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 .
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 1-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “a function of cooking” but fails to describe or claims the “function”. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Is this a mathematical function of cooking based on an equation? Is the function how the cooking appliance is operating?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a function of cooking" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a motor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “dependent on the function.” It is not clear if this limitation is referring to “a function of cooking”. The function is also not claimed or described. It is unclear what is intended to be included in the limitations of “function”.
Claim 5 recites “a user can skip a step of selection”. However, no selection step is claimed. Claims 1 and 5 recite an apparatus, not a method.
Claim 5 is generally narrative in scope. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. It is unclear if claim 5 is recited a function or narrating steps for operation. Claim 5 does not contain any structure and is not clear if the claim language is functional.
Claim 6 recites “a composition of the artifact is inferred from a selection of the function”. However, selecting a function is not claimed. It is also unclear how the inference would be determined based on a selection of a function.
Claim 10 recites “a function”, but fails to set forth any limitations to indicate what is included in “a function”. It is unclear what is intended to be included in the limitations of “function”. Is this a mathematical function of cooking based on an equation? Is the function how the cooking appliance is operating?
Claim 10 recites “to achieve the function”. What function is being achieved? What is performing the function?
Claim 12 is mostly nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. “a fan is configured a removable blade based on the function [function of what?] and a blade of the plurality of blades.” It is not clear what any of this is supposed to mean. Claim 12 also recites “with has a different geometry than another blade.”
How is a fan blade configured or considered removable based on the function?
Claim 14 recites “a user can skip a step of a selection”. No selection step is previously claimed.
Claim 15 recites “a composition of the artifact is inferred from a selection of the function”. However, selecting a function is not claimed. It is also unclear how the inference would be determined based on a selection of a function.
Claim 18 recites “a function” but fails to describe or claims the “function”. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Is this a mathematical function of cooking based on an equation? Is the function how the cooking appliance is operating?
Claim 18 recites “a function of cooking” but fails to describe or claims the “function”. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Is this a mathematical function of cooking based on an equation? Is the function how the cooking appliance is operating?
Claim 19 is mostly nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. “a fan is configured a removable blade based on the function [function of what?] and a blade of the plurality of blades.” It is not clear what any of this is supposed to mean. Claim 12 also recites “with has a different geometry than another blade.”
Claim 21 recites “a user can skip a step of selection”. However, no selection step is claimed. Claims 18 and 21 recite an apparatus, not a method.
Claim 21 is generally narrative in scope. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. It is unclear if claim 5 is recited a function or narrating steps for operation. Claim 5 does not contain any structure and is not clear if the claim language is functional.
Claim 22 recites “a composition of the artifact is inferred from a selection of the function”. However, selecting a function is not claimed. It is also unclear how the inference would be determined based on a selection of a function.
Claim 24 recites “the fan of a plurality of fans.” The plurality of fans must be established before discussing an individual fan.
It is suggested applicant amend claim 18 to recite “at least one fan.” Then claim 24 should recite “wherein one of the at least one fans…”
Any claim not discussed is considered indefinite due to its dependency 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 (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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299).
Anthony discloses, Regarding claim 1, a cooking appliance with a variable airflow for cooking an artifact using convection current, the cooking appliance comprising (Fig 1 shows a cooking appliance having variable airflow for cooking with a convection current. See Paragraphs [0069], [0104]:
a fan, wherein the fan creates the variable airflow (air movement device or fan 84, is a variable speed fan for creating a variable airflow. See Paragraph [0104]);
a motor with variable speed control (the motor 86 drive the fan 84. As the fan is operable at a variable speed, the motor is controlled at a variable speed. See Paragraph [0073]);
a communication module (input module 92);
an interface coupled with the communication module that receives a function of cooking and a plurality of user parameters for cooking the artifact, wherein the interface receives a function of cooking and the plurality of user parameters for cooking the artifact (user interface or control panel 92 allows a user to set a plurality of parameters, See Paragraphs [0072]-[0075]);
a control system to affect the variable speed control (control system 96 controls the operation and speed of the fan and motor); and
a temperature sensor to provide temperature measurement of the artifact without making contact between the temperature sensor and the artifact to the control system that regulates the variable airflow according to the plurality of user parameters and the temperature measurement. (controlling the air speed based on a temperature measurement. “The operational speed of the air movement device 84 may be controlled by the processor 98 in response to one or more inputs 92, including selection of a cooking mode. However, the processor 98 may also be configured to adjust the operational speed of the air movement device 84, or alternatively, the power supplied to the one or more heating elements 82, 122, to control the temperature and/or pressure within the interior 38 of the cooking container 36.” See Paragraph [0104]) Anthony fails to disclose sensing the temperature without contacting the food. Vaupot discloses, controlling the fan speed based on a temperature. (See Paragraph [0069]) Temperature sensor 30 detects the temperature of the food without making contact. (See Paragraph [0053]. It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Vaupot to provide a temperature sensor to provide temperature measurement of the artifact without making contact between the temperature sensor and the artifact for eliminating the need for a probe to be inserted in the food.
Anthony discloses, regarding claim 4, the controller 98 controls the direction of rotation of the fan. The claim does not state more than one direction.
Claim 5 is generally narrative in scope. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. It is unclear if claim 5 is recited a function or narrating steps for operation. Claim 5 does not contain any structure and is not clear if the claim language is functional. Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to use an IR temperature sensor as this is an obvious variant for a no contact temperature sensor.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299) and Kularatna et al (US 2011/0038186).
The teachings of Anthony have been discussed above. Anthony discloses a fan having a variable speed motor, but fails to disclose the motor being a variac. However, Kularatna discloses common techniques for controlling the speed of a motor are to use a variac. (See Pargraph [0006]) It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Kularatna to provide the variac as this is an obvious variant for a variable speed motor to be used with AC.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299) and Bhogal et al (US 2022/0117274).
The teachings of Anthony have been discussed above. Anthony fails to disclose, a composition of the artifact is inferred from a selection of the function.
Bhogal discloses detecting a food type based on certain events and determining a control scheme for the appliance. (See Paragraphs [0027], [0057], [0070]). It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Bhogal to provide inferring a composition based on the selection of the function for automatically determining which cooking profile to use and how to control the heating elements.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299) and Songer et al (US 2023/0025683).
The teachings of Anthony have been discussed above. Anthony fails to disclose, the plurality of user parameters is programmed through a user application for a cooking cycle with different periods.
Songer discloses an air frying device having a user application 1000 on a smart phone for entering a plurality of user parameters. (See Paragraph [0065])
It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Songer to provide the plurality of user parameters is programmed through a user application for a cooking cycle with different periods for controlling the cooking appliance remotely. Any steps in the application are considered to be an obvious intended use based on the desired operation of the device. No structure is claimed and the application would not change the function of any claimed structure.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299) and Kularatna et al (US 2011/0038186).
Anthony discloses, Regarding claim 1, a cooking appliance with a variable airflow for cooking an artifact using convection current, the cooking appliance comprising (Fig 1 shows a cooking appliance having variable airflow for cooking with a convection current. See Paragraphs [0069], [0104]:
a fan, wherein the fan creates the variable airflow (air movement device or fan 84, is a variable speed fan for creating a variable airflow. See Paragraph [0104]);
a motor with variable speed control (the motor 86 drive the fan 84. As the fan is operable at a variable speed, the motor is controlled at a variable speed. See Paragraph [0073]);
a communication module (input module 92);
an interface coupled with the communication module that receives a function of cooking and a plurality of user parameters for cooking the artifact, wherein the interface receives a function of cooking and the plurality of user parameters for cooking the artifact (user interface or control panel 92 allows a user to set a plurality of parameters, See Paragraphs [0072]-[0075]);
a control system to affect the variable speed control (control system 96 controls the operation and speed of the fan and motor); and
a temperature sensor to provide temperature measurement of the artifact without making contact between the temperature sensor and the artifact to the control system that regulates the variable airflow according to the plurality of user parameters and the temperature measurement. (controlling the air speed based on a temperature measurement. “The operational speed of the air movement device 84 may be controlled by the processor 98 in response to one or more inputs 92, including selection of a cooking mode. However, the processor 98 may also be configured to adjust the operational speed of the air movement device 84, or alternatively, the power supplied to the one or more heating elements 82, 122, to control the temperature and/or pressure within the interior 38 of the cooking container 36.” See Paragraph [0104]) Anthony fails to disclose sensing the temperature without contacting the food. Vaupot discloses, controlling the fan speed based on a temperature. (See Paragraph [0069]) Temperature sensor 30 detects the temperature of the food without making contact. (See Paragraph [0053]. It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Vaupot to provide a temperature sensor to provide temperature measurement of the artifact without making contact between the temperature sensor and the artifact for eliminating the need for a probe to be inserted in the food. Kularatna discloses common techniques for controlling the speed of a motor are to use a variac. (See Pargraph [0006]) It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Kularatna to provide the variac as this is an obvious variant for a variable speed motor to be used with AC. It would have been obvious to use an IR temperature sensor as this is an obvious variant for a no contact temperature sensor.
Anthony discloses, regarding claim 20, the controller 98 controls the direction of rotation of the fan. The claim does not state more than one direction.
Claim 5 is generally narrative in scope. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. It is unclear if claim 5 is recited a function or narrating steps for operation. Claim 5 does not contain any structure and is not clear if the claim language is functional.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299), Kularatna et al (US 2011/0038186) and Bhogal et al (US 2022/0117274).
The teachings of Anthony have been discussed above. Anthony fails to disclose, a composition of the artifact is inferred from a selection of the function.
Bhogal discloses detecting a food type based on certain events and determining a control scheme for the appliance. (See Paragraphs [0027], [0057], [0070]). It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Bhogal to provide inferring a composition based on the selection of the function for automatically determining which cooking profile to use and how to control the heating elements.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony et al (US 2019/0254476) in view of Vaupot et al (US 2022/0000299), Kularatna et al (US 2011/0038186) and Songer et al (US 2023/0025683).
The teachings of Anthony have been discussed above. Anthony fails to disclose, the plurality of user parameters is programmed through a user application for a cooking cycle with different periods.
Songer discloses an air frying device having a user application 1000 on a smart phone for entering a plurality of user parameters. (See Paragraph [0065])
It would have been obvious to adapt Anthony in view of Songer to provide the plurality of user parameters is programmed through a user application for a cooking cycle with different periods for controlling the cooking appliance remotely. Any steps in the application are considered to be an obvious intended use based on the desired operation of the device. No structure is claimed and the application would not change the function of any claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights