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 .
Newly amended claims 6-11 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claim amendments are either the exact claim language from an unelected claim, such as the structure of the locking mechanism, or the same limitations, such as replacing “heating action setting condition of a processed material” with “data relating to the processed food material…”
All of the amended claim language is directed toward claim limitations which have been restricted and non-elected without traverse.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 6-11 as amended are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 6-11 as filed on 4/26/2023 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot as the are directed toward limitations subject to restriction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0234109) in view of Wen et al (CN 108594693) with references made to attached machine translation.
Chen discloses, regarding claim 6, a method for controlling a food processor, the food processor having the locking mechanism according to claim 1, comprising: step S1: acquiring data relating to a processed material in the food processor; step S2: calculating a curve of temperature variation of the processed material on the basis of the data; and step S3: when the temperature of the processed material calculated in step S2 is lower than a predetermined threshold value, sending a control instruction so that a push rod of an electromagnetic switch in the locking mechanism is moved away from an opening portion of a lever. (the control mechanism unlocks the locking mechanism of the machine door 6 based on a predetermined time; in a seventh embodiment of the invention, see Figure 10, the locking mechanism is utilized to bring the door 6 into an unlocked condition when the temperature inside the food machine is below a prescribed temperature. If the temperature within the chamber after the food machine has finished working is less than or equal to a prescribed temperature (i.e., a predetermined threshold), a determination is made as to whether the locking mechanism is in an unlocked state; if it is determined that the locking mechanism is still locked, the control mechanism disconnects the electrical circuit of the electromagnet 3, and as the magnetism of the electromagnet 3 disappears, the push rod 31 retracts out of the aperture 23 to unlock the locking mechanism to the door 6.)
Chen fails to disclose, calculating a curve of temperature variation of the processed material on the basis of the data. However, Wen discloses regarding claims 6 and 7, Curved with data recording different ingredient species, ingredient usage, cooking profile, weight (re: claim 7, See Paragraph [0045]) at various ambient temperatures, and cooling of the food to different temperatures after cooking is complete, when the acquired data is matched with the curves stored in the memory, the closest curve is found to make the prediction, resulting in the total amount of time the rice cooker performs the consumption at the current ambient temperature from weighing the ingredients in the cooking instructions to completion of cooking to cooling down to the meal temperature. (See Paragraph [0041], [0047])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Chen in view of Wen to provide calculating a curve of temperature variation of the processed material on the basis of the data for predicting when the food will cool to the desired temperature. Step S2 is not critical for operating the latch. Chen already discloses opening the lock when a temperature drops below a threshold. Wen is just used to show it would be obvious to use the same method for monitoring a temperature drop in a cooking device.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses, an unlocking operation of the food feeding machine according to when the temperature in the feeding machine is below a temperature threshold. The control mechanism unlocks the locking mechanism of the machine door 6 based on a predetermined time when the work of the food machine is completed. However, Wen discloses, the temperature variation profile obtained by testing the type of ingredient, weight, cooking parameters including heating time. From this profile the time required to cool down to a certain temperature can be obtained (See Paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Chen in view of Wen to calculate the curve of temperature variation of the processed material according to the category of the processed material and in combination with the weight data and/or the heating time data; and step S22: calculating preset time t1 required for the temperature of the processed material to reach the threshold value, comparing the preset time t1 with standing time t2 of the heated processed material in the food processor, and judging whether the temperature of the processed material is lower than the threshold value. Chen already discloses opening the lock when a temperature drops below a threshold. Wen is just used to show it would be obvious to use the same method for monitoring a temperature drop in a cooking device.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to use power level data, power data or heating time data for presetting a time. All of these parameters would be selected based on the desired operation of the device, or how one would prefer to control the device.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to use a temperature between 40 to 50 degree C since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0234109) in view of Wen et al (CN 108594693) and Ma et al (CN 115206009) with references made to attached machine translation.
The teachings of Chen have been discussed above. Chen fails to disclose, regarding claim 11, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a display screen having a locking identifier, and sending a control instruction in step S3 further comprises enabling the display state of the locking identifier to change.
However, Ma discloses an appliance with a locking mechanism having a display where a mark (identifier) is displayed when the device is locked and a different mark when the device is unlocked. A signal would be sent when the temperature drops below a threshold to indicate the door is unlocked. (See Paragraphs [0058] and [0101]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Chen in view of Ma to provide the locking mechanism comprises a display screen having a locking identifier, and sending a control instruction in step S3 further comprises enabling the display state of the locking identifier to change for indicating to the user when the device is locked and unlocked.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights