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 Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “imaging device” in claims 4, 9, and 16. It is noted that the claim limitation “ imaging device” is provided with sufficient structure in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the user” in line 9 of the claim. The limitation should read “a user”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the adjusted cooking mode” in line 3 of the claim. The limitation should read “an adjusted cooking mode”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a cooking metric” in line 7 of the claim. The limitation should read “the cooking metric”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the user” in line 2 of the claim. The limitation should read “a user”
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation “the output signal” in line 1 of the claims. The limitation should read “an output signal”
Claim 16 recites the limitations “a recipe” in line 3 of the claim, and “a cooking metric” in line 5 of the claim. The limitations should read “the recipe” and “the cooking metric” respectively.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the user” in line 2 of the claim. The limitation should read “a user”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the adjusted recipe” in line 3 of the claim. The limitation should read “an adjusted recipe”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 1-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 1-20 recite steps at least one step or instruction for determining the difference between multiple variables which are grouped as mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Specifically, claim 1 recites a cooking appliance, comprising a controller (additional element) configured to store or receive instructions that, when executed, causes the cooking appliance to perform operations, the operations comprising,
obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a cooking mode (additional element);
determining a change from the cooking mode by comparing the cooking mode to a cooking metric (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determining a difference between the cooking metric and the cooking mode (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
generating an output signal to the user communicating the difference between the cooking mode and the cooking metric (additional element).
Claim 9 recites, a cooking appliance, comprising a controller (additional element) configured to store or receive instructions that, when executed, causes the cooking appliance to perform operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a cooking mode (additional element);
obtaining, via an imaging device, a cooking metric (additional element);
determining a change from the cooking mode by comparing the cooking mode to a cooking metric (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determining a difference between the cooking metric and the cooking mode (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
generating an adjusted cooking mode after exceeding a quantity of instances of differences between the cooking metric versus the cooking mode (additional element).
Claim 16 recites, a method for adjusting a recipe at a cooking appliance, the method comprising:
obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a recipe (additional element);
obtaining, via an imaging device and a temperature sensor, a cooking metric (additional element);
determining a change from the recipe by comparing the recipe to a cooking metric (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
determining a difference between the cooking metric and the recipe (a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1, 9, 16), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a controller, the “obtaining” operation, and the “generating” operation, as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims; a controller, the ”obtaining” operations and the “generating” operation, as recited in independent claim 9 and its dependent claims; and the “obtaining” steps, as recited in independent claim 16 and its dependent claims, are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). As for the “obtaining” and the “generating” operations, they merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception according to MPEP 2106.05(g). These extra-solution activities can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, e.g. pre-solution and post-solution activity, such as gathering or outputting data. Furthermore, the above-identified additional element “a controller” does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed apparatuses and method merely implement the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “a controller” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a controller, the “obtaining” operation, and the “generating” operation, as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims; a controller, the ”obtaining” operations and the “generating” operation, as recited in independent claim 9 and its dependent claims; and the “obtaining” steps, as recited in independent claim 16 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions (receiving or transmitting data over a network or storing and retrieving information in a memory) as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the claimed controller is described as a device “…configured to store or receive instructions that when executed causes the cooking appliance to perform operations…”. This controller is denoted in the specification to be “…a computing device such as a local appliance controller or remote computing device (e.g., cloud computing server, smartphone, tablet, other appliance, etc.)…”, thus referring to well understood, routine, and conventional “controllers” in the art. The drawings of the specification also do not provide extra information to further add structure to this limitation.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “controller” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “controller”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-20 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and methods of claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the claims 1-20 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denker et al. (US 20180324908 A1), hereinafter Denker.
Regarding claim 1, Denker teaches, a cooking appliance, comprising a controller configured to store or receive instructions that, when executed, causes the cooking appliance to perform operations (¶ 71), the operations comprising: obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a cooking mode (¶ 86); determining a change from the cooking mode by comparing the cooking mode to a cooking metric; determining a difference between the cooking metric and the cooking mode (Fig. 9; ¶ 115); and generating an output signal to the user communicating the difference between the cooking mode and the cooking metric (¶ 115, In step 902, the computing device may (e.g., as necessary to correct user mistakes) interact with the user to correct detected errors, if any, and adjust the recipe flow as appropriate.).
Regarding claim 2, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the cooking metric comprises a cooking temperature, a cooking position (¶ 181, ...the heating element configuration is specified as a target temperature, a target spatial region (e.g., cooking depth and position relative to a chamber of the cooking appliance)…), and a period of time (¶ 182).
Regarding claim 3, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, the operations comprising: generating an adjusted cooking mode after exceeding a quantity of instances of differences between the cooking metric versus the cooking mode (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.)(¶ 119).
Regarding claim 4, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, the operations comprising: obtaining, via an imaging device and a temperature sensor, the cooking metric (¶ 67, ...the camera 118A includes an infrared sensor to provide thermal images to the computing device as feedback to a heat adjustment algorithm) (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.).
Regarding claim 5, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, the operations comprising: comparing a quantity of instances of the differences between the cooking metric versus the cooking mode (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.) (¶ 119).
Regarding claim 6, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein generating the output signal comprises communicating the difference between the cooking mode and an average of a plurality of obtained cooking metrics (¶ 115)(¶ 148).
Regarding claim 7, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein generating the output signal comprises communicating the difference between the cooking mode and a plurality of obtained cooking metrics at or above a threshold quantity of occurrences (¶ 115)(¶ 148).
Regarding claim 8, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 1, the operations comprising: obtaining from the user a user signal corresponding to storing a version of the cooking mode or replacing the cooking mode with the adjusted cooking mode (¶ 86).
Regarding claim 9, Denker teaches, a cooking appliance, comprising a controller configured to store or receive instructions that, when executed, causes the cooking appliance to perform operations (¶ 71), the operations comprising: obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a cooking mode (¶ 86); obtaining, via an imaging device, a cooking metric (¶ 67, ...the camera 118A includes an infrared sensor to provide thermal images to the computing device as feedback to a heat adjustment algorithm); determining a change from the cooking mode by comparing the cooking mode to a cooking metric; determining a difference between the cooking metric and the cooking mode (Fig. 9; ¶ 115); and generating an adjusted cooking mode after exceeding a quantity of instances of differences between the cooking metric versus the cooking mode (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.)(¶ 119).
Regarding claim 10, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein the cooking metric comprises a cooking temperature, a cooking position (¶ 181, ...the heating element configuration is specified as a target temperature, a target spatial region (e.g., cooking depth and position relative to a chamber of the cooking appliance)…), and a period of time (¶ 182).
Regarding claim 11, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, the operations comprising: generating an output signal to the user communicating the difference between the cooking mode and the cooking metric (¶ 115, In step 902, the computing device may (e.g., as necessary to correct user mistakes) interact with the user to correct detected errors, if any, and adjust the recipe flow as appropriate.).
Regarding claim 12, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, the operations comprising: comparing a quantity of instances of the differences between the cooking metric versus the cooking mode (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.) (¶ 119).
Regarding claim 13, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein generating the output signal comprises communicating the difference between the cooking mode and an average of a plurality of obtained cooking metrics (¶ 115)(¶ 148).
Regarding claim 14, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, wherein generating the output signal comprises communicating the difference between the cooking mode and a plurality of obtained cooking metrics at or above a threshold quantity of occurrences (¶ 115)(¶ 148).
Regarding claim 15, Denker teaches, the cooking appliance of claim 9, the operations comprising: obtaining from the user a user signal corresponding to storing a version of the cooking mode or replacing the cooking mode with the adjusted cooking mode (¶ 86).
Regarding claim 16, Denker teaches, a method for adjusting a recipe at a cooking appliance, the method comprising: obtaining a user cooking mode signal corresponding to a recipe (¶ 115, In step 902, the computing device may (e.g., as necessary to correct user mistakes) interact with the user to correct detected errors, if any, and adjust the recipe flow as appropriate.); obtaining, via an imaging device and a temperature sensor, a cooking metric (¶ 67, ...the camera 118A includes an infrared sensor to provide thermal images to the computing device as feedback to a heat adjustment algorithm) (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm.); determining a change from the recipe by comparing the recipe to a cooking metric; and determining a difference between the cooking metric and the recipe (Fig. 9; ¶ 115).
Regarding claim 17, Denker teaches, the method of claim 16, comprising: generating an output signal to the user communicating the difference between the recipe and the cooking metric (¶ 115, In step 902, the computing device may (e.g., as necessary to correct user mistakes) interact with the user to correct detected errors, if any, and adjust the recipe flow as appropriate.).
Regarding claim 18, Denker teaches, the method of claim 16, comprising: generating an adjusted recipe after exceeding a quantity of instances of differences between the cooking metric versus the recipe (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm. ...For example, the heat adjustment algorithm of a cooking recipe can dictate that the edible substance should be heated at a preset temperature for a preset amount time according to the cooking recipe.)(¶ 119).
Regarding claim 19, Denker teaches, the method of claim 16, comprising: comparing a quantity of instances of the differences between the cooking metric versus the recipe (¶ 82, ...the computing device 206 can utilize the temperature readings from the chamber thermometer 250 as dynamic feedback to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm. ...For example, the heat adjustment algorithm of a cooking recipe can dictate that the edible substance should be heated at a preset temperature for a preset amount time according to the cooking recipe.)(¶ 119).
Regarding claim 20, Denker teaches, the method of claim 16, comprising: obtaining from the user a user signal corresponding to storing a version of the recipe or replacing the recipe with the adjusted recipe (¶ 86).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams (US 20250093039 A1; relying on earlier effective filing date) teaches, an apparatus for monitoring the conditions of a cooking apparatus using a camera and infrared sensors configured to be controlled remotely or perform adjustments automatically (Fig. 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J. MCCORMICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights