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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “memory” should be corrected to –a memory--.
In claim 7 at lines 2-3, “adjusting cook temperature” should be corrected to –adjusting a cook temperature--.
In claim 7 at line 3, “adjusting cook mode” should be corrected to –adjusting a cook mode--.
In claim 14, “memory” should be corrected to –a memory--.
In claim 16 at line 3, “adjusting cook temperature” should be corrected to –adjusting a cook temperature--.
In claim 16 at lines 3-4, “adjusting cook mode” should be corrected to –adjusting a cook mode--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite a mathematical concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) §I.C) of “calculating… a heating rate” and the mental process of “determining… a position of a bottom panel assembly.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: There is not a particular, i.e. an inventive machine – just an oven with a removable bottom panel and sensors. See 2106.05(b). Nor is there a patentable arrangement of sensors.
There is not a transformation of the oven to a different state or thing, see MPEP 2106.05(c). Even the notification as in claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 does not directly affect the state of the oven and can encompass sending an electronic signal.
Linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. an oven, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) is not sufficient to integrate it into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements include:
well understood, routine, conventional components including an oven with “a bottom panel assembly removably provided within the cooking chamber.” Mohseni (US 20170318629 A1) provides evidence that this is conventional: “A standard toaster oven is a small electric oven with a removable wire rack, a removable crumb tray, a cavity and a front door hinged on the bottom” (¶98).
insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) including mere data gathering in the form of “measuring, with a temperature sensor, a first temperature of a cooking chamber during a cook cycle, wherein the first temperature is measured at a first predetermined time; measuring, with the temperature sensor, a second temperature of the cooking chamber during the cook cycle, wherein the second temperature is measured at a second predetermined time;”
The dependent claims rejected do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In claims 2 and 11, comparing is a further mental process. In claims 6, 8, 15, and 18, continuing (proceeding with) the cook cycle does not transform the oven to a different state.
This rejection may be overcome by integrating a conditional limitation with the word “when” rather than “if.” For example, claim 1 may be amended to include “wherein, when the bottom panel assembly is determined to be in an improper position, the cook cycle is suspended.” This conditional overcomes the 101 rejection because it requires that the state occurs, and thus requires an action that transforms the oven to a different state. Then, a dependent may state “wherein, when the bottom panel assembly is determined to be in a proper position, the method comprises proceeding with the cook cycle based on the determined proper position.”
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 3-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the bottom panel.” Claim 3 depends from claim 1, which recites ”a bottom panel assembly.” It is not clear whether claim 3 is referring to the same component from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the bottom panel.” Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which recites ”a bottom panel assembly.” It is not clear whether claim 8 is referring to the same component from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “a controller operable for: measuring…calculating.” It is not clear whether this is a required function of the controller, or merely an intended use. The MPEP discusses similar language in reference to claim interpretation for U.S.C. § 101. The MPEP states: “a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" [is not an] affirmative limitation[s] because [it is] merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –a controller configured to: measure… calculate--.
Claim 10 at line 11 recites “a cook cycle.” Claim 10 previously recites a cook cycle at line 8. It is unclear whether the line 11 recitation is referring to the same cook cycle or a new one. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the cook cycle--.
Claim 10 at the last two lines recites –a bottom panel assembly--. Claim 10 previously recites a bottom panel assembly at line 4. It is unclear whether these are referring to the same or different bottom panel assemblies.
Claim 12 recites “the bottom panel.” Claim 12 depends from claim 10, which recites ”a bottom panel assembly.” It is not clear whether claim 12 is referring to the same component from claim 10.
Claim 14 at line 2 recites “a controller.” Claim 14 depends from claim 10, which recites “a controller.” It is not clear whether claim at line 2 is referring to the same controller. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the controller--.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-18 would be allowable if amended to overcome the U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim 4-5, 7, 13, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the nearest prior art is considered to be Junkmann (US 2018/0064280).
Regarding claim 1, Junkmann discloses:
A method of operating an oven appliance (¶50) comprising:
measuring, with a temperature sensor, a first temperature of a cooking chamber during a cook cycle, wherein the first temperature is measured at a first predetermined time (¶11 “continuously measuring”);
measuring, with the temperature sensor, a second temperature of the cooking chamber during the cook cycle, wherein the second temperature is measured at a second predetermined time (¶11 “continuously measuring”);
calculating, based on the first temperature and the second temperature, a heating rate (¶20 “gradient”); and
determining, based on the heating rate, a [fault state] (¶20-¶21)
Junkmann does not disclose:
[the fault state is] a position of a bottom panel assembly.
Claim 10 also requires a corresponding limitation.
The dependents are allowable over the prior art because they depend on claim 1 or 10.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 2021/0204369) discloses determining alignment of a cooking vessel by measuring a difference in different temperature sensors, i.e., at the same time (¶102).
Ryan (US 2014/0157994) discloses a toaster oven wherein “[t]he open door condition may be detected by a predetermined drop in temperature as measured by the thermistor” (¶70).
Keller (US 2003/0094449) discloses monitoring temperature over time as the oven is heated. If the temperature rise is not in the expected range, a fault is signaled (see Figs 2-3).
Froelicher (US 20180020679) discloses an oven “to shut down the oven appliance 10 if the sensed temperature meets or exceeds the threshold value… the threshold value can be defined by a maximum rate of temperature increase and the threshold condition triggering shut down of the oven appliance 10 can be reached when the sensed temperature increases at a rate that exceeds the maximum rate of temperature increase” (¶39).
Hensely (US 20200063973) discloses an oven that generates an error message when a heating rate exceeds an expected heating rate, which indicates incorrect fuel (propane vs. natural gas).
Koether (US 5,723,846) discloses detecting temperature differentials which may result from either equipment failures or improper equipment installation/operation and sending corresponding signals to the appliance operator with associated logic reference points to indicate where the failure has occurred. The differential is due to measurements taken at different positions rather than different times.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights