dimension of the monitoring data (Li: “information”) comprised in the sample set further comprises a thickness of the cooked object (Li: “food”) (“size”; Li (translation), p. 12, ln. 20: “two parameters … are specific for a certain type of food, the shape/size of which is within a certain range”; Fig. 2 teaches a set of dimensions, including a thickness dimension).
PNG
media_image4.png
216
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Li
Regarding claim 35, Li in combination with Yang, Cochran and Pinto teaches the control method (Li: “cooking method”) of claim 32, wherein the preset regression model (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4; p. 12, lns. 33-34) is selected from the plurality of candidate models (Pinto: “candidate model”; “candidate model generation”; “candidate model validation”) according to the monitoring data (Li: “information”) by inputting the monitoring data (Li: “information”) to at least one of the plurality of candidate model (Pinto: “candidate model”) to obtain an estimated internal temperature (Li: “predicted core temperature”) of the cooked object (Li: “food”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-3: “information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor to provide a prediction of the food product core temperature”), and determining, in the plurality of candidate models (Pinto: “candidate model”), a one of the plurality of candidate models (Pinto: “candidate model”) with a highest prediction result close degree in a temperature interval in which the estimated internal temperature (Li: “core temperature”) of the cooked object (Li: “food”) falls as the preset regression model (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4; p. 12, lns. 33-34), wherein the prediction result close degree refers to a similarity between the predicted internal temperature (Li: “core temperature”) of the cooked object (Li: “food”) obtained by inputting the monitoring data (Li: “information”) obtained through monitoring during historical operation of the cooking device (Li: “cooking device”) to the candidate model and the corresponding actually measured internal temperature (Li: “core temperature”) of the cooked object (Li: “food”) (Pinto, col. 6, ln. 5-10: “goodness-of-fit as measured by the c-statistic … cross-sample comparison statistics for candidate model”; col. 12, ln. 50-51: “the similarity of the c-statistics”; col. 13, ln. 2: “[t]he resulting final model, tested for performance”; the examiner interprets Pinto as teaching selecting a candidate model according to similarity/close degree between predicted and measured results).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383 A), and further in view of Cochran et al. (WO 2010102261 A1) hereinafter Cochran.
Regarding claim 36, Li in view of Yang and Cochran teaches the control method of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach the preset regression model is in a one-to-one correspondence with a type of the cooked object.
However, Li discloses a control method for a cooking device including predicting a core temperature of a cooked object using a model based on monitored parameters, such as temperature and mass, and controlling the cooking process based on the predicted core temperature (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4: “Information from the mass sensor and the temperature sensor is used to provide a prediction of the food core temperature and to control the cooking process in accordance with the predicted food core temperature”). Li further teaches the prediction model is trained using experimental data (Li (translation), p. 11, lns. 7-10: “parameters … can then be obtained by training with sufficient test data. The training … based on minimizing the sum of the squares of the prediction error between the predicted and actual measured core temperatures. Samples with different amounts of food … core temperature and weight were recorded in real time for training”), which the examiner interprets as teaching that the model parameters are determined based on training data corresponding to different cooking conditions and food characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate model parameter set corresponding to a type of the cooked object, because different types of food require different cooking characteristics, including thermal properties, mass-loss behavior, heat transfer characteristics, as also recognized by Li (Li (translation), p. 3, lns. 2: “[d]ifferent types of food will exhibit different cooking characteristics”; p. 6, lns. 30-31: “parameters related to a particular type of food … selected based on experimental data”), and training models using data from specific food samples would have led to developing models tailored to particular food types. Accordingly, providing a one-to-one correspondence between a model and a food type would have been a predictable implementation of Li’s teaching of training models using food-specific data, in order to improve prediction accuracy and cooking control.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383), Zhang et al. (CN 110989388) hereinafter Zhang, and further in view of Omur et al. (TR 201721948) hereinafter Omur.
Regarding claim 38, Li teaches, in Fig. 1, a cooking device (Fig. 1: “cooking device”), comprising:
a chamber (10, “heating chamber”) designed to accommodate a cooked object (“food”);
a temperature sensor (14, “temperature sensor”) disposed inside the chamber (10) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration) for acquiring monitoring data of at least one dimension, and
a control module (18, “controller”) for controlling an operating status of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (abstract: “a controller … to control a cooking process”), said control module (18) designed to
communicate with the temperature sensor (14) to obtain the monitoring data (Li (translation), p. 8, ln. 2: “information”) during operation (Li (translation), p. 9, ln. 36: “real time”) of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (abstract: “a controller … for processing information from the mass sensor and temperature sensor to provide a prediction of the food item core temperature and to control a cooking process in dependence on the predicted food item core temperature,” which the examiner interprets as a controller communicating with the temperature sensor to process the information from the sensor), with the at least one dimension of the monitoring data (“information”) comprising at least one of a surface temperature of a cooked object (“food”), a weight of the cooked object (“food”), or a chamber temperature of the cooking device (“cooking device”) (Li (translation, p. 7, lns. 1-4),
input the monitoring data (“information”) to a preset regression model to obtain a predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”), with the preset regression model representing a correlation between an internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) and the monitoring data (“information”) (Li (translation), p. 7, lns. 2-4), and
adjust the operating status of the cooking device (“cooking device”) according to at least the predicted internal temperature of the cooked object (“food”) (Li (translation), p. 8, lns. 3-4).
Li does not explicitly teach a temperature sensor is a thermal imaging device, and wherein the dimension of the monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image of the cooked object.
However, Yang teaches a thermal imaging device (Yang (translation), p. 2, ln. 6: “infrared thermal imaging camera”; p. 3, lns. 1-2: “[t]he heated condition is to be based on [t]he thermal image of the object to be detected … using [infrared thermal imaging] camera”), wherein the dimension of monitoring data further comprises a thermodynamic image (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (Yang (translation), p. 8, ln. 23: “heated food”).
Li and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a control method for a cooking device. Therefore, 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 temperature sensor taught by Li to comprise the thermal imaging device as taught by Yang, in order to obtain thermal distribution information and improve monitoring of the heating condition of the cooked object, because Yang teaches determining the heated condition of the food based on thermal imaging information acquired by the infrared thermal imaging camera. The substitution of Yang’s known thermal imaging device for Li’s temperature sensor would have involved the use of a known temperature monitoring technique to obtain predictable results of improved temperature monitoring and cooking process control.
Further, Li and Yang teach the cooking device (Li: “cooking device”) wherein the operating status is adjusted according to a thermodynamic image (Yang: “thermal imaging figure”) of the cooked object (Yang: “heated food”) (Yang (translation), p. 2, lns. 19-22).
Li and Yang does not explicitly teach the operating status is adjusted by determining a surface humidity of the cooked object and adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules in the cooking device according to the surface humidity of the cooked object.
However, Zhang teaches a cooking device (Fig. 1: 100, “cooking apparatus”), wherein an operating status is adjusted by determining a surface humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-23: “the steam generating device to operate so that … the humidity in the cooking cavity is maintained … so as to ensure that … food … cannot have surface collapse … and … a water film can be rapidly formed on the surface of the … food materials, [and] the surface of the food materials is prevented from being cracked due to drying,” which the examiner interprets as controlling or maintaining a surface humidity condition of the food material) of the cooked object (abstract: “food”),
and adjusting a vapor conveying capacity and/or a spraying direction of at least one of the spraying modules (“steam generating device”) in the cooking device (100) (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 6-10) according to the surface humidity (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-23) of the cooked object (“food”).
Li, Yang and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking control for cooking apparatus. Therefore, 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 cooking control method taught by Li and Yang to further include the humidity based vapor control as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of maintaining “the humidity in the cooking cavity” such that “a water film can be rapidly formed on the surface of the … food materials” and “the surface of the food materials is prevented from being cracked due to drying” (Zhang (translation), p. 4, lns. 15-22), thereby improving cooking quality based on surface humidity conditions of the cooked object.
Regarding claim 38, Li in combination with Yang and Zhang does not explicitly teach a plurality of spraying modules dispersedly disposed on different regions of the cooking device.
However, Omur teaches a cooking device (Omur, Fig. 1: 1, “microwave oven”) comprising a plurality of spraying modules (Omur, Fig. 1: 21, “steam nozzles”) dispersedly disposed on different regions (Fig. 1 of Omur shows the dispersed arrangement of the steam nozzles) of the cooking device (1).
Li, Yang, Zhang and Omur are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking control for cooking apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the cooking control method taught by Li in combination with Yang and Zhang to include the dispersed steam nozzle arrangement as taught by Omur, for the purpose of ensuring “the size of the evaporation area and the number of steam nozzles 21 are adapted to each other so that a surface that is substantially equal to the entire surface of the plate 11 [where food is placed] can be covered” (Omur (translation), p. 5, lns. 45-47), thereby improving uniformity of surface humidity control and cooking performance.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106455863) hereinafter Li, in view of Yang (CN 107990383), Zhang et al. (CN 110989388) hereinafter Zhang, Omur et al. (TR 201721948) hereinafter Omur, and further in view of Alexander (US 20150245723).
Regarding claim 39, Li in view of Yang, Zhang and Omur teaches the cooking device (Li: “cooking device”) of claim 38, further comprising:
a tray (Li (translation), p. 6, ln. 23: “support tray”) designed to contain the cooked object (Li: “food”) (Li (translation), p. 6, lns. 22-23: “[t]he mass of the food product and the known support tray or web can be measured by means of pressure sensor”; the examiner interprets the support tray being configured to contain the cooked object); and
a weight sensor (Li, Fig. 1: 16, “mass sensor”) disposed on the tray (Li: “support tray”) for acquiring the monitoring data (Li: “information”) of at least one dimension (Li, abstract: “a mass sensor (16) for monitoring a mass of a food item to be cooked”),
wherein the control module (Li: 18) communicates with the weight sensor (Li: 16) to obtain the monitoring data (Li: “information”) acquired by the weight sensor (Li: 16) (Li, abstract: “a controller (18) for processing information from the mass sensor,” which the examiner interprets as a controller communicating with the mass sensor to process the information from the sensor).
Li, Yang, Zhang and Omur does not explicitly teach a weight sensor is disposed on the tray.
However, Alexander teaches, in Fig. 16, a weight sensor (paragraph [0191]: “weight sensor”; “serving dish can have sensors … 820A-820D [one of which] can be a weight sensor”) is disposed on the tray (800, “plate”) (Fig. 16 shows the weight sensor is disposed on the plate).
Li, Yang, Zhang, Omur and Alexander are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking apparatus. Therefore, 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 support tray as taught by Li, Yang, Zhang and Omur to include the weight sensor disposed on the tray as taught by Alexander, in order to directly acquire weight information of the cooked object. Such a modification would have been involved integrating a known weight sensing structure into Li’s known food support tray to obtain the predictable result of measuring the weight of the cooked object while supporting the cooked object during cooking.
PNG
media_image5.png
411
736
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Alexander
Conclusion
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
