DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/11/26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application 18293318. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17, but for different language, fully encompass the limitations of claims 1-8 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application 18291924. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9, fully encompass the limitations of claims 1-8 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 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.
The phrase “slow temperature increasing stage” in claim 2 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “slow temperature increasing stage”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “slow”. It is unclear if the phrase is with respect to a specific type of heating, i.e. microwave or air-frying, if the phrase is with respect to the temperature of the cooking cavity during incrementally increasing at a rate, a minimum temperature of the cooking device, if the phrase is with respect to a rate of temperature increase of the food product itself, if the phrase is with respect to a combination of minimum temperature and increased cooking time, if the phrase is with respect to the food product temperature at its core, with respect to the food product temperature of its surface or something different altogether.
The phrase “rapid temperature increasing stage” in claim 2 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “rapid temperature increasing stage”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “rapid”. It is unclear if the phrase is with respect to a specific type of heating, i.e. microwave or air-frying, if the phrase is with respect to the temperature of the cooking cavity during incrementally increasing at a rate, if the phrase is with respect to a maximum temperature of the cooking device, if the phrase is with respect to a rate of temperature increase of the food product itself, if the phrase is with respect to a combination of maximum temperature and decreased cooking time, if the phrase is with respect to the food product temperature at its core, with respect to the food product temperature of its surface or something different altogether.
The phrase “steady heating stage” in claim 2 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “steady” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “steady heating stage”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “steady”. It is unclear if the phrase is with respect to a specific type of heating, i.e. microwave or air-frying or combination, if the phrase is with respect to the temperature of the cooking cavity during remaining constant, if the phrase is with respect to a rate of temperature increase of the food product itself increasing at a defined rate, if the phrase is with respect to the food product temperature at its core, with respect to the food product temperature of its surface or something different altogether.
Claim 4 is rejected due to the claimed “a range of [10%t, 20%t]” since it is unclear if the brackets are limiting the range to a specific amount i.e. 10% or 20% +or- .9, if the brackets are to encompass the range between 10-20 or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 5 is rejected due to the claimed “a range of [15%t, 25%t]” since it is unclear if the brackets are limiting the range to a specific amount i.e. 15% or 25% +or- .9, if the brackets are to encompass the range between 10-20 or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 6 is rejected due to the claimed “a range of [25%t, 40%t]” since it is unclear if the brackets are limiting the range to a specific amount i.e. 25% or 40% +or- .9, if the brackets are to encompass the range between 10-20 or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 7 is rejected due to the claimed “a range of [30%t, 50%t]” since it is unclear if the brackets are limiting the range to a specific amount i.e. 30% or 50% +or- .9, if the brackets are to encompass the range between 10-20 or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim 8 is rejected due to the claimed “a range of [140C, 250C]”, [1200W, 1800W], [15 min, 40min.] since it is unclear if the brackets are limiting the range to a specific amount +or- .9, if the brackets are to encompass the range between the numerals or with respect to something different altogether.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (20160360578).
With respect to Independent claim 1, Lim teaches a control method for a cooking device, the cooking device comprising an air frying module (par. 0078) and a microwave module (par. 0075), the method comprising:
obtaining a characteristic parameter of a food material (par. 0112; kind of food; par. 0114 weight) and a cooking stage of the cooking device (par. 0112; fry-cooking)
determining a cooking parameter (par. 0116 operation data; par. 0120 microwave power; par. 0122 preset temp; par., 0142 cooking time) of the cooking device according to the characteristic parameter of the food material (par. 0116, 0142); and
controlling at least one of the microwave module (par. 0120, 0138; fig. 15) and air frying module (par. 0125-0127, par. 0138; fig. 15 convection) according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage (par. 0138; fig. 15), to improve cooking speed of the food material (par. 0126 cooking speed relative cooking of surface of food material vs without; alternatively par. 0127 both air and radiant; fig. 15 second cooking time; concurrently).
With respect to claim 2, wherein: the characteristic parameter of the food material comprises a type and a weight of the food material (par. 0116; fig. 16)
the cooking parameter comprises a predetermined cooking temperature (par. 0122; fig. 25), a total cooking time (par. 0142; fig. 25), and total cooking power (par. 0120; fig. 16), and
the cooking stage comprises a preheating stage (relative first cooking time and cavity temperature; fig. 15 par. 0152; fig. 18, 25), a slow temperature increasing stage (relative first cooking time, material at lowest temp., increase core temperature; fig. 15 par. 0152; fig. 18, 25), a rapid temperature increasing stage (relative second cooking time and material temperature due to convection; fig. 15 par. 0152; fig. 25), a steady heating stage (relative third cooking time singular heating means; fig. 15 par. 0152; fig. 25) and a crusting and coloring stage (fig. 15 result of third cooking time; progressive increase par. 0152 surface; fig. 25).
Claim 3, wherein said controlling at least one of the microwave module and the air frying module according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage comprises
Determining (fig. 18) that a cooking temperature at the preheating stage is the predetermined cooking temperature in response to the cooking stage being the preheating stage (fig. 18; first cooking stage) and
controlling the air frying module to preheat the cooking device, such that a cavity temperature of the cooking device reaches the predetermined cooking temperature (fig. 18 first cooking stage with convection; fig. 25).
Claim 4, wherein said controlling at least one of the microwave module and the air frying module according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage comprises,
determining that a cooking temperature at the slow temperature increasing stage is a first cooking temperature in response to the cooking stage being the slow temperature increasing stage (fig. 18 first cooking stage determined by fig. 25 food type), the first cooking temperature being smaller than or equal to the predetermined cooking temperature (par. 0125 maintain preset target temp)
allocating first microwave heating power and first air frying heating power to the microwave module and the air frying module according to the total cooking power ; and
controlling the microwave module and the air frying module to continuously operate for first cooking time according to the first microwave power and the first air frying power (fig. 18, 25; par. 0125), respectively, to maintain a cavity temperature of the cooking device at the first cooking temperature (par. 0125), the first cooking time being in a range of [10%t, 20%t], where t is the total cooking time (fig. 25; frozen potato chips 4/26=15%; fig. 25 drumsticks)
Claim 5, wherein said controlling at least one of the microwave module and the air frying module according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage comprises:
determining that a cooking temperature at the rapid temperature increasing stage is a second cooking temperature in response to the cooking stage being the rapid temperature increasing stage (par. 0151; fig. 25), the second cooking temperature being greater than or equal to the predetermined cooking temperature (fig. 25 second heating stage) and smaller than a sum of the predetermined cooking temperature and a first temperature threshold (fig. 25, where the singular temperature is less than a sum of two temperatures)
allocating second microwave heating power and second air frying heating power to the microwave module and the air frying module according to the total cooking power (par. 0151; fig. 25; micro + convection frozen chicken nuggets) and
controlling the microwave module and the air frying module to continuously operate for second cooking time (fig. 25 second cooking time frozen chicken nuggets) according to the second microwave power (fig. 25 second micro heating) and the second air frying power (fig. 25 power relative and to achieve temperature), respectively, to maintain a cavity temperature of the cooking device at the second cooking temperature (fig. 25 second cooking temperature), the second cooking time being in a range of [15%t, 25%t], where t is the total cooking time (frozen chicken nuggets 2/5+2+5=16.6).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (20160360578).
Lim is taken as above.
With respect to claim 6, Lim teaches wherein said controlling at least one of the microwave module and the air frying module according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage comprises:
determining that a cooking temperature at the steady heating stage is a third cooking temperature in response to the cooking stage being the steady heating stage (par. 0137), the third cooking temperature being greater than or equal to the predetermined cooking temperature (fig. 25 equal to set temp.) and smaller than or equal to a sum of the predetermined cooking temperature and a second temperature threshold (fig. 25, where the singular temperature is less than a sum of two temperatures)
allocating microwave heating power and air frying heating power to the microwave module and the air frying module according to the total cooking power (par. 0136; fig. 25)
controlling the microwave module and the air frying module to continuously operate for a cooking time according to a microwave power and the air frying power (par. 0136; fig. 25), respectively, to maintain a cavity temperature of the cooking device at the cooking temperature (par. 0132).
Though silent to the third cooking stage comprising microwave and air-frying. Since Lim teaches a same combination cooking (par. 0135), since the type of cooking is food dependent and the operation being controlled by corresponding operation data (par. 0109) and since the determined food cooking stages include user input selection of food (par. 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the same microwave and air frying modules of Lim during a third cooking stage for its art recognized advantage of achieving a food dependent cooking and user desired texture by automatic cooking processes which heat the core of the food and cook the food to a texture and color as preset as taught by Lim (par. 0134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to further provide a third predetermined cooking stage such as in the instant case relative a flipping time of the food as taught by Lim (par. 0158) thus achieving a same desired cooking to a target degree and more specifically achieve even cooking due to turning the food over a plurality of times as taught by Lim (par. 0158).
Since cooking time is food and weight dependent (par. 0148), since cooking time is dictated by a desired degree of cooking or surface cooking (par. 0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the same microwave and air frying modules of Lim during a third cooking stage for a third cooking time being in a range of [25%t, 40%t], where t is the total cooking time for its art recognized advantage of achieving a food dependent cooking and user desired texture by automatic cooking processes which heat the core of the food and cook the food to a texture and color as preset as taught by Lim (par. 0126; 0134)
Claim 7, wherein said controlling at least one of the microwave module and the air frying module according to the cooking parameter and the cooking stage comprises:
determining that a cooking temperature at the crusting and coloring stage is a cooking temperature in response to the cooking stage being the crusting and coloring stage (par. 0126), the cooking temperature being greater than or equal to the predetermined cooking temperature (par. 0126 predetermined) and smaller than or equal to a sum of the predetermined cooking temperature and a third temperature threshold (fig. 25, where the singular temperature is less than a sum of two temperatures)
allocating microwave heating power and air frying heating power to the microwave module and the air frying module according to the total cooking power (par. 0136; fig. 25) and
controlling the microwave module and the air frying module to continuously operate for the cooking time according to the microwave power and the air frying power (par. 0136; fig. 25), respectively, to maintain a cavity temperature of the cooking device at the cooking temperature (par. 0132),
Though silent to a fourth cooking stage comprising microwave and air-frying. Since Lim teaches a same combination cooking (par. 0135), since the type of cooking is food dependent and the operation being controlled by corresponding operation data (par. 0109) and since the determined food cooking stages include user input selection of food (par. 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the same microwave and air frying modules of Lim during a fourth cooking stage for its art recognized advantage of achieving a food dependent cooking and user desired texture by automatic cooking processes which heat the core of the food and cook the food to a texture and color (par. 0126) as preset as taught by Lim (par. 0134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to further provide a fourth predetermined cooking stage such as in the instant case relative a flipping time of the food as taught by Lim (par. 0158) thus achieving a same desired cooking to a target degree and more specifically achieve even cooking due to turning the food over a plurality of times as taught by Lim (par. 0158).
Since cooking time is food and weight dependent (par. 0148), since cooking time is dictated by a desired degree of cooking or surface cooking (par. 0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the same microwave and air frying modules of Lim and the fourth time being in a range of [30%t, 50%t], where t is the total cooking time for its art recognized advantage of achieving a food dependent cooking and user desired texture by automatic cooking processes which heat the core of the food and cook the food to a texture and color as preset as taught by Lim (par. 0126; 0134)
In addition with respect to claims 6 and 7, since Lim teaches controlled and programmed sequence cooking, though silent to a third stage comprising both microwave and air frying or a fourth cooking stage as such. It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case providing a number of cooking stages which achieves the desired core cooking and color, texture and taste in accordance with user desires and kind and weight of cooking materials as further taught (par. 0157-0158).
With respect to claim 8, the predetermined cooking temperature and the total cooking power are each determined based on the type of the food material (par. 0112), the predetermined cooking temperature is in a range of [140°C, 250°C] (par. 0125; fig. 25) and
the total cooking time is determined based on the weight of the food material (par. 0114), and the total cooking time is in a range of [15min, 40min] (fig. 25).
Lim teaches a microwave heating unit for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a total cooking power is in a range of [1200W, 1800W] since such is device dependent, thus achieving a same desired microwave output for cooking at a desired power using an inverter as a driving circuit as further taught by Lim (par. 0075).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20130092682, 20110002677, 20020134778, 20110151072, 20080280000, 20180003687 directed to multiple food type cooking stages including convection/air frying and microwave.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792