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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same phraseology as claim 10. Recommend breaking up the sentence into multiple sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/119,064 in view of Vengroff (US-20180070756-A1).
Instant Application
Application No. 18/119,064
1. A cooking appliance comprising:
at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item;
a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item; and
a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a first set of controller gain values for the feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values.
1. A cooking appliance comprising:
at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item;
a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item; and
a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a default set of controller gain values of the feedback controlled heating operation, the default set of controller gain values comprising a default proportional gain value, a default integral gain value, and a default derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element over a thermal classification length of time;
determining a thermal behavior of the cookware item after an expiration of the thermal classification length of time, wherein determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the determined temperature setpoint over the thermal classification length of time;
retrieving at least one of an adjusted proportional gain value, an adjusted integral gain value, or an adjusted derivative gain value from a lookup table, the at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the adjusted integral gain value, or the adjusted derivative gain value associated with the determined accumulated integral term within the lookup table out of a plurality of different accumulated integral terms within the lookup table; and
adjusting one or more of the default proportional gain value, the default integral gain value, or the default derivative gain value to the retrieved at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the adjusted integral gain value, or the adjusted derivative gain value.
9. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein the feedback controlled heating operation further comprises: directing the at least one heating element source according to the one or more adjusted one or more of the default proportional gain value, the default integral gain value, or the default derivative gain value
10. A method of operating a cooking appliance, the cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element and a temperature sensor, the method comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a first set of controller gain values for a feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values.
10. A method of operating a cooking appliance, the cooking appliance comprising one or more heating elements and a temperature sensor, the method comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a default set of controller gain values of the feedback controlled heating operation, the default set of controller gain values comprising a proportional gain value, an integral gain value, and a derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element over a thermal classification length of time;
determining a thermal behavior of the cookware item after an expiration of the thermal classification length of time, wherein determining the thermal behavior of the cookware item comprises determining an accumulated integral term based on a difference between a sensed temperature and the determined temperature setpoint over the thermal classification length of time;
retrieving at least one of an adjusted proportional gain value, an adjusted integral gain value, or an adjusted derivative gain value from a lookup table, the at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the adjusted integral gain value, or the adjusted derivative gain value associated with the determined accumulated integral term within the lookup table out of a plurality of different accumulated integral terms within the lookup table; and
adjusting one or more of the default proportional gain value, the default integral gain value, or the default derivative gain value to the retrieved at least one of the adjusted proportional gain value, the adjusted integral gain value, or the adjusted derivative gain value
18. The method of claim 10, further comprising: initiating a cooking operation by directing the at least one heating element according to the adjusted one or more of the default proportional gain value, the default integral gain value, or the default derivative gain value.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 18 of Application No. 18/119,064 teach claims 1 and 10 of the Instant Application as explained above but do not explicitly disclose detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Vengroff teaches detecting a trigger event (step 1016, fig. 2; “when ε(t) changes from positive to negative,” para 0129) while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (fig. 3 shows the negative to positive changes, where are based on a temperature T; para 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Application No. 18/119,064, in view of the teachings of Vengroff, by changing from the default set of controller gain values to the adjusted default values, as taught in Application No. 18/119,064, based on a time variant error, as taught by Vengroff, in order to reduce the risk of overshooting in a desired cooking temperature, such as a preventing steak turning from rare to medium well or preventing calamari turning rubbery (Vengroff, para 0041; fig. 3 teaches different gain constants based on positive, i.e., overshoots, and negative, i.e., undershoots, time variation errors, para 0092).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 -12, 16-17, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/652,308 in view of Vengroff (US-20180070756-A1).
Instant Application
Application No. 18/652,308
1. A cooking appliance comprising: at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item;
a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item; and
a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a first set of controller gain values for the feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values.
1. A cooking appliance comprising: at least one heating element to selectively supply heat to a cookware item;
a temperature sensor configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item; and
a controller operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation, the feedback controlled heating operation comprising:
retrieving a default set of controller gain values for the feedback controlled heating operation, the default set of controller gain values comprising a default proportional gain value, a default integral gain value, and a default derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the default set of controller gain values;
detecting a food event while directing the at least one heating element according to the default set of controller gain values;
determining a total amount of change in a power level of the at least one heating element in response to detecting the food event;
determining an adjusted set of controller gain values in response to determining the total amount of change in the power level of the at least one heating element; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the adjusted set of controller gain values.
6. The cooking appliance of claim 1,
wherein the feedback controlled cooking operation comprises a closed-loop proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm.
2. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein detecting the food event comprises: determining that a power level of the at least one heating element has changed by a predetermined minimum amount within a predetermined length of time.
6. The cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein the feedback controlled heating operation comprises a closed-loop proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm, and wherein the power level of the at least one heating element is dictated by an output of the PID algorithm.
7. The cooking appliance of claim 1,
wherein the second derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance.
2. The cooking appliance of claim 1, wherein detecting the food event comprises: determining that a power level of the at least one heating element has changed by a predetermined minimum amount within a predetermined length of time.
7. The cooking appliance of claim 2, wherein determining the adjusted set of controller gain values comprises: determining an adjusted derivative gain value based on the total amount of change in the power level of the at least one heating element.
10. The cooking appliance of claim 7, wherein the adjusted derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance.
10. A method of operating a cooking appliance, the cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element and a temperature sensor, the method comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint;
retrieving a first set of controller gain values for a feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
detecting a trigger event while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values;
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values.
11. A method of operating a cooking appliance, the cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element and a temperature sensor, the method comprising:
retrieving a default set of controller gain values for a feedback controlled heating operation, the default set of controller gain values comprising a default proportional gain value, a default integral gain value, and a default derivative gain value;
directing the at least one heating element according to the default set of controller gain values;
detecting a food event while directing the at least one heating element according to the default set of controller gain values; determining a total amount of change in a power level of the at least one heating element in response to detecting the food event;
determining an adjusted set of controller gain values in response to determining the total amount of change in the power level of the at least one heating element; and
directing the at least one heating element according to the adjusted set of controller gain values.
15. The method of claim 10,
wherein the feedback controlled cooking operation comprises a closed-loop proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein detecting the food event comprises: determining that a power level of the at least one heating element has changed by a predetermined minimum amount within a predetermined length of time.
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the feedback controlled heating operation comprises a closed-loop proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm, and wherein the power level of the at least one heating element is dictated by an output of the PID algorithm.
16. The method of claim 10,
wherein the second derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein detecting the food event comprises: determining that a power level of the at least one heating element has changed by a predetermined minimum amount within a predetermined length of time.
17. The method of claim 12, wherein determining the adjusted set of controller gain values comprises: determining an adjusted derivative gain value based on the total amount of change in the power level of the at least one heating element.
20. The method of claim 17, wherein the adjusted derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 -12, 16-17, and 20 of Application No. 18/652,308 teach claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 of the Instant Application as explained above but do not explicitly disclose determining a temperature setpoint.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Vengroff teaches determining a temperature setpoint (temperature T, fig. 3; “requested cooking temperature (e.g., 375° F.),” para 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Application No. 18/652,308, in view of the teachings of Vengroff, by using deviations relative to a requested temperature, as taught by Vengroff, as the food events, as taught in Application No. 18/652,308, in order to reduce the risk of overshooting this requested temperature, such as preventing steak turning from rare to medium well or preventing calamari turning rubbery (Vengroff, para 0041; fig. 3 teaches different gain constants based on positive, i.e., overshoots, and negative, i.e., undershoots, time variation errors, para 0092).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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:
“heating element” in claims 1 and 10
The generic placeholder is “element,” and the functional limitation is “heating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification include a “resistive heating element,” “coil,” or “induction heating element.”
“controller” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “controller” (interpreted as a replacement for “means for controlling”) and the functional limitation is “configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes “general or special purpose microprocessor, a microcontroller, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a logic device, one or more central processing units (CPUs), a graphics processing units (GPUs), processing units performing other specialized calculations, semiconductor devices.”
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 7 and 9 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.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the second derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure of the cooking appliance or based on the method for storing the second derivative gain value within the cooking appliance. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the controller is configured to store the second derivative gain value
Claim 9 recites: “wherein the second derivative gain value is determined based on empirical data.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure of the cooking appliance or based on the method for determining a second derivative gain value. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the controlled heating operation comprises determining the second derivative gain value
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vengroff (US-20180070756-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vengroff teaches a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, fig. 1A) comprising: at least one heating element (heat source 50, fig. 1A; para 0058) to selectively supply heat to a cookware item (food in the cooking device 18, fig. 1A); a temperature sensor (sensors 22a-22d, fig. 1B) configured to selectively monitor a temperature of the cookware item (para 0039); and a controller (processors 30 and 58, fig. 1B) operably connected with the at least one heating element and the temperature sensor (shown in fig. 1B), the controller configured to perform a feedback controlled heating operation (method 1000, fig. 2; the processor 30 uses current temperature in measurement information 74 in step 1008, which is construed as being a feedback temperature, para 0072), the feedback controlled heating operation comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint (step 1012, fig. 2; the “requesting cooking temperature” in para 0076 is construed as the claimed “temperature setpoint;” temperature “T,” fig. 4);
retrieving a first set of controller gain values (step 1020, fig. 2) for the feedback controlled heating operation, the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value (“all of the gain constants (such as only α, or only β, or only α and β, etc.) may have … a second value when the time variant error is negative,” para 0100);
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (steps 1024 and 1028, fig. 2; paras 0096-0098 and 0130);
detecting a trigger event (step 1016, fig. 2) while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (transitions from negative to positive; annotated in fig. 3 below);
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value (“all of the gain constants (such as only α, or only β, or only α and β, etc.) may have first value when the time variant error is positive,” para 0100); and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values (steps 1024 and 1028, fig. 2; paras 0096-0098 and 0130).
Vengroff, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
958
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Vengroff teaches wherein the second derivative gain value (“the gain constant may be a first value (e.g., 1.3) if the time variant error is a positive value,” para 0092) is greater than the first derivative gain value (“a second value (e.g., 1.1) if the time variant error is a negative value,” para 0092; 1.3 is greater than 1.1).
Regarding claim 3, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3) comprises: determining a sensor temperature threshold (“T,” fig. 3) based on the temperature setpoint (“the requested cooking temperature,” para 0079; step 1016, fig. 2); and determining that a temperature at the temperature sensor crosses the sensor temperature threshold (“the time variant error may refer to the difference between the requested cooking temperature (received in step 1012) and the current temperature that the food item is being cooked,” para 0079).
Regarding claim 4, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3) comprises: determining a sensor temperature error (“time variant error,” para 0079) threshold (the threshold is construed as an error equal to zero) based on the temperature setpoint (“requested cooking temperature,” para 0079); and determining that a difference between a sensor temperature setpoint and a temperature at the temperature sensor (“difference between the requested cooking temperature (received in step 1012) and the current temperature that the food item is being cooked at,” para 0079) is less than the sensor temperature error threshold (when “the time variant error is a negative value,” para 0079; the trigger events are detected and determined based on negative deviations no longer being negative, annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Vengroff teaches wherein the feedback controlled cooking operation comprises a closed-loop (fig. 2 is construed as a closed loop) proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm (para 0080-0081 and 0097).
Regarding claim 7, Vengroff teaches wherein the controller (stored in memory 62, fig. 2B) is configured to store the second derivative gain value (para 0094).
Regarding claim 8, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3 above) comprises: determining that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed (annotated in fig. 3 below) after directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (negative gain values are used at the start of the negative deviations, fig. 3).
Vengroff, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
958
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Vengroff teaches a method (method 1000, fig. 2) of operating a cooking appliance (cooking system 10, fig. 1A), the cooking appliance comprising at least one heating element (heat source 50, fig. 1A; para 0058) and a temperature sensor (sensors 22a-22d, fig. 1B), the method comprising:
determining a temperature setpoint (step 1012, fig. 2; the “requesting cooking temperature” in para 0076 is construed as the claimed “temperature setpoint;” temperature “T,” fig. 4);
retrieving a first set of controller gain values (step 1020, fig. 2) for a feedback controlled heating operation (the processor 30 uses current temperature in measurement information 74 in step 1008, which is construed as being a feedback temperature, para 0072), the first set of controller gain values comprising a first proportional gain value, a first integral gain value, and a first derivative gain value (“all of the gain constants (such as only α, or only β, or only α and β, etc.) may have … a second value when the time variant error is negative,” para 0100);
directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (steps 1024 and 1028, fig. 2; paras 0096-0098 and 0130);
detecting a trigger event (step 1016, fig. 2) while directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (transitions from negative to positive; annotated in fig. 3 above);
retrieving a second set of controller gain values in response to detecting the trigger event, the second set of controller gain values comprising a second derivative gain value (“all of the gain constants (such as only α, or only β, or only α and β, etc.) may have first value when the time variant error is positive,” para 0100); and
directing the at least one heating element according to the second set of controller gain values (steps 1024 and 1028, fig. 2; paras 0096-0098 and 0130).
Regarding claim 11, Vengroff teaches wherein the second derivative gain value (“the gain constant may be a first value (e.g., 1.3) if the time variant error is a positive value,” para 0092) is greater than the first derivative gain value (“a second value (e.g., 1.1) if the time variant error is a negative value,” para 0092; 1.3 is greater than 1.1).
Regarding claim 12, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3) comprises: determining a sensor temperature threshold (“T,” fig. 3) based on the temperature setpoint (“the requested cooking temperature,” para 0079; step 1016, fig. 2); and determining that a temperature at the temperature sensor crosses the sensor temperature threshold (“the time variant error may refer to the difference between the requested cooking temperature (received in step 1012) and the current temperature that the food item is being cooked,” para 0079).
Regarding claim 13, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3) comprises: determining a sensor temperature error (“time variant error,” para 0079) threshold (the threshold is construed as an error equal to zero) based on the temperature setpoint (“requested cooking temperature,” para 0079); and determining that a difference between a sensor temperature setpoint and a temperature at the temperature sensor (“difference between the requested cooking temperature (received in step 1012) and the current temperature that the food item is being cooked at,” para 0079) is less than the sensor temperature error threshold (when “the time variant error is a negative value,” para 0079; the trigger events are detected and determined based on negative deviations no longer being negative, annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Vengroff teaches wherein the feedback controlled cooking operation comprises a closed-loop (fig. 2 is construed as a closed loop) proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm (para 0080-0081 and 0097).
Regarding claim 16, Vengroff teaches wherein the second derivative gain value is stored within the cooking appliance (stored in memory 62, fig. 2B; para 0094).
Regarding claim 17, Vengroff teaches wherein detecting the trigger event (annotated in fig. 3 above) comprises: determining that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed (annotated in fig. 3 below) after directing the at least one heating element according to the first set of controller gain values (negative gain values are used at the start of the negative deviations, fig. 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vengroff (US-20180070756-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Meng et al. (US-20170339751-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vengroff teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining a sensor temperature rate of change threshold; and determining that a sensor temperature rate of change at the temperature sensor is less than the sensor temperature rate of change threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Meng teaches wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining a sensor temperature rate of change threshold (“A transition from one cooking stage to the next stage is based on a measured rate of temperature change,” para 0092; temperature sensor 504, fig. 5); and determining that a sensor temperature rate of change at the temperature sensor is less than the sensor temperature rate of change threshold (“the rate of temperature change falls below a rate threshold,” para 0093).
Meng, fig. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
527
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Vengroff, in view of the teachings of Meng, by using a measured rate of temperature change, as taught by Meng, instead of the requested temperature, as taught by Vengroff in step 1016, because a transition below a temperature change rate threshold can be used as an indication to detect when the boiling point is being approached, enabling a “boil then simmer” profile (Meng, paras 0092-0094).
Regarding claim 14, Vengroff teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining a sensor temperature rate of change threshold; and determining that a sensor temperature rate of change at the temperature sensor is less than the sensor temperature rate of change threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Meng teaches wherein detecting the trigger event comprises: determining a sensor temperature rate of change threshold (“A transition from one cooking stage to the next stage is based on a measured rate of temperature change,” para 0092; temperature sensor 504, fig. 5); and determining that a sensor temperature rate of change at the temperature sensor is less than the sensor temperature rate of change threshold (“the rate of temperature change falls below a rate threshold,” para 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Vengroff, in view of the teachings of Meng, by using a measured rate of temperature change, as taught by Meng, instead of the requested temperature, as taught by Vengroff in step 1016, because a transition below a temperature change rate threshold can be used as an indication to detect when the boiling point is being approached, enabling a “boil then simmer” profile (Meng, paras 0092-0094).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vengroff (US-20180070756-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Hanuschik et al. (US-20240373512-A1, effective filing date of 20 Apr 2023).
Regarding claim 9, Vengroff teaches the invention as described above but does explicitly disclose wherein the controlled heating operation comprises determining the second derivative gain value based on empirical data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Hanuschik teaches wherein the controlled heating operation comprises determining the second derivative gain value based on empirical data (“such cookware-specific PID coefficients are recorded to a profile of the cookware,” para 0361; the different profiles of the pans and pots in fig. 19 are construed as the claimed “empirical data;” the “some over” or some overshoot coefficients for the D coefficients are construed as being the claimed “second derivative gain values”).
Fig. 19, Hanuschik
PNG
media_image4.png
2741
1590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Vengroff, in view of the teachings of Hanuschik, by using the “some overshoot” PID coefficients that are based on difference cookware profiles, as taught by Hanuschik, for the gain constants for the positive time variant errors, as taught by Vengroff, in order to provide the desired thermal response that is associated with different types of cookware, enabling an intelligent cooking system that integrates sensor measurements with cookware detection (Hanuschik, paras 0054 and 0361).
Regarding claim 18, Vengroff teaches the invention as described above but does explicitly disclose wherein the second derivative gain value is determined based on empirical data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Hanuschik teaches wherein the second derivative gain value is determined based on empirical data (“such cookware-specific PID coefficients are recorded to a profile of the cookware,” para 0361; the different profiles of the pans and pots in fig. 19 are construed as the claimed “empirical data;” the “some over” or some overshoot coefficients for the D coefficients are construed as being the claimed “second derivative gain values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Vengroff, in view of the teachings of Hanuschik, by using the “some overshoot” PID coefficients that are based on difference cookware profiles, as taught by Hanuschik, for the gain constants for the positive time variant errors, as taught by Vengroff, in order to provide the desired thermal response that is associated with different types of cookware, enabling an intelligent cooking system that integrates sensor measurements with cookware detection (Hanuschik, paras 0054 and 0361).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanatana et al. (US-20240302050-A1) is the Publication for Application No. 18/119,064.
Sanatana et al. (US-20250341313-A1) is the Publication for Application No. 18/652,308.
Fulton et al. (US-7189947-B2) teach a PID controller.
Billman et al. (US-20230152825-A1) teach a PID controller.
Pulvermacher et al. (US-20230355032-A1) teach a PID controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/24/2026
Prosecution Insights