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 Amendment
The amendment filed 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-10 remain rejected. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/04/2026, except where otherwise stated.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the meaning of “determining, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy” is unclear. Is the threshold accuracy a temperature range, a range of values of the difference between the first temperature and expected temperature, or something else entirely? Furthermore, is the claim requiring the that the first temperature or the difference between the first temperature and expected temperature to be within the threshold accuracy or simply determining whether or not the first temperature or the difference between the first temperature and expected temperature is within the threshold accuracy? In the former case, how can the first temperature or the temperature difference be within the threshold accuracy, when the subsequent claim limitation requires “ending, by the controller, the cooking operation in response to the first temperature of the food item deviating from the expected temperature of the food item by more than the threshold accuracy”? Consequently, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the meaning of “the one or more characteristics of the food item comprises a temperature, a color, a size, a doneness, and a moisture content, or other characteristics of the food item” is unclear. It is unclear if the term “and” indicates that all of “temperature”, “color”, “size”, “doneness”, and “moisture content” are required to satisfy the claim language, or if only one of the listed characteristics is sufficient to meet the claim limitation. Therefore claim 10 is rejected as indefinite. For the purposes of further examination, the Examiner has understood the claim to require one or more of “temperature”, “color”, “size”, “doneness”, “moisture content”, or “other characteristics of the food item” to be provided as the characteristics of the food item.
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(s) 1, 3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20210254835 A1) in view of Tietz (US 20230304670 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0028, 0030, 0033, 0034; Fig. 2 #S, 10, 11, 20) a method of operating a heating cooker 10 (oven appliance) comprising a heating chamber S formed in a main body 11 (cabinet defining a cooking chamber), a heater 20 to heat the inside of the chamber S, shown disposed in the cooking chamber in Figure 2, wherein the heater may be a heating wire configured to generate heat by energization (heating element). Mori further teaches (Paragraph 0028, 0048; Fig. 2 #31, 33) the heating cooker 10 includes a temperature detector 31, shown disposed in the cooking chamber in Figure 2, and an imaging portion 33, also shown disposed in the cooking chamber in Figure 2, wherein the imaging portion 33 may be a camera. Also, Mori teaches (0045, 0048; Fig. 2 #50) a controller 50 may control the heater 20, and an image obtained by the imaging portion 33 may be transmitted to a controller 50 (operable communication). Furthermore, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0097; Fig. 2 #OB) the controller 50 selects a heating cooking model corresponding to the type and size of the food ingredient OB, that is, an object to be heated, and the controller 50 determines the output of the heater 20, based on the selected heating cooking model (initiating a cooking operation of the oven appliance). In addition, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0060-0061) the controller 50 may transmit and receive information to and from each component of the heating cooker 10 including the temperature detector 31 and the imaging portion 33, and the controller 50 may control the operation of the heating cooker 10 by controlling each component of the heating cooker 10 based on information transmitted from each component of the heating cooker 10 (which would include controlling the capturing of an image by the imaging portion 33 (camera) and the measuring of temperature by the temperature detector 31). Furthermore, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0049) the imaging portion 33 may detect the roasted color of the surface of the food ingredient OB (characteristic of the food item), and the internal and surface temperature of the food ingredient OB may be estimated based on the roasted color of the surface of the food ingredient OB obtained by the imaging portion 33. Additionally, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0042) temperature detector 31 may measure a surface temperature of the food ingredient OB. Also, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0099) the controller 50 may terminate the heating performed by the heater 20.
Mori is silent on comparing, by the controller, the first temperature of the food item to the expected temperature of the food item. Mori is further silent on determining, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy; and ending, by the controller, the cooking operation in response to the first temperature of the food item deviating from the expected temperature of the food item by more than the threshold t accuracy.
Tietz teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0034, 0037) a method of operating a food preparation apparatus comprising a thermistor as a heating device and a temperature sensor for a temperature generated by heating, wherein a temperature TPTC is determined based on the resistance of the thermistor (expected temperature) and a temperature TNTC is determined by the temperature sensor. Tietz further teaches (Paragraph 0040, 0065, 0074) and a temperature difference TPTC - TNTC is determined (comparing, by the controller, the first temperature of the food item to the expected temperature of the food item), and, if the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference, wherein the control unit is configured such that the heating by the heating device can be controlled depending on the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor (determining, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy), the heating device is switched off by a protection device implemented by a control unit (ending, by the controller, the cooking operation in response to the first temperature of the food item deviating from the expected temperature of the food item by more than the threshold accuracy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori to compare, by the controller, the first temperature of the food item to the expected temperature of the food item; determine, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy; and end, by the controller, the cooking operation in response to the first temperature of the food item deviating from the expected temperature of the food item by more than the threshold accuracy in view of Tietz since both are directed to methods of operating cooking devices with controllers wherein temperature is both measured directly and estimated in response to a determined characteristic, since comparing a temperature measured in a cooking operation to an expected temperature, determining, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy, and ending, by the controller, the cooking operation in response to the measured temperature deviating from the expected temperature by more than a threshold accuracy is known in the art as shown by Tietz, since determining a temperature difference (comparing the measured and expected temperatures and determining if the measured temperature is within a threshold accuracy) can detect a disturbance (fault) of the temperature sensor (Tietz, Paragraph 0068), since, ending the cooking operation when a measured temperature deviates from an expected temperature by more than a threshold accuracy can prevent overcooking or burning of the food, or damage to the cooking device or user, by detecting failure of the temperature sensor, and since comparing the measured temperature to the expected temperature can verify that the expected temperature is determined accurately.
It is noted that Tietz compares the measured temperature of a heat source to an expected temperature of a heat source rather than a measured and expected temperature of a food item, and that the expected temperature is determined based on resistance of the heat source rather than color of the food. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize the applicability of the teaching of Tietz to the process of Mori since both concern food heating devices, since food temperature is directly related to heat source temperature, since the effect of deviations in heat source and food temperature are similar (over/undercooking, burning of food, temperatures unsafe for a cooking device or user, etc.), and since both concern using a non-temperature parameter to estimate the expected temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Mori is silent on providing a user notification in response to comparing the first temperature of the food item to the expected temperature of the food item.
Tietz teaches (Paragraph 0040, 0065) and a temperature difference TPTC - TNTC is determined (comparing the first temperature to the expected temperature), and, if the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference (threshold amount), the heating device is switched off by a protection device implemented by a control unit. Tietz further teaches (Paragraph 0055-0060), if a switch-off criteria is met, including the temperature difference between the temperature determined by the temperature sensor 4 and the temperature determined by the thermistor 2 according to step 105 no longer being smaller than a predetermined temperature difference, the food preparation apparatus may then output an error message visually and/or audibly indicating that the heating device is not restarted (user notification) in an automated manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori to providing a user notification in response to comparing the first temperature of the food item to the expected temperature of the food item in view of Tietz since both are directed to methods of operating cooking devices with controllers wherein temperature is both measured directly and estimated in response to a determined characteristic, since providing a user notification in response to comparing a temperature measured in a cooking device to an expected temperature is known in the art as shown by Tietz, since outputting a user notification in response to the comparison can inform a user that an error has occurred with the heating device/temperature sensor, since notifying a user can prevent cooking with a failed temperature that could lead to overcooking or dangerous conditions like a fire, and since notifying user can ensure that the user knows that the heat source has been turned off in response to the comparison so the user is not left misinformed waiting for cooking to be completed.
Regarding claim 10, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0049) the imaging portion 33 may detect the roasted color of the surface of the food ingredient OB (characteristic of the food item).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20210254835 A1) in view of Tietz (US 20230304670 A1), and further in view of Cadima (US 20220163261 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mori, as modified above, is silent on capturing a plurality of sequential images at a predetermined frequency, the first image being one image of the plurality of sequential images; determining the one or more characteristics of the food item from each image of the plurality of sequential images; and comparing the determined one or more characteristics of the food item between a sequential pair of the plurality of sequential images.
Cadima teaches (Paragraph 0042-0043) a method of operating an oven appliance wherein a camera may capture a plurality of sequential images at a predetermined frequency, and each image captured by the camera may be transmitted to the controller. Cadima further teaches (Paragraph 0036, 0037, 0042-0043) the method 200 comprises 202 capturing a first image of the cooking chamber using the camera, 202 using the controller to analyze the image of the first food item in the first heating zone and extract one or more characteristics relating to the food item including color, 205 capturing a second image of the food item (sequential image), 206 comparing the one or more characteristics of the food item from the first image to the second image, wherein the method compares a change in color of the food item between the first image and the second image, and perform an analysis of two sequential images for the plurality of sequential images being captured by the camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori, as modified above, to capture a plurality of sequential images at a predetermined frequency, the first image being one image of the plurality of sequential images; determine the one or more characteristics of the food item from each image of the plurality of sequential images; and compare the determined one or more characteristics of the food item between a sequential pair of the plurality of sequential images as taught by Cadima since both are directed to methods of determining the color of food items in cooking chambers, since capturing a plurality of sequential images at a predetermined frequency, the first image being one image of the plurality of sequential images; determining the one or more characteristics of the food item from each image of the plurality of sequential images; and comparing the determined one or more characteristics of the food item between a sequential pair of the plurality of sequential images is known in the art as shown by Cadima, since a more accurate cooking time and cooking doneness may be obtained by monitoring a cooking progress for each food item according to each analysis (Cadima, Paragraph 0044), since the comparison allows for adjustments to be made to the cooking cycle such as the output from the heat source (Cadima, Paragraph 0045), thus ensuring that the food is cooked to the desired extent, and since the comparing the color of the food in sequential images can ensure that the food has the desired appearance and is not burned.
Regarding claim 4, Mori, as modified above, is silent on capturing a second image of the food item inside the cooking chamber using the camera; measuring a second temperature of the food item; determining updates for the one or more characteristics of the food item from the second image; estimating an expected second temperature of the food item in response to the determined updates for the one or more characteristics; and comparing the second temperature of the food item to the second expected temperature of the food item.
Tietz teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0034, 0037) a method of operating a food preparation apparatus comprising a thermistor as a heating device and a temperature sensor for a temperature generated by heating, wherein a temperature TPTC is determined based on the resistance of the thermistor (expected temperature) and a temperature TNTC is determined by the temperature sensor. Tietz further teaches (Paragraph 0040, 0065) a temperature difference TPTC - TNTC is determined, and, if the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference (threshold amount), the heating device is switched off by a protection device implemented by a control unit. Also Tietz teaches (Paragraph 0055-0060) the process comprising determining the measured temperature, the expected temperature based on the resistance of the thermistor and the different between the temperature values (comparing the first temperature to the expected temperature) is run through again (i.e., at least a second time) until the switch-off criteria is fulfilled.
Cadima teaches (Paragraph 0042-0043) a method of operating an oven appliance wherein a camera may capture a plurality of sequential images at a predetermined frequency, and each image captured by the camera may be transmitted to the controller. Cadima further teaches (Paragraph 0036, 0037, 0042-0043) the method 200 comprises 202 capturing a first image of the cooking chamber using the camera, 202 using the controller to analyze the image of the first food item in the first heating zone and extract one or more characteristics relating to the food item including color, 205 capturing a second image of the food item (sequential image), 206 comparing the one or more characteristics of the food item from the first image to the second image, wherein the method compares a change in color of the food item between the first image and the second image, and perform an analysis of two sequential images for the plurality of sequential images being captured by the camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori, as modified above, to capture a second image of the food item inside the cooking chamber using the camera; measure a second temperature of the food item; determine updates for the one or more characteristics of the food item from the second image; estimate an expected second temperature of the food item in response to the determined updates for the one or more characteristics; and compare the second temperature of the food item to the second expected temperature of the food item in view of Tietz and Cadima since each of Mori, Tietz, and Cadima is directed to a method of operating a cooking device wherein parameters of the cooking process are measured, since Mori teaches capturing an image of the food item inside the cooking chamber using the camera; measuring a temperature of the food item; determining updates for the one or more characteristics of the food item from the image; and estimating an expected temperature of the food item in response to the determined one or more characteristics; since measuring a second temperature, estimating an expected temperature, and comparing the second measured temperature to the second expected temperature is known in the art as shown by Tietz, since capturing a second image of a food item and determining updates for the one or more characteristics of the food item from the second image is known in the art as shown by Cadima, since performing the process steps of capturing the image of the food item, measuring the temperature of the food item, determining updates in characteristics, estimating the expected temperature, and comparing the temperature values a second time will ensure that the temperature sensor and the food operating device are still functioning as intended at a later stage of the cooking process and further prevent undesirable cooking results, since a more accurate cooking time and cooking doneness may be obtained by monitoring a cooking progress for each food item according to each analysis (Cadima, Paragraph 0044), and since performing the process a second time will allow for changes in temperature and color over time to be monitored to ensure the food is cooking at the desired rate.
Regarding claim 5, Mori is silent on capturing the first image of the food item and the second image of the food item occurring at a specified frequency.
Cadima teaches (Paragraph 0042-0043) a method of operating an oven appliance wherein a camera may capture a plurality (at least a first and second) of sequential images at a predetermined (specified) frequency, and each image captured by the camera may be transmitted to the controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori, as modified above, to capture the first image of the food item and the second image of the food item at a specified frequency as taught by Mori since both are directed to methods of determining the color of food items in cooking chambers, since capturing the first image of the food item and the second image of the food item at a specified frequency is known in the art as shown by Cadima, since a more accurate cooking time and cooking doneness may be obtained by monitoring a cooking progress for each food item according to each analysis (Cadima, Paragraph 0044), since using a specified frequency provides consistency in the cooking process so that the results of cooking are predictable and understandable by a user, and since using a specified frequency prevents the time between capturing the first and second images from being too long such that the food would be overcooked without detection.
Regarding claim 6, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0049) the imaging portion 33 may detect the roasted color of the surface of the food ingredient OB (characteristic of the food item). Mori does not explicitly state that a quantitative value is determined from the color of the food item. However, since Mori determines a food temperature and can control the heater based on the detected color (Mori, Paragraph 0049, 0104) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the controller would have to convert the image to quantitative data in order to control the heating characteristics based on the image.
Furthermore, Cadima teaches (Paragraph 0037) a controller may analyze the image of the first food item in the first heating zone and extract one or more characteristics relating to the food item (e.g., color, texture, consistency, etc.), wherein a qualitative attribute of a particular characteristic may be assigned a quantitative value within a lookup table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori to determine a quantitative value of the one or more characteristics of the food item as taught by Cadima since both are directed to methods of determining the color of food items in cooking chambers, since determining a quantitative value of the one or more characteristics of the food item is known in the art as shown by Cadima, since a controller may consult a lookup table stored within the oven appliance to determine what type of food is provided in the first heating zone based on a comparison with the extracted characteristic(s) of the first food item, wherein a qualitative attribute of a particular characteristic may be assigned a quantitative value within the lookup table (Cadima, Paragraph 0037), thus providing the controller and/or user with useful information, and since determining a quantitative value from the color ensures objective and consistent results in determining the expected temperature based on the color.
Regarding claim 8, Mori teaches (Paragraph 0097; Fig. 2 #OB) the controller 50 selects a heating cooking model corresponding to the type and size of the food ingredient OB, that is, an object to be heated, and the controller 50 determines the output of the heater 20, based on the selected heating cooking model (initiating a cooking operation of the oven appliance). While Mori does not explicitly state that a specified temperature is provided, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that a determined heater output corresponds to a specific temperature.
Moreover, activating the heating element of an oven appliance to a specified temperature is known in the art.
For example, Cadima teaches (Paragraph0001, 0041) method for operating oven appliances, wherein a cooking cycle may include activation and monitoring of a heat source, such as a heating element, via the controller, which may monitor the electrical output or heat output to maintain a specific cooking temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori, as modified above to activate the heating element of an oven appliance to a specified temperature as taught by Cadima since both are directed to methods of operating ovens with heating elements controlled according to a controller, since activating the heating element of an oven appliance to a specified temperature is known in the art as shown by Cadima, since maintaining a specific cooking temperature or rate allows a food item to be cooked according to a specific cooking cycle relevant to the particularly identified food (Cadima, Paragraph 0041), and since a specified temperature can provide consistent and repeatable results in cooking.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20210254835 A1) in view of Tietz (US 20230304670 A1), and Cadima (US 20220163261 A1), and further in view of Liu (US 20190350231 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mori, as modified above, is silent on estimating an expected temperature of the food item in response to the determined characteristic comprising comparing the determined quantitative value to a lookup table of values.
Liu teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0046-0047, Table 1) detecting heating patterns within model food compositions containing irreversible thermochromic ink, wherein a plurality of sections of the food composition can be examined with an imaging device, such as a camera, or other piece of equipment, and unique color measurements obtained through imaging of each of the plurality of sections at a plurality of locations can be correlated to a corresponding specific temperature using a standard temperature color curve or a color table as shown in Table 1.
Cadima teaches (Paragraph 0037) a controller may analyze the image of the first food item in the first heating zone and extract one or more characteristics relating to the food item (e.g., color, texture, consistency, etc.), wherein a qualitative attribute of a particular characteristic may be assigned a quantitative value within a lookup table to determine what type of food is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori as modified above to estimate an expected temperature of the food item in response to the determined characteristic comprising comparing the determined quantitative value to a lookup table of values in view of Liu and Cadima since each of Mori, Liu, and Cadima is directed to a method of determining the color of food items in cooking chambers, since a table comprising quantitative values for a determined characteristic corresponding to expected food temperatures is known in the art as shown by Liu, since estimating a property of a food in response to the determined characteristic comprising comparing the determined quantitative value to a lookup table of values is known in the art as shown by Cadima since determining a quantitative value from the color ensures objective and consistent results in determining the expected temperature based on the color, since the controller may consult a lookup table stored within the oven appliance to determine a property of the food based on a comparison with the extracted characteristic(s) (Cadima, Paragraph 0037), thus allowing the controller to automate the determination and provide user convenience, and since establishing a color table can enhance the accuracy of the measurement technique (Liu, Paragraph 0046).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20210254835 A1) in view of Tietz (US 20230304670 A1), and further in view of Liu (US 20210228022 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mori, as modified above, is silent on measuring the first temperature of the food item at a same time as the first image is captured.
Liu (US 20210228022 A1) teaches (Paragraph 0002) systems and methods for collecting and annotating cooking images for training smart cooking appliances, wherein the smart oven begins recording the temperature (e.g., structured data) and capturing raw images (e.g., unstructured data) of the oven rack in the cooking compartment, and, in some cases, the temperature data and the images are recorded at the same intervals (e.g., at the same time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mori, as modified above to measure the first temperature of the food item at a same time as the first image is captured as taught by Liu (US 20210228022 A1) since both are directed to methods of operating oven appliances with temperature measurement and image recording, since measuring the first temperature of the food item at a same time as the first image is captured is known in the art as shown by Liu (US 20210228022 A1), since recording temperature and images at the same time would ensure that the temperature determined according to the image was the as accurate as possible for verifying temperature sensor failure by comparing temperatures for the same time period, since measuring temperature and capturing the image at the same time will reduce the time needed to acquire the data needed to make a comparison, identifying any potential issues such as temperature sensor failure as soon as possible, and since real-time sensor data captured by sensors and the imaging system can determine cooking progress of the food items (Liu (US 20210228022 A1), Paragraph 0063).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-10, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that cited references of Mori and Tietz, as well as the other cited references of Cadima and Liu fail to disclose determining the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy and ending the cooking operation in response to the first temperature of the food item deviating from the expected temperature of the food item by more than the threshold accuracy, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner notes that the amended claim limitation specifying determining the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy has been rejected as indefinite for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Furthermore, Tietz, which teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0034, 0037) a temperature TPTC is determined based on the resistance of the thermistor (expected temperature) and a temperature TNTC is determined by the temperature sensor, and (Paragraph 0040, 0065, 0074) a temperature difference TPTC - TNTC is determined, and, if the temperature difference between the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and the determined temperature determined by the thermistor is greater than a predetermined temperature difference, the control unit is configured such that the heating by the heating device can be controlled depending on the determined temperature determined by the temperature sensor and, the heating device is switched off by a protection device implemented by a control unit, is understood to disclose the claimed “determining, by the controller, the temperature sensor measuring the first temperature within a threshold accuracy”. If the Applicant is suggesting that the “predetermined temperature difference” of Tietz is not the same as the claimed “threshold accuracy”, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not defined “threshold accuracy” in a manner that would distinguish the term from a “predetermined temperature difference”. The Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph 0048, simply indicates that threshold accuracy is a threshold amount.
Also, if the Applicant is suggesting that the expected and measured temperature values of Tietz do not read upon the claimed food temperature, the Examiner notes, as shown above with regard to claim 1, that Tietz compares the measured temperature of a heat source to an expected temperature of a heat source rather than a measured and expected temperature of a food item, and that the expected temperature is determined based on resistance of the heat source rather than color of the food. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize the applicability of the teaching of Tietz to the process of Mori since both concern food heating devices, since food temperature is directly related to heat source temperature, since the effect of deviations in heat source and food temperature are similar (over/undercooking, burning of food, temperatures unsafe for a cooking device or user, etc.), and since both concern using a non-temperature parameter to estimate the expected temperature.
Therefore, claim 1 and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clayton (US 20210262670 A1) teaches an automatic oven having a controller and a sensor assembly for automatically determining a food type for a food item placed in a cooking chamber of the automatic oven, and cooking the automatically determined food item to an optional degree of doneness.
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 AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights