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 .
Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 06/02/26 without traverse is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are examined.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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), 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: “cooking operation part” in Claims 5-6, and 8-9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 5-6, and 8-10, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5-6, and 8-9: Claims 5-6, and 8-9 recites the limitation “cooking operation part” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the terms “cooking operation part” without defining the supporting structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
To further advance prosecution the term “cooking operation part” is interpreted as any element providing cooking.
Regarding Claims 8-10: Claims 8-10 recite “vector value output”, it is not clear what is the meaning of this term, e.g. what mathematical tool or representation, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution and in view of the specification (see Fig. 9 that shows a spatial representation of the temperature) the above limitation is interpreted as “a spatial representation”.
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 1-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yasuki (JP2013036635, wherein translation is used for claim mapping)
Regarding Claim 1: Yasuki discloses a cooking apparatus (1; Fig. 1) comprising: a thermal imaging camera (21; Fig. 2); a display (22; Fig. 2); a memory configured to store at least one instruction (7; Fig. 3); and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction (6; Fig. 3) to: acquire, using the thermal imaging camera, an image of a cooking space (see Fig. 2) provided in one area of the cooking apparatus, wherein a cooking subject (11; Fig. 2) is located in the image of the cooking space, and the image of the cooking space includes at least one area of the cooking space that is divided into a plurality of sub-areas (squares in Figs. 6-8), identify, based on the acquired image, temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space (see Figs. 6-8), and control the display to provide information on a state of a cooking operation of the cooking apparatus (22; Fig. 1) to a user (microwave user) based on the identified temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space ([0042-49]).
Regarding Claim 2: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify the temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space corresponding to a first number of sub-areas on the image (any number of squares in Figs. 6-8) based on the acquired image until a temperature of the cooking space reaches a first temperature (any temperature after start) after the cooking operation of the cooking apparatus was initiated, and identify the temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space corresponding to a second number of sub-areas (any number of squares different from the first number) on the image based on the acquired image until the temperature of the cooking space reaches a second temperature (any temperature subsequent to the first one ) from the first temperature.
Regarding Claim 3: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as stated above, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify the temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space corresponding to a first number of sub-areas (any number of squares in Figs. 6-8) on the image based on the acquired image while a first time passes (any time after start of cooking ) from a time point at which the cooking operation of the cooking apparatus was initiated, and identify the temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space corresponding to a second number of areas (any number of squares different from the first number) on the image based on the acquired image while a second time passes from the time point when the first time passed (any subsequent time of the first time).
Regarding Claim 4: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as stated above and further discloses wherein the second number is greater than the first number (the interpretation can be selected to have the second number being higher than the first since all the squares are selected any sub groups is also selected), and wherein the second temperature is greater than the first temperature (as the cook stay in the microwave heat will increase).
Regarding Claim 5: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as stated above and further discloses a cooking operation part (any element of microwave 1) configured to transfer heat to the cooking subject (the microwave 1 transfer heat to 11) or changing a location or the direction of the cooking subject, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking operation part is in an abnormal state ([0070]) based on the identified temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space, and based on identifying that the cooking operation part is in the abnormal state, control the display to provide information on the abnormal state of the cooking operation part to the user ([0070]).
Regarding Claim 6: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above and further discloses a cooking operation part (any element of microwave 1) configured to transmit heat to the cooking subject or changing a location or the direction of the cooking subject (the microwave 1 transfer heat to 11), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify one area of the cooking space having a temperature lower (Variance is calculated and since temperature is not uniform a temperature lower than average is detected) than an entire average temperature of the cooking space based on identified temperatures of each sub-area of the at least one area of the cooking space (“food temperature” [0069]), and control the cooking operation part to raise the temperature of the one area by heating the one area (see [0071] wherein for certain values of the variance all the subspaces of the food are heated and thus sub space having lower temperature than the average is also heated).
Regarding Claim 8: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above and further discloses further comprising: a cooking operation part (any element of microwave 1) configured to transmit heat to the cooking subject or change a location or the direction of the cooking subject (the microwave 1 transfer heat to 11), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify an abnormal state ([0070]) of the cooking operation part based on a vector value output (see 112(b) above and interpretation as spatial representation, and see [0070] how a degree of special variation is used to determined abnormality) by inputting the acquired image of the cooking space into a cooking operation state identification model of the cooking apparatus, and based on identifying that the cooking operation part is in the abnormal state ([0070]), control the display to provide information on the abnormal state of the cooking operation part to the user.
Regarding Claim 9: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above and further discloses further comprising: a cooking operation part (any element of microwave 1) configured to transmit heat to the cooking subject or change a location or the direction of the cooking subject (the microwave 1 transfer heat to 11), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: control the cooking operation part to heat one area of the cooking space having a temperature lower than an average temperature of the at least one area of the cooking space (Variance is calculated and since temperature is not uniform a temperature lower than average is detected) to raise the temperature of the one area (see [0071] wherein for certain values of the variance all the subspaces of the food are heated and thus sub space having lower temperature than the average is also heated) based on a vector value output (see 112(b) above and interpretation as a spatial representation, and see [0070] how a degree of special variation is used to determined abnormality) by inputting the acquired image of the cooking space into a cooking operation state identification model of the cooking apparatus ([0071] wherein the cooking operation mode is to continue cooking ).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuki (JP2013036635) in view of Rober (US 2015/0289324)
Regarding Claim 7:Yasuki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent regarding the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking subject exists in the cooking space based on a change of the temperature of the cooking space from a time point at which the cooking operation of the cooking apparatus was initiated to a time point at which a predetermined time has passed, and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space, control the display to provide, to the user, information on a cooking operation state corresponding to a state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space.
However, Rober teaches a cooking apparatus (apparatus in Fig. 1) having at least one processor (75; Fig. 3) configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking subject exists in a cooking space (space inside microwave in Fig. 2) based on a change of the temperature ([0044]) of the cooking space from a time point at which the cooking operation of the cooking apparatus was initiated to a time point at which a predetermined time has passed (see [0044]), and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space, control the display to provide, to an user, information on a cooking operation state corresponding to a state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space (see [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yasuki, to have the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking subject exists in the cooking space based on a change of the temperature of the cooking space from a time point at which the cooking operation of the cooking apparatus was initiated to a time point at which a predetermined time has passed, and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space, control the display to provide, to the user, information on a cooking operation state corresponding to a state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space. Such a modification would enable to make sure that food is present in the microwave, as using microwave without elements to absorb microwave might damage the oven.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuki (JP2013036635) in view of Bently (US 2024/0154839).
Regarding Claim 10: Yasuki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent regarding the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking subject exists in the cooking space based on a vector value output by inputting the acquired image of the cooking space into a cooking operation state identification model of the cooking apparatus, and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space, control the display to provide, to the user, information on a cooking operation state corresponding to the state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space
However, Bently teaches a cooking apparatus (“oven” [0105]) having at least one processor (20; Fig. 1) is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether a cooking subject (“object”, [0105]) exists in a cooking space (122; [0105]) based on a vector value output (see 112(b) above and interpretation as a spatial representation, and see [0105] how the image, RGB vector image is used) by inputting the acquired image of the cooking space into a cooking operation state identification model ([0105] e.g. “degree of doneness”) of the cooking apparatus, and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space ([0105]), control the display to provide, to an user ([0105]), information on a cooking operation state corresponding to the state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space ([0105]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yasuki, to have the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify whether the cooking subject exists in the cooking space based on a vector value output by inputting the acquired image of the cooking space into a cooking operation state identification model of the cooking apparatus, and based on identifying that the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space, control the display to provide, to the user, information on a cooking operation state corresponding to the state in which the cooking subject does not exist in the cooking space. Such a modification would enable to make sure that food is present in the oven.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, see Lindsey (US 2022/0151431) that deals with imaging inside an oven, but not about temperature distribution. Please see notice of references cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights