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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 06/26/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-8 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 9-26 are pending in the application. An action on the merits of claims 9-26 are as follow.
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.
Claims 9-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation “food item type” in various places respectively, rendering these claims indefinite. It was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. According to MPEP 2173.05(B) III. E.: The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). There isn’t any definition of what this "type" means in the specification. It is suggested Applicant consider simply reciting " food item". Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
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, 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.
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 9-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg et al. (US 2020/0200393 A1) in view of Lee (US 2019/0223474 A1) and Bhogal et al. (US 2016/0327281 Al).
Regarding Independent Claim 9, Goldberg et al. disclose a method for cooking using a cooking apparatus (oven rack system 100, [0095], Fig 1A) having a plurality of ovens (separate loadable oven 102, [0095], Fig 1A), comprising:
utilizing a temperature-control mode (a temperature control system, [0005]) to control oven temperature of at least one of said plurality of ovens throughout an entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (communicatively coupled to regulate the one or more heating elements of the ovens, [0005]);
Goldberg et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except did not disclose: recording and storing an amount of time said at least one of said plurality of ovens is engaged for cooking a food item type (oven to facilitate heating a food item, Abstract, Goldberg et al.) and a current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type during said temperature-control mode; wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required by said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type under said temperature-control mode using said recorded and stored current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for a plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type.
Lee teaches a method for cooking using a cooking apparatus (see Abstract), comprising:
utilizing a temperature-control mode (oven controller 105 of the present oven 100, [0024], Fig 1) to control oven temperature of at least one of said plurality of ovens (Note: “at least one of said selected ovens” taught by Goldberg et al. already) throughout an entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (in order to deliver heat to cook a food item to a desired temperature and result, [0038]), and
recording and storing an amount of time (electronic controller/processor
105, [0028]; computes the needed time and power needed to achieve the desired cooking results, [0030]; The controller 105 utilizes the sensor data to generate a cooking thermal model and determine the time and power output needed to cook the
food items, [0036]) said at least one of said plurality of ovens (“said at least one of said plurality of ovens” aught by Goldberg et al. already) is engaged for cooking a food item type (During the cooking process, operators are able to receive real-time updates from the oven's display panel 110 showing the remaining cooking time and a current temperature distribution plot of the food items that are being cooked, [0030]. Note: “a food item type” taught by Goldberg et al. already) and a current drawn (during said temperature-control mode; oven controller utilizes the results of the FEA model to calculate… a cooking power level for the cooking of the food items, [0014]) by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type during said temperature-control mode (computes the needed time and power needed to achieve the desired cooking results… showing the remaining cooking time and a current temperature distribution plot of the food items that are being cooked, [0030]);
And Bhogal et al. teach a method for cooking using a cooking apparatus (see Title), comprising:
wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required by said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type (oven parameter values associated with foodstuff cooking states… such as the amount of power to supply to each individual heating element, [0128]) under said temperature-control mode (a processing system 500, [0032]; control instructions for a set of heating elements, [0128]. Note: “said temperature-control mode” taught by Goldberg et al. already) using said recorded and stored current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for a plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type (stored cooking parameters recorded from the primary user's oven can subsequently be used to generate and/or control, [0150], Note: “said plurality of ovens”, “said food item type” taught by Goldberg et al. already).
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Goldberg et al. disclose an apparatus for cooking (oven rack system 100, [0095], Fig 1A) having a plurality of ovens (separate loadable oven 102, [0095], Fig 1A), comprising:
a housing containing a plurality of ovens (receive separate loadable ovens 102 which are loadable into a plurality of oven slots 110 in the configurable oven rack system, [0095], Fig 1A);
a control panel on said housing for receiving instructions from an operator (on-board control system 312… may require that the user provide an input, [0158]); and
a processor (processor- executable instructions, [0153]), within said housing,
utilizes a temperature-control mode (a temperature control system, [0005]) to control oven temperature of at least one of said plurality of ovens throughout an entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (communicatively coupled to regulate the one or more heating elements of the ovens, [0005]);
Goldberg et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except did not disclose, records and storing an amount of time said at least one of said plurality of ovens is engaged for cooking a food item type and a current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type during said temperature-control mode; wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required for said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type under said temperature-control mode using said recorded and stored current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for a plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type.
Lee teaches utilizes a temperature-control mode (oven controller 105 of the present oven 100, [0024], Fig 1) to control oven temperature of at least one of said plurality of ovens (Note: “at least one of said selected ovens” taught by Goldberg et al. already) throughout an entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (in order to deliver heat to cook a food item to a desired temperature and result, [0038]), and
records and stores an amount of time (electronic controller/processor
105, [0028]; computes the needed time and power needed to achieve the desired cooking results, [0030]; The controller 105 utilizes the sensor data to generate a cooking thermal model and determine the time and power output needed to cook the food items, [0036]) said at least one of said plurality of ovens (“said at least one of said plurality of ovens” aught by Goldberg et al. already) is engaged for cooking a food item type (During the cooking process, operators are able to receive real-time updates from the oven's display panel 110 showing the remaining cooking time and a current temperature distribution plot of the food items that are being cooked, [0030]. Note: “a food item type” taught by Goldberg et al. already) and a current drawn (during said temperature-control mode; oven controller utilizes the results of the FEA model to calculate… a cooking power level for the cooking of the food items, [0014]) by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type during said temperature-control mode (computes the needed time and power needed to achieve the desired cooking results… showing the remaining cooking time and a current temperature distribution plot of the food items that are being cooked, [0030]);
And Bhogal et al. teach a method for cooking using a cooking apparatus (see Title), comprising:
wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required for said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type (oven parameter values associated with foodstuff cooking states… such as the amount of power to supply to each individual heating element, [0128]) under said temperature-control mode (a processing system 500, [0032]; control instructions for a set of heating elements, [0128]. Note: “said temperature-control mode” taught by Goldberg et al. already) using said recorded and stored current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for a plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type (stored cooking parameters recorded from the primary user's oven can subsequently be used to generate and/or control, [0150], Note: “said plurality of ovens”, “said food item type” taught by Goldberg et al. already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Goldberg et al. with Lee’s further teaching of recording and storing (under independent claim 9)/ records and stores (under independent claim 18): an amount of time said at least one of said plurality of ovens is engaged for cooking a food item and a current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item during said temperature-control mode; because Lee teaches, in Abstract of providing a precision cooking oven by controlling the exact amount of energy protected into differing sections of the food during operation; and further modify Goldberg et al. in view of Lee with Bhogal et al.’s further teaching of wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required by (under independent claim 9)/ for (under independent claim 18): said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type under said temperature-control mode using said recorded and stored current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for a plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type; because Bhogal et al. teach, in Abstract of providing a cooking oven automatically identify foodstuff within the cooking cavity, based on the sensor measurements; and automatically operate the heating element based on the foodstuff identity.
Regarding Claims 10-17 and 19-26, Goldberg et al. in view of Lee and Bhogal et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; and further teaches:
Claim 10, wherein: said amount of time comprises a plurality of time units (generate a cooking thermal model and determine the time, [0036]; continuously adjust the cooking time, [0042], Lee) of said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (Note: “said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens” taught by Goldberg et al. already); and
said recording and storing comprises recording and storing said current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type during each of said plurality of time units of said entire cook cycle (a time frame…when the food items begin a cooking cycle, [0019], Goldberg et al.) of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (determine the time and power consumption that will be needed to achieve any desired cooking results, [0034], Lee).
Claim 11, wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required during each of said plurality of time units for said at least one of said plurality of ovens (“said plurality of time units for said at least one of said plurality of ovens” aught by Goldberg et al. already) when cooking said food item type under said temperature-control mode (the oven controller 105 of the present oven 100 (as shown in FIG. 1) determines the power needed and the cooking time that is necessary to cook a food item (or items), [0024], Lee).
Claim 12, wherein the current drawn that is recorded and stored for each of said plurality of time units throughout said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens is a running average of said current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens during a number of most recent cooks of said food item type (the detected information is utilized to continuously adjust the cooking time of the food in addition to adjusting the motion and power output of the food, [0042], Lee).
Claim 13, wherein said number of most recent cooks of said food item type used to calculate said running average can be changed (control panel 115 also requires the oven operator 100 to input information specifying food preparation result preferences, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the number of most recent cooks of said food item can be control by any operator through the control panel.).
Claim 14, wherein a length of time of each of said plurality of time units is identical (the remaining cooking time are continuously displayed by the control panel 115, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the length of time can be controlled by the operator).
Claim 15, wherein said length of time of each of said plurality of time units can be changed (the remaining cooking time are continuously displayed by the control panel 115, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the length of time can be controlled by the operator).
Claim 16, wherein said plurality of ovens include an impingement oven (ovens 102 take the form of air impingement ovens, [0110], Goldberg et al.) and a convection oven (some cooking units… to operate in a convective cooking mode, [0093], Goldberg et al.).
Claim 17, wherein said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens during said temperature-control mode is guided by information stored within a Food Entry Table (and a modulus of elasticity for each food item that is to be cooked from input information entered at the control panel by an oven operator, [0013], Lee).
Claim 19, wherein: said amount of time comprises a plurality of time units (generate a cooking thermal model and determine the time, [0036]; continuously adjust the cooking time, [0042], Lee) of said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens (Note: “said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens” taught by Goldberg et al. already); and
said current drawn during each one of said plurality of time units (controller 105… determine the time and power output needed to cook the food items, [0036], Lee) by said at least one of said plurality of ovens for cooking said food item type is recorded and stored (a time frame…when the food items begin a cooking cycle, [0019], Goldberg et al.)
Claim 20, wherein said cooking apparatus learns how much current was recently required in each of said plurality of time units (“said plurality of time units for said at least one of said plurality of ovens” aught by Goldberg et al. already) for said at least one of said plurality of ovens when cooking said food item type under said temperature-control mode (the oven controller 105 of the present oven 100 (as shown in FIG. 1) determines the power needed and the cooking time that is necessary to cook a food item (or items), [0024], Lee).
Claim 21, wherein the current drawn that is recorded and stored for each of said plurality of time units throughout said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens is a running average of said current drawn by said at least one of said plurality of ovens during said plurality of most recent cooks of said food item type (the detected information is utilized to continuously adjust the cooking time of the food in addition to adjusting the motion and power output of the food, [0042], Lee).
Claim 22, wherein said number of most recent cooks of said food item type used to calculate said running average can be changed (control panel 115 also requires the oven operator 100 to input information specifying food preparation result preferences, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the number of most recent cooks of said food item can be control by any operator through the control panel.).
Claim 23, wherein a length of time of each of said plurality of time units is identical (control panel 115 also requires the oven operator 100 to input information specifying food preparation result preferences… the remaining cooking time are continuously displayed by the control panel 115, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the length of time can be controlled by the operator).
Claim 24, wherein said length of time of each of said plurality of time units can be changed (control panel 115 also requires the oven operator 100 to input information specifying food preparation result preferences… the remaining cooking time are continuously displayed by the control panel 115, [0046], Lee; Clearly, the length of time can be controlled by the operator).
Claim 25, wherein said plurality of ovens include an impingement oven (ovens 102 take the form of air impingement ovens, [0110], Goldberg et al.) and a convection oven (some cooking units… to operate in a convective cooking mode, [0093], Goldberg et al.).
Claim 26, wherein said entire cook cycle of said at least one of said plurality of ovens during said temperature-control mode is guided by information stored within a Food Entry Table (and a modulus of elasticity for each food item that is to be cooked from input information entered at the control panel by an oven operator, [0013], Lee; Clearly, the operator can input information through 115 to store information within a Food Entry Table as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the previous Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding claims 9 and 18 (Claim 18, includes similar limitations as Claim 9), namely “The Office Action's reliance on MPEP §2173 .05(b) III. E. is inapposite. The cases cited therein involved definite expressions of chemical compounds (i.e., Friedel Crafts compounds and ZSM-5 catalysts) that the Board found were rendered less definite by the addition of word "type" to the expression of the compound. See Ex Parte Copenhaver, 109 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 118 (B.P.I. March 21, 1955); Ex Parte Attig, No. 643-48, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1092, 1093 (B.P.A.I. August 27, 1986). In contrast, the term "food item" can encompass various kinds of food items and the phrase "food item type" is used in the present application to refer to particular kinds of food items (e.g., pizza, sandwich, biscuits, and hot dog, etc.)”.
The examiner’s response: Since there isn’t any definition of what this "type" means in the specification. It is suggested Applicant consider simply reciting " food item", Claims 9-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor. It is suggested Applicant consider simply reciting " food item". Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks regarding claims 9 and 18 (Claim 18, includes similar limitations as Claim 9), namely “The Combination of Goldberg, Lee, and Bhogal Lacks an Adequate Motivation to Combine”, “Lee is concerned with the spatial distribution of energy within a food item that is currently being cooked, not with managing the power consumption or cooking history of multiple ovens across repeated cooking cycles”, “Bhogal is concerned with foodstuff classification and user experience, not with tracking per oven current consumption nor with learning power profiles over repeated cooks of the same food item type”, and “The motivation to combine references must be grounded in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to the person of ordinary skill in the art, not in the invention being examined”, “In this regard, Lee explicitly teaches away from a combination with Goldberg in the manner proposed by the Examiner”, and “teaching in Bhogal is in the context of a single-cavity, consumer oven used by individual users for recipe generation - not a multi-oven, commercial apparatus that accumulates per-oven current-drawn data”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Goldberg et al. (US 2020/0200393 A1) in view of Lee (US 2019/0223474 A1) and Bhogal et al. (US 2016/0327281 Al) teach exactly 1. a method for cooking using a cooking apparatus having a plurality of ovens, and 2. an apparatus for cooking having a plurality of ovens, fully disclose all the recited limitations of independent Claims 9 and 18 respectively as set forth in this office action shown above; neither Lee nor Bhogal et al. teach away from a combination with Goldberg; because Lee teaches with a motivation of providing a precision cooking oven by controlling the exact amount of energy protected into differing sections of the food during operation (see Abstract); and Bhogal et al. teach with a motivation of providing a cooking oven automatically identify foodstuff within the cooking cavity, based on the sensor measurements; and automatically operate the heating element based on the foodstuff identity (see Abstract); it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) (See MPEP 2145 X. A.). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP 2143.01). (07-37-02). During “examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights