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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 20 in fig. 3.
The drawings are objected to because the Burner 24 and the Notification Module 114 are missing closing parentheses in fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 the following:
“control system” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitations are “control” and “configured to: monitor….classify….generating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “processor.”
“control system” in claim 14
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitations are “control” and “configured to: receive….select….compare…generating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “processor.”
“imager module” in claim 14
The generic placeholder is “module,” and the functional limitations are “imager” (interpreted as one that makes an image) and “images captured by the imager module.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “thermal camera.”
“control system” in claim 18
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitations are “control” and “configured to: monitor….classify….generating.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “processor.”
“imager module” in claim 18
The generic placeholder is “module,” and the functional limitations are “imager” (interpreted as one that makes an image) and “image data captured by the imager module.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “thermal camera.”
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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, recommend amending the claim to recite: “a user.”
In claim 18, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the at least one rack.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 recites at least one step for concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A cooking appliance, comprising:
a body defining a cooking chamber (additional element);
a sensor monitoring the cooking chamber (additional element); and
a control system (additional element) configured to:
monitor an item of food within the cooking chamber with the sensor (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
classify a browning of the item of food from a list of classifications including at least correct browning and incorrect browning (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
if the item of food is classified as incorrect browning, generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle, a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber, or a signal to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle (additional element).
Additionally, Claim 14 recites the following:
14. A cooking appliance, comprising:
a body defining a cooking chamber (additional element);
an imager module oriented towards the cooking chamber (additional element);
a user interface for selecting a cooking cycle (additional element); and
a control system (additional element) configured to:
receive the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
receive a classification of an item of food from the cooking cycle selected by the user interface or based on images captured by the imager module (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III);
select an optimal cooking cycle based on the classification of the item of food (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
compare the optimal cooking cycle with the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); and
if the comparison between the optimal cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning, generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle or a signal to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle (additional element).
Additionally, Claim 18 recites the following:
18. A cooking appliance, comprising:
a body defining a cooking chamber with at least one rack for holding an item of food (additional element);
an imager module oriented towards the rack (additional element); and
a control system (additional element) configured to:
monitor the item of food within the cooking chamber with image data captured by the imager module (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
classify a browning of the item of food from a list of classifications including at least correct browning and uneven browning (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
if the item of food is classified as uneven browning, generating a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber (additional element).
Further, dependent Claims 2, 5-8, and 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their respective dependent Claims 2, 5-8, and 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, and 18), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: sensor, control system, user interface, and an imager module are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional element of: a body, a cooking chamber, and at least one rack are additional elements that are routine and conventional in the art of cooking appliances. For example, Hines (US-20070108179-A1 describes how “conventional home ovens for the past 100 years have retained the basic cube configuration for the oven cooking chamber which is typically provided with horizontal interposed cooking racks,” (paragraph 0005). It is well-known that home ovens typically include cooking chambers with at least one cooking rack for heating food.
The additional elements of “a control system configured to … if the item of food is classified as incorrect browning, generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle, a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber, or a signal to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle,” (claim 1), “a control system configured to … if the comparison between the optimal cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning, generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle or a signal to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle,” (claim 14), and “a control system configured to … if the item of food is classified as uneven browning, generating a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber” (claim 18) are determined to be additional elements that are result-oriented solutions, which lack the particular details for the how the claimed “aspect” is changed, which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (referring to MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a control system as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1, 14, and 18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: sensor, control system, user interface, and an imager module.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “sensor” is generically described as “one or more of any type of sensing module that is capable of extracting data for the control system” in paragraph 0025 of the specification. Additionally, the “control system” is generically described as including “any suitable processor” or “any suitable number of processors” in paragraph 0027 of the specification. Moreover, the “user interface” is generically described as including “user inputs 30, such as touchpads, buttons, knobs, speakers, voice recognition functionality, and/or the like” in paragraph 0023 of the specification. Finally, the imager module is generically described as “sensor” that “captures image data 54 within the cooking chamber” in paragraph 0026 of the specification.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms sensor, control system, user interface, and an imager module are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or any special algorithms required for the “control system.” This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 14, and 18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the appliances of Claims 1, 14, and 18 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 were determined to include post-solution activities that integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because the claims include specific solutions as opposed to the generic solutions that are recited in 1-2, 5-8, and 11-20 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As a result, claims 3-4 and 9-10 are determined to be patent eligible (i.e., claims 3-4 and 9-10 are not rejected under 35 USC 101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, it is noted that the contingent limitation of “if the item of food is classified as incorrect browning,” may never occur (MPEP 2111.04). In particular, the claim does not positively recite the condition precedent (“the item of food is classified as incorrect browning”). Since the recited “if” condition does not need to be satisfied to meet the requirements claim, the follow-on recited step of generating an alert or a signal does need not to occur in order to satisfy the claim. As such, the examiner does not need to present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Recommend positively reciting this contingent limitation, i.e., “…
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that the contingent limitation of “if the comparison between the optimal cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning,” may never occur (MPEP 2111.04). In particular, the claim does not positively recite the condition precedent (“the comparison between the optimal cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning”). Since the recited “if” condition does not need to be satisfied to meet the requirements claim, the follow-on recited step of generating an alert or a signal does need not to occur in order to satisfy the claim. As such, the examiner does not need to present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Recommend positively reciting this contingent limitation, i.e., “…
Claim 1 recites: “A cooking appliance … generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle, a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.” 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 (1) a cooking appliance that allows a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle or that allows a user to change a position of a food item in a cooking chamber or (2) based on a method step where the user actually changes an aspect of a cooking cycle or actually changes a position of a food item in a cooking chamber. Assuming the claim is directed to an apparatus, recommend reciting limitations that are directed to the structure of the apparatus instead of method steps that are required to be performed by a user (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
Claim 13 recites: “The cooking appliance of claim 12, wherein, if the item of food is classified as uneven browning, the control system is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.” 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 (1) a cooking appliance that allows a user to change a position of a food item in a cooking chamber or (2) based on a method step where the user actually changes a position of a food item in a cooking chamber. Assuming the claim is directed to an apparatus, recommend reciting limitations that are directed to the structure of the apparatus instead of method steps that are required to be performed by a user (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
Claim 14 recites: “A cooking appliance … generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle.” 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 (1) a cooking appliance that allows a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle or (2) based on a method step where the user actually changes an aspect of a cooking cycle. Assuming the claim is directed to an apparatus, recommend reciting limitations that are directed to the structure of the apparatus instead of method steps that are required to be performed by a user (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
Claim 18 recites: “A cooking appliance … generating a positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.” 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 (1) a cooking appliance that allows a user to change a position of a food item in a cooking chamber or (2) based on a method step where the user actually changes a position of a food item in a cooking chamber. Assuming the claim is directed to an apparatus, recommend reciting limitations that are directed to the structure of the apparatus instead of method steps that are required to be performed by a user (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
The terms “premature browning” and “late browning” in claim 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the terms, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
The term “optimal” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification describes an “optimal predictive model.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “predictive cooking cycle.”
Claim 14 recites: “…if the comparison between the optimal (predictive) cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning, generating one of a cycle alert…” It unclear what type of “comparison” can be “outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning” such that an “alert” is generated. The Specification describes a “predetermined time threshold,” which is a comparison between a “cooking cycle” and a “predictive model” (paragraph 0030). However, the time threshold causes delays in the alerts instead of generating alerts (paragraph 0030). As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able know if they were infringing on this limitation because the “predetermined threshold” for generating alerts cannot be understood in view of the Specification.
Claims 2-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a cooking appliance (“cooking appliance,” abstract; cooking appliance 100A, fig. 1A), comprising:
a body (exterior of the appliance 100A, fig. 1A) defining a cooking chamber (chamber 102, fig. 1A);
a sensor (camera 118A, fig. 1A) monitoring the cooking chamber (para 0057); and
a control system (computing device 206, fig. 2; para 0065) configured to: monitor an item of food within the cooking chamber with the sensor (para 0067); classify a browning of the item of food from a list of classifications (“the control of searing or browning can be programmatically divided into 10 segments,” para 0119) including at least correct browning (“different searing levels,” para 0111; “level of browning or searing,” para 0114; construed such that the computing device can be configured to associate “searing levels” taught in para 0111 with searing levels 1-9 taught in para 0119) and incorrect browning (“unknown state,” para 0111; “presence of burn,” para 0114; “10 being black,” para 0119; construed such that the computing device can be configured to associate an “unknown state” with searing level 10 taught in para 0119); and
if the item of food is classified as incorrect browning (“unknown state,” para 0111), generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle (“the computing device would … at least alert the user,” para 0111; step 908, fig. 9; para 0112; construed such that a user can take action such as turning off the cooking appliance once alerted), a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber (not explicitly disclosed), or a signal (control signal 802, fig. 8) to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle (“the computing device would … stop the operation of the cooking appliance,” para 0111; step 908, fig. 9; para 0112; stopping the cooking appliance is construed as the claimed “aspect”).
Chen, fig. 9
PNG
media_image1.png
1111
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches wherein the control system (computing device 206, fig. 2) is configured to generate the cycle alert to the user to change the aspect of the cooking cycle (“the computing device would … at least alert the user,” para 0111; step 908, fig. 9; para 0112; construed such that a user can take action such as turning off the cooking appliance once alerted).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches wherein the aspect of the cooking cycle includes increasing a temperature within the cooking chamber (“the computing device would … at least alert the user,” para 0111; step 908, fig. 9; construed such that a user can take action to “change the intensity of the one or more of the heating elements,” para 0112, such as increasing the intensity, which would increase the temperature; para 0107 describes how the power can be increased for the heating elements).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches wherein the aspect of the cooking cycle includes decreasing a temperature within the cooking chamber (“the computing device would … at least alert the user,” para 0111; step 908, fig. 9; construed such that a user can take action to “change the intensity of the one or more of the heating elements,” para 0112, such as decreasing the intensity, which would decrease the temperature; para 0107 describes how the power can be decreased for the heating elements).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches wherein the control system (computing device 206, fig. 2) is configured to generate the signal (control signal 802, fig. 8) to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle (step 908, fig. 9; para 0112).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches wherein the signal includes instructions to automatically increase a temperature within the cooking chamber (step 908, fig. 9; “changing the intensity of the one or more of the heating elements,” para 0112, such as increasing the intensity, which would increase the temperature; para 0107 describes how the power can be increased for the heating elements).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng teaches wherein the signal includes instructions to automatically decrease a temperature within the cooking chamber (step 908, fig. 9; “changing the intensity of the one or more of the heating elements,” para 0112, such as decreasing the intensity, which would decrease the temperature; para 0107 describes how the power can be decreased for the heating elements).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches wherein the incorrect browning classification includes premature browning and late browning (“unknown state,” para 0111; “10 being black,” para 0119; construed such that the computing device can be configured to associate an “unknown state” with searing level 10 taught in para 0119, independent of the timing, i.e., regardless of whether the burning happens prematurely or late).
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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bhogal et al. (US-20220047109-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control system is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Bhogal teaches wherein the control system (computing system 300, fig. 2) is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber (“Providing real-time feedback to the user for food placement within the cavity S500,” para 0115; paras 0116-0123).
Bhogal, fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
796
1257
media_image2.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 Cheng, in view of the teachings of Bhogal, by providing real-time feedback for food placement, as taught by Bhogal, within the cooking appliance using the camera after a burn is detected, as taught by Cheng, for optimal food placement within a particular heating zone or zone combination (Bhogal, para 0015).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cheng in view of Bhogal as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Bhogal teaches wherein the positional alert (“real-time feedback,” para 0115) further includes a recommendation to change a position of the item of food on a rack (“cues,” para 0117).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Bhogal et al. (US-20220047109-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Daly et al. (US-20220400893-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the positional alert further includes a recommendation to change a rack level of the item of food.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Daly teaches wherein the positional alert (alert 198 in notification 170, fig. 13) further includes a recommendation to change a rack level of the item of food (tip 200, fig. 13).
Daly, fig. 13
PNG
media_image3.png
696
911
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 Cheng/Bhogal, in view of the teachings of Daly, by adding an alert with a tip for the ideal cooking level for a food item in a cavity, as taught by Daly, in addition to the real-time feedback for positioning a food item, as taught by Bhogal, in order to advantageously assist the user during the cooing process to optimize the doneness of the food item (Daly, para 0071).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ebert et al. (US-20190242584-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the incorrect browning classification includes uneven browning.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Ebert teaches wherein the incorrect browning classification (“maximum browning,” para 0054) includes uneven browning (“a proportion of the pixels… same or greater than a second threshold value,” para 0054; as shown in fig. 7, above the threshold, the browning is somewhere between 0% and 100%, which is construed as being not even; annotated in fig. 7 below; fig. 7 is a histogram, para 0080).
Ebert, fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
497
644
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 Cheng, in view of the teachings of Ebert, by using a proportion of pixels relative to a maximum threshold, as taught by Ebert, to determine the searing levels, as taught by Cheng, in order to using a method for establishing a degree of browning for a food that is based on proportion, because the browning process is highly non-linear, where dark portions of the surface absorb heat radiation more effectively than light areas (Ebert, para 0006).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Ebert et al. (US-20190242584-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further and further in view of Bhogal et al. (US-20220047109-A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cheng in view of Ebert as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Ebert teaches wherein, if the item of food is classified as uneven browning (annotated in fig. 7 above).
Cheng/Ebert do not explicitly disclose the control system is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Bhogal teaches wherein the control system (computing system 300, fig. 2) is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change the position of the item of food within the cooking chamber (“Providing real-time feedback to the user for food placement within the cavity S500,” para 0115; paras 0116-0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng, in view of the teachings of Bhogal, by providing real-time feedback for food placement, as taught by Bhogal, based on the degree of browning for a food, as taught by Ebert, within the cooking appliance using the camera, as taught by Cheng, for optimal food placement within a particular heating zone or zone combination (Bhogal, para 0015).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Ebert et al. (US-20190242584-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng teaches a cooking appliance (“cooking appliance,” abstract; cooking appliance 100A, fig. 1A), comprising:
a body (exterior of the appliance 100A, fig. 1A) defining a cooking chamber (chamber 102, fig. 1A);
an imager module (camera 118A, fig. 1A; “infrared sensor,” para 0061) oriented towards the cooking chamber (para 0057);
a user interface (“touchscreen, its one or more buttons, or a mobile device connected to the cooking appliance,” para 0167) for selecting a cooking cycle (“user parameters” para 0167; steps 2018 and 2022, fig. 20); and
a control system (computing device 206, fig. 2; para 0065) configured to:
receive the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (para 0167);
receive a classification of an item of food (“package identifier,” para 0166) from the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (“prompt a user,” para 0166) or based on images captured by the imager module (“utilize its camera,” para 0166; step 2006, fig. 20);
select a predictive cooking cycle (“preset parameters 2010,” steps 2010; simulation or prediction is taught in paras 0162-0163 and in fig. 19) based on the classification of the item of food (step 2010 follows from step 2006 if “Yes,” fig. 20);
compare the predictive cooking cycle with the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (steps 2026 and 2030, fig. 20; “State machine can be further configured by the heating logic preset parameters and/or the heating logic user parameters,” para 0169; construed such that computing device is able to compare the preset and the user parameters because the heating logic is a function of the preset and user parameters); and
generating one of a cycle alert to a user to change an aspect of a cooking cycle (“Once a termination state is reached, the cooking appliance can notify (e.g., via an output component) a user that the content in the cooking appliance is ready,” para 0169) or a signal (control signal 802, fig. 8) to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle (“The cooking recipe 2000 can specify heating element configuration (e.g., of one or more heating elements) based on the current state of operation. In some embodiments, one of the states is a termination state,” para 0169; specifying the heating element configuration is construed as the claimed “aspect”).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose if the comparison between the predictive cooking cycle and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Ebert teaches if the comparison between the predictive cooking cycle (“reference image,” abstract) and the cooking cycle selected by the user interface (“the difference image is compared with the reference image,” abstract; the difference image is a measurement image and is construed as the claimed “cooking cycle selected by the user interface”) is outside of a predetermined threshold associated with browning (“maximum browning…a proportion of the pixels… same or greater than a second threshold value,” para 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng, in view of the teachings of Ebert, by using a proportion of pixels relative to a maximum threshold based on a comparison, as taught by Ebert, of an image based on the predetermined parameters with an image based on the actual heating according to user parameters, as taught by Cheng, in order to using a method for establishing a degree of browning for a food that is based on proportion to a comparison between a difference image with a reference image, because the browning process is highly non-linear, and a chronologically continuous and accurate observation of the food to be cooked is required in order to achieve in a reliable manner a desired degree of browning (Ebert, para 0006).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng teaches wherein the signal (control signal 802, fig. 8) to automatically change the aspect of the cooking cycle includes at least one of adjusting a time of the cooking cycle (not explicitly disclosed), adjusting a temperature within the cooking chamber (para 0107 describes how the power can be adjusted for the heating elements causing an adjustment in the temperature), adjusting an airflow within the cooking chamber (not explicitly disclosed), or selecting a cooking type (step 2216, fig. 22; “user feedback” is construed as a “cooking type”).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Ebert et al. (US-20190242584-A1) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Ebrom et al. (US-20190285283-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cycle alert to the user includes a recommendation to adjust a time of the cooking cycle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Ebrom teaches wherein the cycle alert to the user includes a recommendation to adjust a time of the cooking cycle (adjust time 31b in options 31, fig. 3).
Ebrom, fig. 3
PNG
media_image5.png
765
848
media_image5.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 Cheng, in view of the teachings of Ebrom, by prompting a user to adjust the cooking time according to user preferences, as taught by Ebrom, after a termination state is reached, as taught by Cheng, in order to user a user interface that allows a user to visually inspect the food item and that presents a number of options to the user based on the context of the food item being cooked or personal preferences of the user (Ebrom, para 0023).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cycle alert to the user includes a recommendation to adjust a temperature within the cooking chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Ebrom teaches wherein the cycle alert to the user includes a recommendation to adjust a temperature within the cooking chamber (adjust temp 31c in options 31, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng, in view of the teachings of Ebrom, by prompting a user to adjust the cooking temperature according to user preferences, as taught by Ebrom, after a termination state is reached, as taught by Cheng, in order to user a user interface that allows a user to visually inspect the food item and that presents a number of options to the user based on the context of the food item being cooked or personal preferences of the user (Ebrom, para 0023).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Bhogal et al. (US-20220047109-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng teaches a cooking appliance (“cooking appliance,” abstract; cooking appliance 100A, fig. 1A), comprising:
a body (exterior of the appliance 100A, fig. 1A) defining a cooking chamber (chamber 102, fig. 1A) with at least one rack (cooking platform 110, fig. 1A; “rack,” para 0056) for holding an item of food (“food substances,” para 0058);
an imager module (camera 118A, fig. 1A; “infrared sensor,” para 0061) oriented towards the rack (fig. 1A and para 0057); and
a control system (computing device 206, fig. 2; para 0065) configured to:
monitor the item of food within the cooking chamber (para 0057) with image data captured by the imager module (para 0109);
classify a browning of the item of food from a list of classifications (“the control of searing or browning can be programmatically divided into 10 segments,” para 0119) including at least correct browning (“different searing levels,” para 0111; “level of browning or searing,” para 0114; construed such that the computing device can be configured to associate “searing levels” taught in para 0111 with searing levels 1-9 taught in para 0119) and uneven browning (“unknown state,” para 0111; “presence of burn,” para 0114; “10 being black,” para 0119; construed such that the computing device can be configured to associate an “unknown state” with searing level 10 taught in para 0119); and
if the item of food is classified as uneven browning (“unknown state,” para 0111).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose generating a positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Bhogal teaches wherein the control system (computing system 300, fig. 2) is configured to generate the positional alert to the user to change a position of the item of food within the cooking chamber (“Providing real-time feedback to the user for food placement within the cavity S500,” para 0115; paras 0116-0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng, in view of the teachings of Bhogal, by providing real-time feedback for food placement, as taught by Bhogal, within the cooking appliance using the camera after a burn is detected, as taught by Cheng, for optimal food placement within a particular heating zone or zone combination (Bhogal, para 0015).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cheng in view of Bhogal as set forth above regarding claim 18 teaches the invention of claim 20. Specifically, Bhogal teaches wherein the positional alert (“real-time feedback,” para 0115) further includes a recommendation to change a position of the item of food on the at least one rack (“cues,” para 0117).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US-20170074522-A1) in view of Bhogal et al. (US-20220047109-A1) as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Daly et al. (US-20220400893-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the positional alert further includes a recommendation to change a rack level of the item of food.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cooking appliances, Daly teaches wherein the positional alert (alert 198 in notification 170, fig. 13) further includes a recommendation to change a rack level of the item of food (tip 200, fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng/Bhogal, in view of the teachings of Daly, by adding an alert with a tip for the ideal cooking level for a food item in a cavity, as taught by Daly, in addition to the real-time feedback for positioning a food item, as taught by Bhogal, in order to advantageously assist the user during the cooing process to optimize the doneness of the food item (Daly, para 0071).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rollet et al. (US-20180152998-A1) teach airflow.
Du et al. (US-20220273134-A1) teach uniform cooking
Knighton et al. (US-20210251263-A1) teach an intelligent cooking assistant.
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
