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
Applicant's election with traverse of the Restriction of 10/21/25 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the non-elected species are closely related and a search would not provide an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner maintains his position that a search of all of the claims of Groups I-III would cause a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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. The following limitations are as detailed hereafter:
“heating part”: “the heating part 140 may include a component for heating a subject for cooking or a cooking container, and a driving circuit that drives the component for heating a subject for cooking or a cooking container. For example, the heating part 140 may include a coil generating a magnetic field and a driving circuit driving the coil. Alternatively, the heating part 140 may include a heating wire generating heat and a driving circuit driving the heating wire….”, para. [0044].
“communication interface”: “the communication interface 120 includes circuitry, and it is a component that can communicate with an external apparatus or a server. The communication interface 120 may perform communication with an external apparatus or a server based on a wired or wireless communication method. The communication interface 120 may include a Bluetooth module, a Wi-Fi module, an infrared (IR) module, a local area network (LAN) module, an Ethernet module, etc. Here, each communication module may be implemented as at least one hardware chip. A wireless communication module may include at least one communication chip that performs communication according to various wireless communication protocols such as Zigbee, a Universal Serial Bus (USB), a Mobile Industry Processor Interface Camera Serial Interface (MIPI CSI), 3rd Generation (3G), 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Long Term Evolution (LTE), LTE Advanced (LTE-A), 4th Generation (4G), 5th Generation (5G), etc. other than the aforementioned communication methods.”, para. [0041].
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 which is directed toward an apparatus recites “inputting a value indicating the pattern of the change of the temperature of the subject for cooking into an artificial intelligence model”; however, no structural limitations are recited related to the claimed “artificial intelligence model”. As such, the term “artificial intelligence model” is value and does not clearly define any structural limitations which distinguish the claimed limitation over the prior art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (KR 20160096289), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yang (KR 20160096289).
With regard to claim 1, Yang describes an electronic apparatus (10) comprising: a heating part (16, FIG. 1) configured to heat a subject for cooking; a communication interface (inherent feature of control unit 20) configured to communicate with an external sensor (14); at least one memory (implicit feature of control unit 20) storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor (inherent feature of control unit 20) that is connected with the at least one memory and is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: acquire information on a temperature of the subject for cooking from the external sensor (“And the heating unit 16 is controlled based on the sensed temperature TS from the temperature sensor 14 so as to be heated The control unit 20 .”, pg, 3, ln. 1-2), identify a heating temperature corresponding to a pattern of change of the temperature of the subject for cooking (“In step S25, the control unit 20 calculates a temperature change rate VT for a reference time (for example, five seconds).”, pg. 3, ln. 31, and control the heating part to heat the subject for cooking at the heating temperature (“In step S27, the control unit 20 determines whether the calculated temperature change rate VT is equal to or greater than the first reference change rate R1. If the temperature change rate VT is equal to or larger than the first reference change rate R1, the process proceeds to step S29, and if not, the process proceeds to step S31. Since the temperature change rate VT is equal to or greater than the first reference change rate R1 in step S29, the control unit 20 determines that the temperature rises significantly and the minimum heating amount of the heating unit 16 Lt; / RTI > That is, the control unit 20 minimizes the output of the heating unit 16 in step S29, thereby preventing the temperature of the cooking vessel from rising sharply”, pg. 3, ln. 32-36).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 2, Yang describes the at least one processor (inherent feature of control unit 20) is further configured to: based on identifying that the pattern of change of the temperature of the subject for cooking corresponds to the temperature of the subject for cooking rising, identify a first value (“change rate VT”) indicating a degree that the temperature of the subject for cooking changes, and identify the heating temperature (“sensed temperature is equal to or higher than the high temperature determination temperature” / “sensed temperature is lower than the target temperature”) based on the first value (“wherein the controller calculates the temperature change rate when the sensed temperature is equal to or higher than the high temperature determination temperature. The method according to claim 1, Wherein the controller calculates the rate of temperature change when the sensed temperature is lower than the target temperature according to the cooking process. The method according to claim 1, Wherein the controller performs heating at a minimum heating amount if the calculated temperature change rate is equal to or higher than a first reference change rate. 5. The method of claim 4, Wherein the controller performs heating at an intermediate heating amount or an initial heating amount or a maximum heating amount in the cooking process if the estimated temperature change rate is less than the first reference change rate. The method according to claim 1, Wherein the control unit stops the heating by controlling the heating unit if the calculated temperature change rate is equal to or greater than the first reference change rate….”, cl. 2-6).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 6, Yang describes the at least one processor is further configured to: based on identifying that the temperature of the subject for cooking decreases by greater than or equal to a predetermined value (“TO”) from a first time point to a second time point (“The control unit 20 acquires the sensed temperature TS from the temperature sensor 14 and determines the target temperature TO of the currently performed cooking process and the sensed temperature TS from the temperature sensor 14 in step S11, If the sensed temperature TS is lower than the target temperature TO, the process proceeds to step S13, and if not, the process proceeds to step S15. In step S13, the control unit 20 performs the heating process because the sensing temperature TS, which is the temperature of the cooking container, is lower than the target temperature TO. The control unit 20 repeatedly performs steps S11 and S13 so as to start the heating process until the detected temperature TS reaches or exceeds the target temperature TO. A more detailed heating process is described in Figures 3a and 3b”, pg. 3, ln. 12-17)., identify a second heating temperature corresponding to the pattern of change of the temperature of the subject for cooking from the second time point (“second reference change rate R2”) (“In step S31, the control unit 20 determines whether the calculated temperature change rate VT is equal to or greater than a second reference change rate R2 that is smaller than the first reference change rate R1. If the temperature change rate VT is equal to or greater than the second reference change rate R2, the process proceeds to step S33, otherwise the process proceeds to step S35.”, pg. 3, ln. 39-41.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 20160096289).
With regard to claim 3, regarding the limitation of the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the first value being smaller than or equal to a predetermined value, identify a first temperature as the heating temperature, and based on the first value exceeding the predetermined value, identify a second temperature lower than the first temperature as the heating temperature, it is submitted that although the aforementioned limitations are not explicitly taught, it is submitted that such an adaptation of the control unit 20 of Yang would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation as the citation explicitly teaches that: “The control unit may calculate the temperature change rate when the sensed temperature is equal to or higher than the high temperature determination temperature. Preferably, the controller calculates the rate of temperature change when the sensed temperature is lower than the target temperature according to the cooking process. Preferably, the controller performs heating at a minimum heating amount if the calculated temperature change rate is equal to or higher than a first reference change rate. Preferably, the controller performs heating at an intermediate heating amount or an initial heating amount or a maximum heating amount in the cooking process if the calculated temperature change rate is less than the first reference change rate. Preferably, the controller stops the heating by controlling the heating unit if the calculated temperature change rate is greater than or equal to the first reference change rate.”, pg. 2, ln. 30-37.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 20160096289) in view of Werner (DE 102011009750).
With regard to claim 4, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above; however, Yang does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a mean absolute error (MAE) value between a line and a temperature data set, wherein the line is defined by a first point indicating a temperature value of the subject for cooking at a first time point and a second point indicating a temperature value of the subject for cooking at a second time point, and wherein the temperature data set comprises data reflecting changes to the temperature of the subject for cooking from the first time point to the second time point, and identify the heating temperature based on the MAE value. However, Werner from the same field of endeavor directed toward a method for operating a heater for a heating room involves operating or switching off a burner when the temperature gradient is greater than a threshold value where the gradient resulting with different powers is compared with different threshold values teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely the uneven line in FIG. 2 illustrates the actually measured temperature and the straight line is the corresponding mean value of the temperature rise: “There is the one with a temperature sensor 2 detected temperature after a start of the burner 1 applied over a period of 140 seconds. The temperature sensor 2 is there, like out 1 can be seen, preferably at the outlet end of the heat exchanger 3 , thus arranged on the so-called flow connection of the heater. The uneven line (in 2 ) shows the actually measured temperature, the straight line the corresponding mean value of the temperature rise. In the period of said 140 seconds is the burner 1 operated with a certain power. This power is the regulation 4 of the heater, either as a percentage or as an absolute value. It is also provided that for each adjustable power of the burner, a separate limit in the scheme 4 is deposited. Since the gradient of the temperature changes continuously over the period of 140 s (see 2 ) is further provided that the relevant temperature gradient is determined as an average of a number of individual temperature gradients in a given period of time (here 140 seconds). Related to 2 represents the slope of the straight line this temperature gradient. Is this greater than one for this power in the scheme 4 stored limit, will be the performance of the burner 1 at least reduces or becomes the burner 1 possibly even switched off directly. To do this at all power levels of the burner 1 to find an optimal reaction time (for power reduction or shutdown) is, as explained, essential that for all approachable power levels of the burner 1 a corresponding limit is defined.”, pg. 2, ln. 32-41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Yang reference, to include acquire a mean absolute error (MAE) value between a line and a temperature data set, wherein the line is defined by a first point indicating a temperature value of the subject for cooking at a first time point and a second point indicating a temperature value of the subject for cooking at a second time point, and wherein the temperature data set comprises data reflecting changes to the temperature of the subject for cooking from the first time point to the second time point, and identify the heating temperature based on the MAE value, as suggested and taught by Werner, for the purpose of providing a predetermined power value in view of a corresponding mean value of the temperature rise (Werner: pg. 2, ln. 32-41).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 5, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above; however, Yang does not teach; however, Yang does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a mean absolute error (MAE) value between a line and a temperature data set, wherein the temperature data set comprises data reflecting changes to the temperature of the subject for cooking over a period of time, and wherein the line is acquired by performing a regression analysis of the temperature data set, and identify the heating temperature based on the MAE value.
However, Werner from the same field of endeavor directed toward a method for operating a heater for a heating room involves operating or switching off a burner when the temperature gradient is greater than a threshold value where the gradient resulting with different powers is compared with different threshold values teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely the uneven line in FIG. 2 illustrates the actually measured temperature and the straight line is the corresponding mean value of the temperature rise (regression analysis of the temperature data set): “There is the one with a temperature sensor 2 detected temperature after a start of the burner 1 applied over a period of 140 seconds. The temperature sensor 2 is there, like out 1 can be seen, preferably at the outlet end of the heat exchanger 3 , thus arranged on the so-called flow connection of the heater. The uneven line (in 2 ) shows the actually measured temperature, the straight line the corresponding mean value of the temperature rise. In the period of said 140 seconds is the burner 1 operated with a certain power. This power is the regulation 4 of the heater, either as a percentage or as an absolute value. It is also provided that for each adjustable power of the burner, a separate limit in the scheme 4 is deposited. Since the gradient of the temperature changes continuously over the period of 140 s (see 2 ) is further provided that the relevant temperature gradient is determined as an average of a number of individual temperature gradients in a given period of time (here 140 seconds). Related to 2 represents the slope of the straight line this temperature gradient. Is this greater than one for this power in the scheme 4 stored limit, will be the performance of the burner 1 at least reduces or becomes the burner 1 possibly even switched off directly. To do this at all power levels of the burner 1 to find an optimal reaction time (for power reduction or shutdown) is, as explained, essential that for all approachable power levels of the burner 1 a corresponding limit is defined.”, pg. 2, ln. 32-41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Yang reference, to include at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a mean absolute error (MAE) value between a line and a temperature data set, wherein the temperature data set comprises data reflecting changes to the temperature of the subject for cooking over a period of time, and wherein the line is acquired by performing a regression analysis of the temperature data set, and identify the heating temperature based on the MAE value, as suggested and taught by Werner, for the purpose of providing a predetermined power value in view of a corresponding mean value of the temperature rise (Werner: pg. 2, ln. 32-41).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR 20160096289) in view of Burkhardt et al. (US 20170086258).
With regard to claim 7, Yang teaches the invention as claimed however does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire, from the external sensor, information on a water level of the subject for cooking, and based on the information on the water level indicating that the water level is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, identify the heating temperature based on the water level. However, Burkhard from the same field of endeavor directed toward a method of conducting a liquid based cooking process, controller and cooking hob assembly teaches the aforementioned limitation: “According to the invention, the controller may in one optional operational phase determine, calculate or estimate an amount of liquid contained in the cooking vessel and to use the amount of liquid thus determined in one of subsequent operational phases as one of the parameters for calculating or setting the heating power level of the heating element. The determination of the amount of liquid contained in the cooking vessel may be an initial step and/or may be conducted as an intermediate step within a cooking program. The proposed method, in particular by using a temperature sensor directly immersed, at least partially, in the liquid inside the vessel placed on a heating element of a cooking zone or hob allows improved and simplified cooking, in particular Sous Vide type cooking. An automatic calculation or estimation of the amount of liquid, in particular water, contained within the cooking vessel, simplifies cooking and allows improved cooking results. Beyond that using the amount of liquid in controlling cooking procedures may result in more efficient liquid-based cooking, boiling, simmering, poaching and/or deep-frying, and cooking and the like at least can be, as compared to known solutions, greatly enhanced.”, para. [0026]-[0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Yang reference, to include the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire, from the external sensor, information on a water level of the subject for cooking, and based on the information on the water level indicating that the water level is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, identify the heating temperature based on the water level, as suggested and taught by Burkhardt, for the purpose of determining a predetermined temperature to provide a heating unit (Burkhardt: para. [0026]-[0027])
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 8, Yang teaches the invention as claimed however does not teach the teaches the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the information on the water level indicating that the water level is lower than the predetermined value, control the heating part to heat the subject for cooking at a predetermined heating temperature.
However, Burkhard from the same field of endeavor directed toward a method of conducting a liquid based cooking process, controller and cooking hob assembly teaches the aforementioned limitation: “According to the invention, the controller may in one optional operational phase determine, calculate or estimate an amount of liquid contained in the cooking vessel and to use the amount of liquid thus determined in one of subsequent operational phases as one of the parameters for calculating or setting the heating power level of the heating element. The determination of the amount of liquid contained in the cooking vessel may be an initial step and/or may be conducted as an intermediate step within a cooking program. The proposed method, in particular by using a temperature sensor directly immersed, at least partially, in the liquid inside the vessel placed on a heating element of a cooking zone or hob allows improved and simplified cooking, in particular Sous Vide type cooking. An automatic calculation or estimation of the amount of liquid, in particular water, contained within the cooking vessel, simplifies cooking and allows improved cooking results. Beyond that using the amount of liquid in controlling cooking procedures may result in more efficient liquid-based cooking, boiling, simmering, poaching and/or deep-frying, and cooking and the like at least can be, as compared to known solutions, greatly enhanced.”, para. [0026]-[0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Yang reference, to include at least one processor is further configured to: based on the information on the water level indicating that the water level is lower than the predetermined value, control the heating part to heat the subject for cooking at a predetermined heating temperature, as suggested and taught by Burkhardt, for the purpose of determining a predetermined temperature to provide a heating unit (Burkhardt: para. [0026]-[0027])
Notwithstanding the foregoing, assuming it was determined that the cited prior art does not teach the functional limitations claimed and as the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is respectfully submitted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 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 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761