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 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 7, 8, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The above claims recite the limitation “maximum possible temperature” that introduces an issue of indefiniteness. It is not clear what the maximum possible temperature entails in terms of the claim scope. For example, is it the maximum possible temperature of the device itself (the highest/hottest it can go)? Is it limited by the maximum pressure? Or is it the maximum possible temperature needed for the food product itself to be appropriately prepared? For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the temperature corresponding to the maximum operation pressure. Clarification via amendment is recommended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hidde (DE 102009042011 B4):
PNG
media_image1.png
570
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Hidde teaches a food preparation system, the system comprising a kitchen appliance (“cooking vessel” Figure 5 All Elements) for preparing a food product, a control device (“microcontroller” [0052]) , and a device for selecting a preparation time for food products (“values and states [of preparation time, pressure, temperature] can be set [as well as “previously set” [0050]]via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 70) , wherein the control device is configured such that it is able to control the preparation of a food product such that a selected preparation time is observed (“the microcontroller…controls and regulated cooking processes according to food preset and temporal sequence” [0051] . Furthermore, the preparation time is based on the food item selected as well as user input via the time selection button [0050] Figure 5 Element 80).
Regarding Claim 2: Hide further teaches that the system comprises a device for inputting a food product (the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 7) and a memory on which is stored a database with electronically stored information on cooking times of food products depending on temperature and/or quantity for controlling the preparation of the food product (Hidde has the capacity to store “previously set cooking programs” [0050] which inherently must be stored in a memory. Furthermore, the invention has the capacity for a “menu selection” which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be stored on and accessed via a database. Furthermore, cooking times depending on temperature and quantity would be understood to be included in the “cooking programs”).
Regarding Claim 5: Hidde further teaches that the kitchen appliance is a pressure cooker or comprises a pressure cooker (“pressurized cooking vessel” [0026]).
Regarding Claim 6: Hidde further teaches that a heating device (“Heating Plate” [0051] Figure 6 Element 76) is integrated in the pressure cooker (Shown as assembled in Figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidde (DE 102009042011 B4) in view of Kim ( US Patent No. 6,083, 543):
Regarding Claim 3: Hidde does not teach that the control device is configured such that controlling the preparation of a food product comprises issuing an instruction to a user.
However, Kim does teach a kitchen appliance (“electrostatic thermostatic pressure cooker” Col 1 Line 40) wherein the control device (“microcomputer” Col 4 Line 35) is configured such that controlling the preparation of food comprises issuing an instruction to the user (“Buzzer Sound when the cooking is completed” Col 3 Line 58-59).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the invention of Hidde with the instruction issuing system of Kim in order to “provide an alarm means to indicate a cooking ingredient time point and a cooking time completion point” Col 7 Lines 1-5 to the user and enable them to react accordingly.
Regarding Claim 4: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that the instruction to a user (Kim- “Buzzer Sound when the cooking is completed” Col 3 Line 58-59) comprises that a preparation vessel (Hidde-Figure 5 Element 6) of the kitchen appliance (Figure 5 All Elements) is to be removed from a base unit (Hidde Figure 5 Element 70) of the kitchen appliance (Hidde- shown as removed in Figure 6). The buzzer of Kim meets the limitation according to the interpretation of the instant specification at p.4 “Such an instruction may consist, for example, in prompting a user, for example via a display, another visual element and/or acoustically, to remove a food preparation vessel of the kitchen appliance from a base unit.”
Regarding Claim 9: Hidde teaches a method (“process” [0052]) for preparing a food product, the method comprising providing a food preparation system, the system comprising a kitchen appliance (“cooking vessel” Figure 5 All Elements) for preparing a food product,
a control device (“microcontroller” [0052]), and
a device for selecting a preparation time for food products (“values and states [of preparation time, pressure, temperature] can be set [as well as “previously set” [0050]]via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 70), wherein the control device is configured such that it is able to control the preparation of a food product such that a selected preparation time is observed (“the microcontroller…controls and regulated cooking processes according to food preset and temporal sequence” [0051])…
While it is implied, Hidde does not explicitly teach the step of selecting a preparation time via the device (“values and states [of preparation time, pressure, temperature] can be set [as well as “previously set” [0050]] via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 70)
However, Kim does a method for controlling a kitchen appliance (“electrostatic thermostatic pressure cooker” Col 1 Line 40 explicitly teach a step in which the time is selected via the input device (“a second step for setting a cooking time” Col 2 Lines 13-14)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the invention of Hidde with the method and time setting step of Kim in order to allow the “user [to] reset or change the cooking time period” and allow them greater control over the process according to preference (Col 4 Lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 10: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that a food product is input by means of the device for inputting a food product of the system (Hidde- the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 7) and that the system selects the input food product from the database with the electronically stored information on cooking times of food products (Hidde stores “previously set cooking programs” [0050] which inherently must be stored in a memory. Furthermore, the invention has the capacity for a “menu selection” which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be stored on and accessed via a database) and controls the preparation of the food product by means of the information of the food product in such a way that the selected preparation time is observed (Hidde- “the microcontroller…controls and regulated cooking processes according to food preset and temporal sequence” [0051]).
Regarding Claim 11: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that as part of the preparation of the food product, an instruction for a user is output visually via a display, another visual element and/or acoustically via a loudspeaker (Kim initiates a “Buzzer Sound when the cooking is completed” Col 3 Line 58-59).
Regarding Claim 12: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that the supply of heat to the food product is switched off before the end of the cooking time (Kim “stop heating temporarily” Col 4 Line 56)
Regarding Claim 14: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that the kitchen appliance is a pressure cooker (Hidde- “pressurized cooking vessel” [0026]) and heat is supplied to the pressure cooker by means of a base unit (Hidde-“Heating Plate” [0051] Figure 6 Element 76).
Regarding Claim 17: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that the food preparation system is a pressure cooker or comprises a pressure cooker (Hidde- “pressurized cooking vessel” [0026]).
Regarding Claim 18: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that a heating device (“Heating Plate” [0051] Figure 6 Element 76) is integrated in the pressure cooker (Shown as integrated in Figure 5).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidde (DE 102009042011 B4) in view of Chen (CN 2834375 Y):
Regarding Claims 7 and 8: Hidde teaches that the control device is configured such that it controls the preparation of a food product in such a way that a food product in the pressure cooker is initially prepared at the maximum possible temperature (Given that the invention of Hidde allows the user to select a temperature via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 7, the food can be initially be prepared at the highest possible temperature setting at the discretion of the users selection)
Although Hidde implies that at a later time, the pressure cooker is separated from a base unit over which the pressure cooker is heated (As shown in Figure 6), this action is not explicitly recited.
However, Chen (CN 2834375 Y) does teach that at a later time, the pressure cooker (“pressure cooking device” Abstract) is separated from the heating unit and placed into a thermally insulated “sleeve” (Abstract).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Hidde such that the pressure cooker is removed from heat and placed in a thermally insulating sleeve as taught by Chen in order to allow the pressure cooker to keep cooking the food while “sav[ing] energy” (Pg. 2 Line 14).
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidde (DE 102009042011 B4) and Kim (US Patent No. 6,083, 543) in further view of Anderson (GB 2047117A1):
Regarding Claim 13: Hidde as modified by Kim teaches that the preparation vessel of the kitchen appliance is removed from a base unit of the kitchen appliance (Hidde-Figure 6)
Hidde as modified by Kim does not disclose that this action occurs before the end of the cooking time.
However, Anderson does teach that a pressure cooker (pressure Pg. 11 Line 5) is separated from the heating unit (“the supply of heat is terminated…by removing the pressure cooker from the heat source” Pg 11 Lines 17-20)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Hidde as modified by Kim such that the pressure cooker is removed from heat before the end of the cooking time as taught by Anderson in order to allow the “pressure [and temperature] to remain relatively constants during the cooking time period” (Pg 11 Lines 10-15) and allow the food to continuing cooking without wasting unnecessary energy.
Regarding Claim 15: Hidde as modified by Kim further teaches that a food product is initially prepared in the pressure cooker at the maximum possible temperature (Given that the invention of Hidde allows the user to select a temperature via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 7, the food can be initially be prepared at the highest possible temperature setting at the discretion of the users selection) and at a later time the pressure cooker is separated from the base unit (Shown in Figure 6)
Hidde as modified by Kim does not disclose that this separation occurs before the end of the cooking time.
However, Anderson does teach that a pressure cooker (pressure cooker Pg. 11 Line 5) is separated from the heating unit (“the supply of heat is terminated…by removing the pressure cooker from the heat source” Pg 11 Lines 17-20)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Hidde as modified by Kim such that the pressure cooker is removed from heat before the end of the cooking time as taught by Anderson in order to allow the “pressure [and temperature] to remain relatively constants during the cooking time period” (Pg 11 Lines 10-15) and allow the food to continuing cooking without wasting unnecessary energy.
Regarding Claim 16: Hidde as modified by Kim and Anderson further teaches that after the pressure cooker (Hidde-“pressurized cooking vessel” [0026]) has been separated from the base unit (Hidde- “Heating Plate” [0051] Figure 6 Element 76), a further food product is prepared using a different preparation vessel (Hidde “pressure less cooking vessel” [0047]) and the base unit.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidde (DE 102009042011 B4) and Kim (US Patent No. 6,083, 543) in further view of Chen (CN 2834375 Y):
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: Hidde teaches that the control device is configured such that it controls the preparation of a food product in such a way that a food product in the pressure cooker is initially prepared at the maximum possible temperature (Given that the invention of Hidde allows the user to selected temperature via the panel of the regulating device [0050] Figure 5 Element 7, the food can be initially be prepared at the highest possible temperature setting at the discretion of the users selection).
Although Hidde implies that at a later time, the pressure cooker is separated from a base unit over which the pressure cooker is heated (As shown in Figure 6), this action is not explicitly recited.
However, Chen (CN 2834375 Y) does teach that at a later time, the pressure cooker (“pressure cooking device” Abstract) is separated from the heating unit and placed into a thermally insulated “sleeve” (Abstract)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Hidde such that the pressure cooker is removed from heat and placed in a thermally insulating sleeve as taught by Chen in order to allow the pressure cooker to keep cooking the food while “sav[ing] energy” (Pg. 2 Line 14)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights