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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 11/20/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1, 3, 6 and 9 has /have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are pending in the application with claims 10-14 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-9 are as follow.
The previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections, objections to the specification are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims and the specification with no new matter added.
Claim Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “an image capturing device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “image capturing” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [00036], Fig 1A, cooking device 106 may have an image acquisition device (IAD) 102 removably attached.
B. Claim limitation “transmitting the at least one image, by a controller” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “transmitting” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [000147], Fig 4, IAD 400 may contain a controller 402 that may be configured to communicate with an imaging device 404.
C. Claim limitation “transmitting the at least one image, by a controller, to a remote electronic device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a remote electronic device” coupled with functional language “transmitting to” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [000132], The remote electronic device can be any portable or non-portable computing device such as a cellular phone, tablet, computer, media device, netbook, laptop, or any other similar electronic device.
D. Claim limitation “a reference device… determining a temperature” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “determining a temperature” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 5 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [00040 and 00060], Fig 1A, Cooking device 106 may have a temperature sensor 104 positioned within the cooking device 106
E. Claim limitation “a temperature sensing device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “temperature sensing” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [00040 and 0060], Fig 1A, Cooking device 106 may have a temperature sensor 104 positioned within the cooking device 106.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (US 2017/0000292 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, PARK et al. disclose a method for monitoring an item being cooked within a cooking device (an oven 1, [0081], Figs 1 and 35), comprising:
capturing, by an image capturing device (a camera module 110 of the monitoring unit 100, [0112], Figs 1 and 35) mounted to an external surface of the cooking device (see Figs 1 and 35), at least one image of the item being cooked within the cooking device (camera module 110 which takes the image of the inside of the cooking compartment 20, [0114]);
saving the at least one image to a memory (micom 300a may take the image of the cooking compartment 20 using various modes of the camera module 110, [0296], Fig 35); and
transmitting the at least one image, by a controller, to a remote electronic device (micom 300a may transmit the image information to the external device 1000, [0286]);
determining cooking data based on at least the at least one image, the cooking data pertains to the item being cooked within the cooking device (micom 300a which receives the information may control the monitoring unit 100 to transmit the image information obtained by the monitoring unit 100 to the display module control portion 63, [0298]. Clearly any user can “determining cooking data based on at least the at least one image, the cooking data pertains to the item being cooked within the cooking device” as claimed); and
displaying at least a portion of the cooking data on a display of the remote electronic device (external device 1000 may generally be a mobile device such as a smart phone, a tablet phone, a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop personal computer, [0262]).
Claim 2, wherein the image capturing device includes at least one camera (a camera module 110 of the monitoring unit 100, [0112], Fig 1).
Independent Claim 9, PARK et al. disclose a method for monitoring an item being cooked within a cooking device (an oven 1, [0081], Figs 1 and 35), comprising:
capturing, by an image capturing device (a camera module 110 of the monitoring unit 100, [0112], Figs 1 and 35) mounted to an external surface of the cooking device (see Figs 1 and 35), at least one image of the item being cooked within the cooking device (camera module 110 which takes the image of the inside of the cooking compartment 20, [0114]);
saving the at least one image to a memory (micom 300a may take the image of the cooking compartment 20 using various modes of the camera module 110, [0296], Fig 35); and
transmitting the at least one image, by a controller, to a remote electronic device (micom 300a may transmit the image information to the external device 1000, [0286]); and
displaying cooking data on a display of the remote electronic device (external device 1000 may generally be a mobile device such as a smart phone, a tablet phone, a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop personal computer, [0262]), wherein the cooking data pertains to the item being cooked within the cooking device and includes at least temperature data (adjusting an internal temperature of the cooking compartment 20 of the oven 1, [0282]. Clearly, “the cooking data” is “pertains to the item being cooked within the cooking device” as claimed).
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 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2017/0000292 A1) in view of Elnicky (US 2006/0092317 A1).
Regarding Claims 3-4, PARK et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 3-4.
Elnicky teaches an assembly for mounting a remotely controlled camera (assembly 10 supports a camera 14… a remote control 18 with the assistance of a controller 20, [0015], Fig 1), and Claim 3, wherein the capturing further comprises electronically adjusting the camera via the remote electronic device (the remote control 18 to pivot, pan, tilt, and zoom the focus of the camera to adjust the photographic angles of the event taking place below, [0015]).
Claim 4, wherein the capturing further comprises obtaining images from multiple angles within the cooking device (the remote control 18 to pivot, pan, tilt, and zoom the focus of the camera to adjust the photographic angles of the event taking place below, [0015]). 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 PARK et al. with Elnicky’s further teaching of Claims 3-4; because Elnicky teaches, in Abstract, of providing an excellent method of convenience control the camera through the remote control during operation.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2017/0000292 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 10,713,726 B1).
Regarding Claims 5-7, PARK et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 5-7.
Allen et al. teach a mounting system (Abstract, Fig 1), and Claim 5, further comprising: locating a reference device (Temperature sensor 90, col 9 line 41, Fig 1) on the at least one image (camera 92, Col 8 line 66, Fig 1. Note: “the at least one image” taught by PARK et al. already);
determining a temperature of the item being cooked based on the reference device (detect that point sources of heat/fire (e.g., oven, stove), Col 15 line 32-35); and
determining if the item being cooked is overcooked based on the determined temperature (computing device 300, Col 7 line 2, device 300 is preferably configured and operational to receive (capture) data from various sensors 90 and cameras 92 regarding certain measured aspects of the dwelling, Col 9 line 11-14, Fig 2).
Claim 6, wherein the reference device comprises a temperature sensing device (Temperature sensor 90, Col 9 line 41, Fig 1).
Claim 7, further comprising determining a temperature of the item being cooked based on the reference device (detect that point sources of heat/fire (e.g., oven, stove), Col 15 line 32-35; device 300 may perform analytics regarding the captured sensor or imagery data, Col 9 line 16-17. Note: “the item being cooked” taught by PARK 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 PARK et al. with Allen et al.’s further teaching of transmitting an audio alert when the predefined cooking time is complete; because Allen et al. teach, in Abstract, of providing an excellent method of determines environmental conditions associated with the collected data, and determines/ adjusts operating parameters associated with appliances within the structure based on the one of the data sets for operational safety and convenance.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 2017/0000292 A1) in view of Kovach (US 9,791,936 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, PARK et al. disclose further comprising: determining a predefined cooking time (a cooking time may be transmitted to the oven 1, [0282]); PARK et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: transmitting an audio alert when the predefined cooking time is complete.
Kovach further teaches an oven (appliance 100, Fig 1, Col 3 line 55), and Claim 8, comprising: transmitting an audio alert when the predefined cooking time is complete (user’s device 512 may provide notification (audio) to the user 510 that an event has occurred (cooking time reached), Col 10 line 8-11, Fig 5). 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 PARK et al. with Kovach’s further teaching of transmitting an audio alert when the predefined cooking time is complete; because Kovach teaches, in Col 10 line 8-11, of providing an excellent method of promptly notified the user through the control system during operation for safety reason.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “The Examiner also rejected claim 9, which depends from claim 1. Claim 9 is patentably distinct from Park et al. for at least similar reasons as claim 1. Additionally, Park et al. fails to teach or suggest "displaying cooking data on a display of the image capturing device, wherein the cooking data includes at least temperature data," as recited in claim 9. Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that claim 1 is patentably distinct from Park. In addition, it is submitted that dependent claims 2 and 9 are also patentably distinct for at least similar reasons. The additional limitations recited in the independent claims or the dependent claims are not further discussed as the above discussed limitations are clearly sufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from Park. Thus, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §102”.
The examiner’s response: PARK et al. (US 2017/0000292 A1) disclosed exactly a method for monitoring an item being cooked within a cooking device as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claim 1 as set forth in this office action shown above. As to the argument about “Park et al. fails to teach or suggest "displaying cooking data on a display of the image capturing device, wherein the cooking data includes at least temperature data," as recited in claim 9”, once the amended claim 9 do not including the limitations of: displaying cooking data on a display of the image capturing device; therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Initially, it should be noted that none of Elnicky, Allen et al. or Kovach teaches or suggests any of the above-noted deficiencies of Park et al. Therefore, claims 3-8 are patentably distinct from Park et al., alone or in combination with Elnicky, Allen et al. or Kovach, for one or more similar reasons as noted above concerning claim 1. Additionally, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine any of Elnicky, Allen et al. or Kovach with Park et al. Any alleged justification in the Office Action to combine these references is non-specific, improperly driven by hindsight, and fails to offer a reasonable rationale as to why one skilled in the art would attempt such a combination. Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that claims 3-8 are patentably distinct from Park et al. in view of Elnicky, Allen et al. or Kovach. Additional limitations recited in the independent claims or the dependent claims are not further discussed because the limitations discussed above are sufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art”.
The examiner’s response: Regarding Claims 3-4, the purpose of bring in Elnicky is for the purpose of providing an excellent method of convenience control the camera through the remote control during operation (see Abstract). Regarding Claims 5-7, the purpose of bring in Allen et al. is for the purpose of providing an excellent method of determines environmental conditions associated with the collected data, and determines/ adjusts operating parameters associated with appliances within the structure based on the one of the data sets for operational safety and convenance (see Abstract). Regarding Claim 8, the purpose of bring in Kovach is for the purpose of providing an excellent method of promptly notified the user through the control system during operation for safety reason (Col 10 line 8-11). 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.). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, 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
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761