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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/9/2026, have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the objection to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the specification, which adds reference character “151” (¶ [0032]) and “642” (¶ [0052]) to the description.
The objection to the drawings for failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) is maintained. Applicant has not submitted corrected drawings sheets or otherwise addressed the use of reference character “114” to designate two different locations, as required.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the objection to claims 1, 2, 10 and 17 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 7/9/2026.
The objection to claim 16 is maintained. Claim 16 recites “causes” in line 3; for grammatical consistency with “instructions that, when executed,” this should read “cause”. Applicant is reminded to correct this informality.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 7/9/2026, which resolves the antecedent basis issues previously identified for “received line voltage” in claims 1 and 7, and confirms proper antecedent basis for “the sensor” in claim 1.
A new rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by the amendment to claim 9, is set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues that Larson’s disclosure at column 5, lines 25-27 is taken out of context because it describes the internal function of integrator circuit 27, and that for low line voltage Larson instead shuts the system down or prompts the user (col. 3, lns. 51-58). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the cited passage describes magnetron ON time. Relay switch 32 is in series with magnetron 23, and “the comparator 28 output state is high causing the relay 31 to be energized, in turn closing contracts 32 and energizing the magnetron” (col. 4, lns. 59-62). The relay “on” time is therefore the magnetron ON time, and integrator 27 is the means by which the controller determines the duty cycle adjustment.
Second, the shutdown/prompt passage relied upon by applicant addresses operation at full power, where the duty cycle at the predetermined base minimum is already 100% (col. 3, lns. 34-41). Larson expressly teaches operation at desired power levels less than full power, stored in terms of duty cycle (col. 4, lns. 31-37). At such power levels, “[i]f the measured power is low the slope at t2 will be flatter and the relay “on” time will be longer. In this manner, the average power to the magnetron is maintained constant over the time base” (col. 5, lns. 25-29). See also Larson’s Fig. 5 embodiment, in which low measured power “leaves the magnetron “on” for a longer period time. Since the time base is fixed the result is increased average power delivered to the cooking cavity” (col. 7, lns. 14-17).
Third, Larson does not limit below-minimum operation to shutdown or prompt; Larson states that “[i]t would also be possible to provide a power boost circuit” (col. 3, lns. 60-61). That this option is identified as less preferred does not detract from its disclosure. See MPEP 2123(II).
Fourth, claims 1 recites a controller configured to store instructions that cause the recited operations. Where a prior art structure inherently possesses a functionally defined limitation, the burden shifts to applicant to show otherwise. MPEP 2114(I); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Larson’s controller circuitry (Figs. 2, 4-6) varies magnetron ON time inversely with measured power, which depends on line voltage (col. 2, lns. 59-62), and therefore possesses the capability to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is less than the nominal line voltage. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." MPEP 2114(II).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 16, applicant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. With respect to method claim 9, Larson expressly describes the operation of increasing magnetron ON time when the measured power, which depends on line voltage, is low (col. 5, lns. 25-29; col. 4, lns. 31-37; Fig. 5; col. 7, lns. 14-17). With respect to claim 16, which recites a controller configured to store instructions that cause the recited operations, the analysis under MPEP 2114 set forth above for claim 1 applies equally.
Regarding the dependent claims, applicant relies on the arguments presented for the independent claims, which are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. As to applicant’s further statement that the dependent claims may possess independently patentable features, “[a] general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of” 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also MPEP 714.02.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues, see page 11, that claims 2-3, 10-11, and 17-18 over Larson in view of Graves and claims 4 and 12 over Larson in view of Graves and Jeong are not obvious for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 16. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims. Applicant has not presented any argument with respect to the teachings of Graves or Jeong, or the rationale for combining the references. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate both a location on the front surface of the door 120 in Fig. 1 and a location on the front surface inside the door 120 in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “causes” in line 3 should read “cause”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites “wherein reducing or increasing magnetron ON time based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged” in lines 2-3. As amended, claim 9 no longer recites reducing or increasing magnetron ON time based on the duty cycle adjustment. Instead, claim 9 recites “adjusting the duty cycle based on the duty cycle adjustment to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is greater than the nominal line voltage; and adjusting the duty cycle based on the duty cycle adjustment to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is less than the nominal line voltage.” It is therefore unclear whether the limitation of claim 12 refers to the adjusting steps recited in claim 9 or to a separate, additional step. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the adjusting steps recited in claim 9. Applicant may consider amending claim 12 to recite “wherein adjusting the duty cycle based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged,” consistent with claim 4.
This is a new rejection that is based on the amended portion of the claim 9.
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 (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.
(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, 5-9, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larson et al. (US 4420668) hereinafter Larson.
Regarding claim 1, Larson discloses
a microwave oven appliance (abstract: “microwave oven”), comprising:
a non-inverter power supply (Fig. 1: 11, “high voltage power supply”) (Fig. 2 further discloses a circuitry (20, 21, 22, 32) for powering magnetron 23, wherein the circuitry includes a high voltage transformer 20, a capacitor 21, a diode rectifier 22, and a relay switch 32 that are arranged as “a half wave doubler power supply,” col. 2, lns. 54-55. The examiner interprets such a circuitry as a non-inverter power supply because the disclosed power supply utilizes a line-frequency transformer and relay-controlled duty cycling rather than inverter-based switching circuitry) configured to receive a nominal line voltage (col. 3, ln. 2: “minimum low line voltage”; col. 3, lns. 51-53: “In the event that line voltage drops below the predetermined base minimum, i.e., below 105 volts, several options are available,” based on which the examiner interprets a “minimum low line voltage” as a “nominal line voltage”), wherein variability in a received line voltage (col. 2, ln. 63: “line voltage”; col. 3, ln. 22: “Line voltage is taken across lines L1 and L2”; col. 2, ln. 63: “Line voltage may vary”) varies an output power (“line power”) from the power supply (11) (col. 1, lns. 57-59: “the line power to the magnetron … with variations in line power,” based on which the examiner interprets the “line power” to the magnetron as the “output power” from the power supply), the power supply (11) comprising a relay (Fig. 2: 32, “relay switch”) configured to articulate operation of a magnetron (Fig. 2: 32, “magnetron”; col. 4, lns. 59-62: “the comparator 28 output state is high causing the relay 31 to be energized, in turn closing contacts [of the relay switch] 32 and energizing the magnetron,” which the examiner interprets as “a relay configured to articulate operation of a magnetron”);
a sensor (Fig. 2: 15, “measuring device”) operably coupled to the power supply (11) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration) to determine the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 22-25: "Line voltage is taken across lines L1 and L2 and measured by measuring device 15. Signals indicative of line voltage … are fed … to a controller 16”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching a sensor operably coupled to the power supply to determine received line voltage); and
a controller (Fig. 1: 16, “controller”) operably coupled to the power supply (11) and the sensor (15) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration), the controller (16) configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the microwave oven appliance to perform operations (col. 4, lns. 31-37: “The desired power level signal is stored in the memory of the controller and is based on food category. … the desired power level, in terms of duty cycle, is stored in a ROM to be fetched upon an operator input of that particular food type to be cooked,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the controller stores instructions for the microwave operation according to stored cooking information and programmed control functions), the operations (col. 5, ln. 30: “operation”) comprising:
measuring the received line voltage at the power supply (11) (col. 3, lns. 22-23: “Line voltage is … measured by measuring device 15”; Larson teaches the measuring device 15 is connected across lines L1 and L2 as shown in Fig. 1, and further teaches, “[p]ower lines L1 and L2 deliver [line voltage] to the … transformer 10, [of which the output] is deliver to a high voltage power supply 11” (col. 3, lns. 13-16), which the examiner interprets as the line voltage received by the power supply);
determining a baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10: “magnetron 23 will deliver 650 watts when the line voltage is 105 volts,” based on which the examiner interprets that the baseline output energy generated by the magnetron is determined relative to the nominal line voltage);
determining an actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62: “the magnetron output is … determined by the output of the transformer secondary which in turn is dependent upon line voltage on the primary [of transformer]”; col. 5, lns. 11-13: “the measured [magnetron] input power is determined by the sense winding 24 and the linear approximation circuit 25”; the examiner interprets what Larson discloses as teaching that the measured magnetron input power corresponds actual output power, and thus the actual output power is determined relative to the received line voltage);
determining a duty cycle (col. 3, ln. 47: “duty cycle”) adjustment based on the actual output power (“magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-27: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less. If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching that determining an adjustment to the duty cycle based on actual output power relative to the received line voltage);
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is greater than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-25: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is greater than the nominal line voltage);
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is less than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 4, lns. 34-37: “some foods benefit from being cooked at less than full power. In such cases the desired power level, in terms of duty cycle, is stored in a ROM”; col. 5, lns. 25-27: “If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; col. 4, lns. 59-62: “the comparator 28 output state is high causing the relay 31 to be energized, in turn closing contracts 32 and energizing the magnetron”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is less than the nominal line voltage at a desired power level less than full power); and
maintaining the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) without adjustment when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) received is equal to the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 34-41: “If the measured line [voltage] is at the predetermined base minimum [low line voltage], the gating signal to the triac 17 would turn the triac on for a 100% duty cycle. … the precise duty cycle [is] being selected to insure that the same power is delivered to the magnetron as when line [voltage] is at the predetermined base minimum”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching maintaining the duty cycle without adjustment when the received line voltage is equal to the nominal line voltage).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Larson
PNG
media_image2.png
357
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Larson
Regarding claim 5, Larson discloses the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 1, wherein determining the baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to a regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary,” which the examiner interprets Larson as teaching determining output power relative to measured voltage using the voltage-versus-power curve relationship which corresponds to comparison based on a regulation curve).
Regarding claim 6, Larson discloses the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 5, wherein determining the actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62; col. 5, lns. 11-13) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to the regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary”).
Regarding claim 7, Larson discloses the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 5, wherein the regulation curve (“curve”) is a function of output power (“magnetron input power”) to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary”; Larson discloses a curve representing the relationship between output power and received line voltage).
Regarding claim 8, Larson discloses the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 1, wherein the non-inverter power supply (11) is a high voltage transformer (Fig. 2: 20, “high voltage transformer”; col. 2, lns. 51-52: “power supply … shown … in Fig. 2 … includes a high voltage transformer 20”).
Regarding claim 9, Larson discloses
a method (Fig. 2: “method”; col. 2, lns. 18-19: “method for determining line power and controlling magnetron output power”) for operating a microwave oven appliance (abstract: “microwave oven”) comprising a non-inverter power supply (Fig. 1: 11, “high voltage power supply”), the method (“method”) comprising:
measuring a received line voltage (col. 2, ln. 63: “line voltage”) at a non-inverter power supply (11) (col. 3, lns. 22-23: "Line voltage is taken across lines L1 and L2 and measured by measuring device 15”; Fig. 1 shows the measuring device 15 is operably coupled to the power supply 11; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching a received line voltage is measured at the power supply 11);
determining a baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to a nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10: “magnetron 23 will deliver 650 watts when the line voltage is 105 volts,” based on which the examiner interprets that the baseline output energy generated by the magnetron is determined relative to the nominal line voltage);
determining an actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62: “the magnetron output is … determined by the output of the transformer secondary which in turn is dependent upon line voltage on the primary [of transformer]”; col. 5, lns. 11-13: “the measured [magnetron] input power is determined by the sense winding 24 and the linear approximation circuit 25”; the examiner interprets what Larson discloses as teaching that the measured magnetron input power corresponds actual output power, and thus the actual output power is determined relative to the received line voltage);
determining a duty cycle (col. 3, ln. 47: “duty cycle”) adjustment based on the actual output power (“magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-27: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less. If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching that determining an adjustment to the duty cycle based on actual output power relative to the received line voltage);
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is greater than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-25: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is greater than the nominal line voltage); and
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is less than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 4, lns. 34-37: “some foods benefit from being cooked at less than full power. In such cases the desired power level, in terms of duty cycle, is stored in a ROM”; col. 5, lns. 25-27: “If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; col. 4, lns. 59-62: “the comparator 28 output state is high causing the relay 31 to be energized, in turn closing contracts 32 and energizing the magnetron”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is less than the nominal line voltage at a desired power level less than full power).
Regarding claim 13, Larson discloses the method (“method”) of claim 9, wherein determining the baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to a regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary,” which the examiner interprets Larson as teaching determining output power relative to measured voltage using the voltage-versus-power curve relationship which corresponds to comparison based on a regulation curve).
Regarding claim 14, Larson discloses the method (“method”) of claim 13, wherein determining the actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62; col. 5, lns. 11-13) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to the regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary”).
Regarding claim 15, Larson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the regulation curve (“curve”) is a function of output power (“magnetron input power”) to received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary”; Larson discloses a curve representing the relationship between output power and received line voltage).
Regarding claim 16, Larson discloses a controller (Fig. 1: 16, “controller”) for a microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”),
the controller (16) operably coupled to a non-inverter power supply (11) (Fig. 1 shows the configuration) and
a sensor (Fig. 2: 15, “measuring device”) configured to determine a received line voltage (col. 2, ln. 63: “line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 22-25: “Line voltage is taken across lines L1 and L2 and measured by measuring device 15. Signals indicative of line voltage … are fed … to a controller 16”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching a sensor operably coupled to the power supply to determine received line voltage),
the controller (16) configured to store instructions that, when executed, causes the microwave oven appliance to perform operations (col. 4, lns. 31-37: “The desired power level signal is stored in the memory of the controller and is based on food category. … the desired power level, in terms of duty cycle, is stored in a ROM to be fetched upon an operator input of that particular food type to be cooked,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the controller stores instructions for the microwave operation according to stored cooking information and programmed control functions), the operations (col. 5, ln. 30: “operation”) comprising:
measuring the received line voltage at the non-inverter power supply (11) (col. 3, lns. 22-23: “Line voltage is … measured by measuring device 15”; Larson teaches the measuring device 15 is connected across lines L1 and L2 as shown in Fig. 1, and further teaches, “[p]ower lines L1 and L2 deliver [line voltage] to the … transformer 10, [of which the output] is deliver to a high voltage power supply 11” (col. 3, lns. 13-16), which the examiner interprets as the line voltage received by the power supply);
determining a baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to a nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10: “magnetron 23 will deliver 650 watts when the line voltage is 105 volts,” based on which the examiner interprets that the baseline output energy generated by the magnetron is determined relative to the nominal line voltage);
determining an actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62: “the magnetron output is … determined by the output of the transformer secondary which in turn is dependent upon line voltage on the primary [of transformer]”; col. 5, lns. 11-13: “the measured [magnetron] input power is determined by the sense winding 24 and the linear approximation circuit 25”; the examiner interprets what Larson discloses as teaching that the measured magnetron input power corresponds actual output power, and thus the actual output power is determined relative to the received line voltage);
determining a duty cycle (col. 3, ln. 47: “duty cycle”) adjustment based on the actual output power (“magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-27: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less. If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching that determining an adjustment to the duty cycle based on actual output power relative to the received line voltage);
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is greater than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 45-48: “when measuring device measures a voltage in excess of 105 volts controller 16 controller 16 will decrease the duty cycle below 100% to compensate for the increased voltage”; col. 5, lns. 23-25: “The higher the line voltage and hence the measured power … the relay “on” time will be less”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to reduce magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is greater than the nominal line voltage); and
adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage (“line voltage”) is less than the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 4, lns. 34-37: “some foods benefit from being cooked at less than full power. In such cases the desired power level, in terms of duty cycle, is stored in a ROM”; col. 5, lns. 25-27: “If the measured power is low … the relay “on” time will be longer”; col. 4, lns. 59-62: “the comparator 28 output state is high causing the relay 31 to be energized, in turn closing contracts 32 and energizing the magnetron”; the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjusting the duty cycle to increase magnetron ON time when the received line voltage is less than the nominal line voltage at a desired power level less than full power).
Regarding claim 19, Larson discloses the controller (16) of claim 16, wherein determining the baseline output energy (col. 3, lns. 29-30: “predetermined standard power”) generated relative to the nominal line voltage (“minimum low line voltage”) (col. 3, lns. 9-10) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to a regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary,” which the examiner interprets Larson as teaching determining output power relative to measured voltage using the voltage-versus-power curve relationship which corresponds to comparison based on a regulation curve).
Regarding claim 20, Larson discloses the controller (16) of claim 19, wherein determining the actual output power (col. 2, ln. 3: “magnetron input power”) relative to the received line voltage (“line voltage”) (col. 2, lns. 59-62; col. 5, lns. 11-13) comprises comparing the received line voltage (“line voltage”) to the regulation curve (“curve”; col. 5, ln. 61-col. 6, ln. 1: “A plot of power versus voltage yields a curve … power can be directly approximated by measuring the peak voltage across the transformer secondary”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 2-3, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al. (US 4420668) hereinafter Larson, in view of Graves et al. (US 6696676) hereinafter Graves.
Regarding claim 2, Larson teaches the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 1, the operations comprising:
a commanded cook time (“cooking time”; col. 1, lns. 25-26: “the total cooking time required is then determined”; col. 5, lns. 15-16: “used to set the oven timer to the predetermined cooking time”),
a power supply timing cycle (“line voltage cycle”; col. 5, lns. 3-5: “The leading edge of the clock input is timed to the line voltage cycle to energize or deenergize relay 31,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to a power supply timing cycle based on the line voltage), and
the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) adjustment (col. 5, lns. 25-27: “relay “on” time will be less … relay “on” time will be longer,” based on which the examiner interprets Larson as teaching adjustment of the duty cycle).
Larson does not explicitly teach the operations comprising:
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle,
wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles.
However, Graves teaches operations (col. 7, ln. 64: “cooking operations”) comprising:
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time (claim 1: “user selected cooking time”) and a power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”; col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “each duty cycle has a duration of 32 seconds,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to a power supply timing cycle used to control energization of the cooking units) (col. 9, lns. 58-60: “Over the 270 second run time, 8.4375 duty cycles are executed, which means 8 complete cycles occur, plus the first 14 seconds of a ninth cycle”; col. 10, lns. 13-20: “In order to adjust all of the component cook times by the proper amount, only the overall cook time needs to be adjusted … and execution of duty cycles is continued, … result[ing] in [a quantity of] full duty cycles”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching a quantity of power supply cycles is determined during operation based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle),
wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles (col. 9, lns. 58-60; col. 10, lns. 13-20).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooking time control operations taught by Larson to further determine a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle as taught by Graves, in order to control cooking operations using duty cycle execution timing (Graves, col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1; col. 9, lns. 58-59; col. 10, ln. 16), thereby predictable controlling energization timing of the cooking units relative to the commanded cook time.
Regarding claim 3, Larson teaches the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 1, the operation comprising: the duty cycle adjustment (col. 5, lns. 25-27), but does not explicitly teach:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle; and
adjusting one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle.
However, Graves teaches operations (col. 7, ln. 64: “cooking operations”) comprising:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle (col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66: “the microcomputer then checks whether a power cycle is complete”; col. 8, lns. 3-6: “the microcomputer checks whether the power count is greater than the “on” time”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching comparison of duty cycle operation relative to the timing cycle framework); and
adjusting one or both of a commanded power level (“power level”; col. 6, lns. 26-27: “the commanded on-times based on power level selected”) or a commanded cook time (“user selected cooking time”) based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66 and col. 8, lns. 3-6 for the comparison between the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle) (col. 8, lns. 3-5; col. 10, lns. 13-20; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching adjustment of commanded power level or commanded cook time based on a comparison of on-time operation relative to the timing cycle framework).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Larson’s cooking operation to further compare the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle and adjust one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on the comparison as taught by Graves, in order to coordinate magnetron on/off operation within a fixed timing-cycle framework, and thereby predictably maintain desired cooking performance and output power over varying operation conditions while providing controlled cooking operation relative to selected cooking time and power level (Graves, col. 7, lns. 65-66; col. 8, lns. 3-6; col. 6, lns. 26-27).
Regarding claim 10, Larson teaches the method (“method”) of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach the method comprising:
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle, wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles.
However, Graves teaches
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time (claim 1: “user selected cooking time”) and a power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”; col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “each duty cycle has a duration of 32 seconds,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to a power supply timing cycle used to control energization of the cooking units) (col. 9, lns. 58-60: “Over the 270 second run time, 8.4375 duty cycles are executed, which means 8 complete cycles occur, plus the first 14 seconds of a ninth cycle”; col. 10, lns. 13-20: “In order to adjust all of the component cook times by the proper amount, only the overall cook time needs to be adjusted … and execution of duty cycles is continued, … result[ing] in [a quantity of] full duty cycles”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching a quantity of power supply cycles is determined during operation based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle),
wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles (col. 9, lns. 58-60; col. 10, lns. 13-20).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooking time control operations taught by Larson to further determine a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle as taught by Graves, in order to control cooking operations using duty cycle execution timing (Graves, col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1; col. 9, lns. 58-59; col. 10, ln. 16), thereby predictable controlling energization timing of the cooking units relative to the commanded cook time.
Regarding claim 11, Larson teaches the method (“method”) of claim 9, the method (“method”) comprising: the duty cycle adjustment (col. 5, lns. 25-27) for the non-inverter power supply (11), but does not explicitly teach:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle; and adjusting one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle.
However, Graves teaches operations (col. 7, ln. 64: “cooking operations”) comprising:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle (col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66: “the microcomputer then checks whether a power cycle is complete”; col. 8, lns. 3-6: “the microcomputer checks whether the power count is greater than the “on” time”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching comparison of duty cycle operation relative to the power supply timing cycle framework); and
adjusting one or both of a commanded power level (“power level”; col. 6, lns. 26-27: “the commanded on-times based on power level selected”) or a commanded cook time (“user selected cooking time”) based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66 and col. 8, lns. 3-6 for the comparison between the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle) (col. 8, lns. 3-5; col. 10, lns. 13-20; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching adjustment of commanded power level or commanded cook time based on a comparison of on-time operation relative to the timing cycle framework).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Larson’s cooking operation to further compare the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle and adjust one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on the comparison as taught by Graves, in order to coordinate magnetron on/off operation within a fixed timing-cycle framework, and thereby predictably maintain desired cooking performance and output power over varying operation conditions while providing controlled cooking operation relative to selected cooking time and power level (Graves, col. 7, lns. 65-66; col. 8, lns. 3-6; col. 6, lns. 26-27).
Regarding claim 17, Larson teaches the controller (16) of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach the operations comprising:
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle, wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles.
However, Graves teaches
determining a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time (claim 1: “user selected cooking time”) and a power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”; col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “each duty cycle has a duration of 32 seconds,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to a power supply timing cycle used to control energization of the cooking units) (col. 9, lns. 58-60: “Over the 270 second run time, 8.4375 duty cycles are executed, which means 8 complete cycles occur, plus the first 14 seconds of a ninth cycle”; col. 10, lns. 13-20: “In order to adjust all of the component cook times by the proper amount, only the overall cook time needs to be adjusted … and execution of duty cycles is continued, … result[ing] in [a quantity of] full duty cycles”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching a quantity of power supply cycles is determined during operation based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle),
wherein determining the duty cycle adjustment is based further on the quantity of power supply cycles (col. 9, lns. 58-60; col. 10, lns. 13-20).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooking time control operations taught by Larson to further determine a quantity of power supply cycles based on a commanded cook time and a power supply timing cycle as taught by Graves, in order to control cooking operations using duty cycle execution timing (Graves, col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1; col. 9, lns. 58-59; col. 10, ln. 16), thereby predictable controlling energization timing of the cooking units relative to the commanded cook time.
Regarding claim 18, Larson teaches the controller (16) of claim 16, the operations comprising:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment (col. 5, lns. 25-27), but does not explicitly teach:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle; and
adjusting one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle.
However, Graves teaches operations (col. 7, ln. 64: “cooking operations”) comprising:
comparing the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle (col. 7, ln. 67-col. 8, ln. 1: “duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66: “the microcomputer then checks whether a power cycle is complete”; col. 8, lns. 3-6: “the microcomputer checks whether the power count is greater than the “on” time”; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching comparison of duty cycle operation relative to the timing cycle framework); and
adjusting one or both of a commanded power level (“power level”; col. 6, lns. 26-27: “the commanded on-times based on power level selected”) or a commanded cook time (“user selected cooking time”) based on comparing the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle (“duty cycle”) (col. 7, lns. 65-66 and col. 8, lns. 3-6 for the comparison between the duty cycle adjustment to the power supply timing cycle) (col. 8, lns. 3-5; col. 10, lns. 13-20; the examiner interprets Graves as teaching adjustment of commanded power level or commanded cook time based on a comparison of on-time operation relative to the timing cycle framework).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Larson’s cooking operation to further compare the duty cycle adjustment to a power supply timing cycle and adjust one or both of a commanded power level or a commanded cook time based on the comparison as taught by Graves, in order to coordinate magnetron on/off operation within a fixed timing-cycle framework, and thereby predictably maintain desired cooking performance and output power over varying operation conditions while providing controlled cooking operation relative to selected cooking time and power level (Graves, col. 7, lns. 65-66; col. 8, lns. 3-6; col. 6, lns. 26-27).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al. (US 4420668) hereinafter Larson, in view of Graves et al. (US 6696676) hereinafter Graves, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20210235554) hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding claim 4, Larson teaches the microwave oven appliance (“microwave oven”) of claim 1, the operations comprising: adjusting the duty cycle (“duty cycle”) based on the duty cycle adjustment (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27), but does not explicitly teach:
obtaining a commanded cook time, and
a display component.
However, Graves teaches operations (col. 7, ln. 64: “cooking operations”) comprising:
obtaining a commanded cook time (“user selected cooking time”; col. 9, lns. 8-9: “total cook time determined based on the user inputs”), and
a display component (Fig. 1: 116, “display”).
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave oven control system taught by Larson to obtain a commanded cook time and provide a display component as taught by Graves, in order to allow the user to enter and view cooking time selections for controlling the cooking operation (Graves, col. 3, lns. 5-6: “Instructions and selections are displayed on a … display); col. 3, lns. 30-31: “enables an operator to manually enter … cooking time”; col. 9, lns. 8-9: “total cook time determined based on the user inputs”).
Larson and Graves does not explicitly teach
adjusting the duty cycle based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged at a display component.
However, Jeong teaches, Fig. 7, a cooking apparatus (1, “cooking apparatus”) wherein
adjusting the duty cycle (paragraph [0135]: “on-off time”) based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged at a display component (paragraph [0118]: “The input 21 may include … a display”; paragraph [0118]: “The input 21 may receive … a command for adjusting the cooking time from the user”; paragraph [0135]: “the processor 610 may make the entire cooking time the same as the recipe data and adjust the on-off time of the heat source 100 without changing the operation output of the heat source 100”; paragraph [0151]: “the processor 610 may correct the difference … by changing the on-off time of the heat source 100 within the first cooking time of the recipe data”; the examiner interprets Jeong as teaching maintaining the displayed recipe/commanded cooking time unchanged while adjusting on/off time of the heat source).
Larson, Graves and Jeong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking apparatus and a controlling method thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the way the commanded cooking time is shown on the display as taught by Larson and Graves to maintain the displayed commanded cooking time unchanged while adjusting the duty cycle of the heat source based on operating conditions as taught by Jeong, in order to compensate for differences between recipe output information and actual cooking apparatus output conditions while preventing cooking failure, thereby predictably maintaining desired cooking performance without altering the user-commanded cooking time displayed to the user (Jeong, paragraph [0131]: “in order to prevent cooking failure (overcook or undercook) caused by applying the recipe data as it is, a technology for comparing the first output information of the recipe data and the second output information of the cooking apparatus 1, and automatically controlling the heat source 100 so that the heat source 100 of the cooking apparatus 1 operates properly according to the comparison result is required”; paragraph [0135]: “the processor 610 may make the entire cooking time the same as the recipe data and adjust the on-off time of the heat source 100 without changing the operation output of the heat source 100”).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Graves
PNG
media_image4.png
868
995
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Jeong
Regarding claim 12, Larson teaches the method (“method”) of claim 9, the method comprising: adjusting the duty cycle based on the duty cycle adjustment to reduce or increase magnetron ON time (col. 3, lns. 45-48; col. 5, lns. 23-27) (as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, “reducing or increasing magnetron ON time” in claim 12 is interpreted as referring to the adjusting steps recited in claim 9), but does not explicitly teach:
obtaining a commanded cook time, and
a display component.
However, Graves teaches a method (Fig. 18: 520: “method”) comprising:
obtaining a commanded cook time (“user selected cooking time”; col. 9, lns. 8-9: “total cook time determined based on the user inputs”),
a display component (Fig. 1: 116, “display”) of the microwave oven appliance (Fig. 1: 100, “oven”)
Larson and Graves are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooking oven having control of cooking time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave oven control system taught by Larson to obtain a commanded cook time and provide a display component as taught by Graves, in order to allow the user to enter and view cooking time selections for controlling the cooking operation (Graves, col. 3, lns. 5-6: “Instructions and selections are displayed on a … display); col. 3, lns. 30-31: “enables an operator to manually enter … cooking time”; col. 9, lns. 8-9: “total cook time determined based on the user inputs”).
Larson and Graves does not explicitly teach
reducing or increasing magnetron ON time based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged at a display component of the microwave oven appliance.
However, Jeong teaches a method (paragraph [0023]: “method”) comprising
reducing or increasing magnetron ON time based on the duty cycle adjustment maintains the commanded cook time unchanged at a display component of the microwave oven appliance (paragraph [0118]: “The input 21 may include … a display”; paragraph [0118]: “The input 21 may receive … a command for adjusting the cooking time from the user”; paragraph [0135]: “the processor 610 may make the entire cooking time the same as the recipe data and adjust the on-off time of the heat source 100 without changing the operation output of the heat source 100”; paragraph [0151]: “the processor 610 may correct the difference … by changing the on-off time of the heat source 100 within the first cooking time of the recipe data”; the examiner interprets Jeong as teaching maintaining the displayed recipe/commanded cooking time unchanged while adjusting on-off time of the heat source).
Larson, Graves and Jeong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a cooking apparatus and a controlling method thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the way the commanded cooking time is shown on the display as taught by Larson and Graves to maintain the displayed commanded cooking time unchanged while adjusting the duty cycle of the heat source based on operating conditions as taught by Jeong, in order to compensate for differences between recipe output information and actual cooking apparatus output conditions while preventing cooking failure, thereby predictably maintaining desired cooking performance without altering the user-commanded cooking time displayed to the user (Jeong, paragraph [0131]: “in order to prevent cooking failure (overcook or undercook) caused by applying the recipe data as it is, a technology for comparing the first output information of the recipe data and the second output information of the cooking apparatus 1, and automatically controlling the heat source 100 so that the heat source 100 of the cooking apparatus 1 operates properly according to the comparison result is required”; paragraph [0135]: “the processor 610 may make the entire cooking time the same as the recipe data and adjust the on-off time of the heat source 100 without changing the operation output of the heat source 100”).
PNG
media_image5.png
1054
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 of Graves
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 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 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights