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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the present claims, all relate to exemplary aspects of an oven appliance. As such, any search would necessarily overlap one another, allowing examination of all embodiments in a single application to conserve the limited resources of the patent office. Also, no additional burden will be placed on the Examiner.” (remarks page 9). This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). There would be a serious search and examination burden if the restriction was not required between the method and apparatus claims. This stems from the different examination criteria between method and apparatus claims. In this case, apparatus claims differentiate from method claims, since for apparatus claims, it is primarily the claimed structural features that are given patentable weight while other features such as material worked upon by the apparatus are not given patentable weight. This difference would extend into a search burden since process claims take into account features such as material worked upon, or operating procedures, which may have different classification classes/subclasses for consideration. Meanwhile, the apparatus claims would extend to different areas of consideration since the material worked upon would not limit prior art references since the references merely need to have a similar structure that is capable of working upon the materials whereas the same said references might not be considered as prior art for the process claims. Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Thus, the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims. Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-18 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claim 1.
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. As noticed in paragraph 0028, the controller 50 may include one or more memory devices and one or more microprocessors, such as general or special purpose microprocessors operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with an operating cycle.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the limitation “the temperature” should read “the temperature sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
In claim 1, line 9, the limitation “a food item” is unclear if it is referring to the food item recited in line 5, or a different food item.
In claim 8, line 11, the limitation “a lower delta limit” is unclear if it is referring to the lower delta limit recited in line 9, or a different lower delta limit.
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected due to their inherited deficiency (dependency from claim 1).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (US 2021/0145212) in view of WU (US 2019/0250043).
Regarding claim 1, WANG teaches an oven appliance (10; para. 0026) comprising: a cabinet defining a cooking chamber (as shown in Fig. 1); a heat source disposed within the cooking chamber (para. 0026); a temperature sensor (120, 125; as shown in Fig. 1; para. 0037-0038) in thermal communication with the cooking chamber (as shown in Fig. 1) to detect temperature at a food item (15) therein (para. 0037; 0025); a user interface (130; as shown in Fig. 1; para. 0027; 0029; 0040) comprising a display attached to the cabinet (via wired the computing system or directly to the cabinet of the cooking system; para. 0027; 0029; as shown in Fig. 1); and a controller (computing system 110; as shown in Fig. 1) in operable communication with the temperature sensor (para. 0027-0028; 0037), the controller being configured to direct a monitoring operation comprising measuring a first temperature of a food item within the cooking chamber of the oven appliance (part of the current temperature curve/profile; para. 0030-0031; 0060-0061; 0066), determining elapse of a detection interval instance following detection of the first temperature (part of the current temperature curve/profile; para. 0030-0031; 0060-0061; 0066), measuring a second temperature of the food item following measuring the first temperature (part of the current temperature curve/profile; para. 0030-0031; 0060-0061; 0066), calculating a temperature delta between the second temperature and the first temperature (part of the current temperature curve/profile; para. 0030-0031; 0060-0061; 0066), determining a time delta of time between measuring the first temperature and measuring the second temperature (part of the current temperature curve/profile; para. 0030-0031; 0060-0061; 0066), estimating a remaining time of the food item based on the time delta and the temperature delta (para. 0066; 0069; 0077-0078), and presenting the estimated remaining time at the user interface of the oven appliance (para. 0047; 0079-0081).
WANG fails to explicitly disclose determining the temperature delta is within a predetermined functional range, and estimating a remaining time of the food item based on the time delta in response to determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range.
WU teaches determining the temperature delta is within a predetermined functional range (S1023; as shown in Fig. 11; para. 0076-0077), determining a time delta of time between measuring a first temperature and measuring a second temperature (para. 0080-0086), and estimating a remaining time of the food item based on the time delta in response to determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range (does not exceed the threshold; para. 0077; 0089-0095).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitoring operation of the controller of WANG, with WU, by determining the temperature delta is within a predetermined functional range, and estimating a remaining time of the food item based on the time delta in response to determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range, to assure cooking/food quality, and further improve and assure proper determination of the estimated cooking remaining time. POSITA would have known that determining the temperature delta is within a predetermined functional range, and estimating a remaining time of the food item based on the time delta in response to determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring cooking/food quality, and further improve and assure proper determination of the estimated cooking remaining time.
Regarding claim 2, WANG and WU combined teach the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the temperature is disposed within the cooking chamber of the oven appliance (WANG; as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the first temperature is measured at the temperature sensor within the cooking chamber (WANG, as shown in Fig. 1, para. 0037; WU, para. 0030), and wherein the second temperature is measured at the temperature sensor within the cooking chamber (WANG, as shown in Fig. 1, para. 0037; WU, para. 0030).
Regarding claim 3, WANG and Wu combined teach the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range comprises determining an absolute value of the temperature delta is less than or equal to an upper delta limit (WU; as shown in Fig. 11; the false result of the question |T1 – Tp1| > VTH1? is less than or equal to the threshold value).
Regarding claim 4, WANG and WU combined teach the oven appliance of claim 3, wherein determining the temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range comprises determining the temperature delta is greater than or equal to a lower delta limit following determining the absolute value of the temperature delta is less than the upper delta limit (WU; as shown in Fig. 11; the false result of the question |T1 – Tp1| > VTH1? is less than or equal to the threshold value, which range inherently will have a lower delta limit, like cero).
Regarding claim 5, WANG and WU combined teach all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the lower delta limit is less than or equal to 10° Fahrenheit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed lower delta limit, 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.
Regarding claim 6, WANG and WU combined teach the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the monitoring operation further comprises determining elapse of a second detection interval instance following detection of the second temperature (WANG, the detection process is continuously performed until cooking completion, para. 0039; 0047; 0060-0061; WU, the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094, as shown in Fig. 11), measuring a third temperature of the food item in response to elapse of the second detection interval instance (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), calculating a second temperature delta between the third temperature and the second temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining an absolute value of the second temperature delta is greater than an upper delta limit (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), and maintaining the estimated remaining time in response to determining the absolute value of the second temperature delta is greater than or equal to the upper delta limit (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, in this case, if threshold exceeded, time remaining is not updated; para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, WANG and WU combined teach the oven appliance of claim 6, wherein the monitoring operation further comprises determining elapse of a third detection interval instance following detection of the second temperature (WANG, the detection process is continuously performed until cooking completion, para. 0039; 0047; 0060-0061; WU, the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094, as shown in Fig. 11), measuring a fourth temperature of the food item in response to elapse of the third detection interval instance (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), calculating a third temperature delta between the fourth temperature and the third temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining the third temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining a third time delta of time between measuring the third temperature and measuring the fourth temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), updating the estimated remaining time of the food item based on the third time delta in response to determining the third temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range (WU; the detection process and time remaining calculation is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), and presenting the updated estimated remaining time at the user interface of the oven appliance (WANG, para. 0047, 0079-0081; WU, para. 0011, 0089).
Regarding claim 8, WANG and WU combined teach the oven appliance of claim 1, wherein the monitoring operation further comprises determining elapse of a second detection interval instance following detection of the second temperature (WANG, the detection process is continuously performed until cooking completion, para. 0039; 0047; 0060-0061; WU, the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094, as shown in Fig. 11), measuring a third temperature of the food item in response to elapse of the second detection interval instance (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), calculating a second temperature delta between the third temperature and the second temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining the second temperature delta is less than a lower delta limit (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), and maintaining the estimated remaining time in response to determining the second temperature delta is less than a lower delta limit (WU; the detection process and remaining time calculation is continuously performed until terminated, in this case, if outside range, time remaining is not updated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, WANG and WU combined teach teaches the oven appliance of claim 8, wherein the monitoring operation further comprises determining elapse of a third detection interval instance following detection of the second temperature (WANG, the detection process is continuously performed until cooking completion, para. 0039; 0047; 0060-0061; WU, the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094, as shown in Fig. 11), measuring a fourth temperature of the food item in response to elapse of the third detection interval instance (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), calculating a third temperature delta between the fourth temperature and the second temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining the third temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), determining a third time delta of time between measuring the second temperature and measuring the fourth temperature (WU; the detection process is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), updating the estimated remaining time of the food item based on the third time delta in response to determining the third temperature delta is within the predetermined functional range (WU; the detection process and time remaining calculation is continuously performed until terminated, para. 0077-0094; as shown in Fig. 11), and presenting the updated estimated time at the user interface of the oven appliance (WANG, para. 0047, 0079-0081; WU, para. 0011, 0089).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0117438, US 2007/0215599 and US 2008/0056328.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/29/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights