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 .
Summary
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are rejected. Claim 5 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9: In lines 4-5, change “a constant energy demand level” to--the constant energy demand level--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The language “in particular the tightness of a cooking appliance having a steam heating system” is indefinite because it is a broader limitation followed by a narrower one. The claim has been interpreted as being directed toward determining a tightness parameter of a cooking appliance having a steam heating system. Please note that the rest of the claim refers back to “the steam heating system” which indicates that this is a required limitation.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: how, or from what structure, the energy demand level of the cooking appliance is ascertained. It is assumed that this determination is based on some sensor output such those discussed in para. 36 of the specification as published. Language pertaining to a sensor is present in dependent claim 10.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 5: The use of the word “course” is indefinite. The claims recites “the course of a plurality of actual energy demand levels,” “a specific course,” “the course of energy demand,” and “the specific course of a plurality of desired energy demand levels.” This language is taken to mean the actual values of energy demand (either desired or measured) such as would be output from a sensor (such as an ammeter or temperature sensor) or derived from a sensor output. However “course” can also mean “accustomed procedure or normal action,” “progression through a series of events,” or “an ordered process” (retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/course on 18 Aug 2026). These definitions would also make sense in terms of the behavior of an oven and how much energy is being demanded and when. Therefore because of this ambiguity, and because “course” is not a term of art when referring to sensor output, the Examiner recommends avoiding this term completely and writing all claim limitations in terms of energy demand which is a clear concept. Please note that no special definition has been annexed to the word “course” in the specification, and the specification itself contains some ambiguity as to what this term actually means. The Applicant may want to consider language such as “determining a deviation of the actual energy demand level from level
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: determining the status or a tightness of a cooking appliance. This is whole purpose of the method as stated in the preamble, but it is never accomplished in claim 1. The Examiner recommends using the language from claim 7 such that claim 1 further recites “determining the tightness parameter of the cooking appliance having the steam heating system based on the deviation of the actual energy demand level from the desired energy demand level.”
Regarding claim 6: It is unclear what it means that “the desired energy demand level corresponds to an initial energy demand level assigned to the new state of the cooking appliance.” There is no antecedent basis for “the new state.” Furthermore the claim seems to be indicating that the desired energy demand level is the energy demand level that the appliance had when it was new, before it had a chance to degrade from use. Therefore the Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the desired energy demand level corresponds to an initial energy demand level assigned during a new state of the cooking appliance.”
Regarding claim 11: It appears that the language “a steam heating system and” should be removed because claim 1 already recites a steam heating system. It is therefore indefinite as to whether the same structure is being referred to here. Please note that if “the cooking appliance is configured to execute the method of claim 1” then it must inherently comprise a steam heating system as referred to in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-11: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by HELM (US 20160270579).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, HELM discloses: A method of determining the status, in particular the tightness of a cooking appliance having a steam heating system (Testing a door in para. 20), comprising the steps of: determining an actual energy demand level of the steam heating system at which the energy demand of the steam heating system is constant during operation (The door test in para. 20 requires 0 energy input which is constant.); and determining a deviation of the actual energy demand level from at least one of a desired energy demand level and a deviation of the course of a plurality of actual energy demand levels from a specific course of a plurality of desired energy demand levels (In para. 20, if the temperature drops beyond a certain amount, which is a higher energy demand than expected, the system will determine that the door seal has a malfunction.).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, HELM discloses: the actual energy demand level is determined from the course of the energy demand of the steam heating system during operation (The abstract states that the method is used with a steam heating system. Para. 20 states that the test is performed while the oven is operating.).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood, HELM discloses: the desired energy demand level corresponds to an initial energy demand level assigned to the new state of the cooking appliance (para. 21, 133).
Regarding claim 7: As best understood, HELM discloses: using the deviation of the actual energy demand level to determine a tightness parameter of the cooking appliance (Because the tightness parameter is an arbitrary empirically determined value, the change in temperature in para. 20 can be considered a “tightness parameter.”); and determining a quality of a seal disposed on the cooking appliance using the tightness parameter (para. 20).
Regarding claim 9: As best understood, HELM discloses: turning on the cooking appliance to at least one of a special test mode (This is the self-test in para. 20.) and a cooking mode; and waiting an amount of time for the cooking appliance to reach a constant energy demand level (after the temperature reaches the predetermined level in para. 20).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, HELM discloses: obtaining values from a sensor disposed in the cooking appliance (from temperature sensor 35 in FIG. 2; para. 20); transmitting the values from the sensor to a control unit (17 in FIG. 2; para. 49-50), wherein the control unit is configured to perform the step of determining the actual energy demand level and the step of determining the deviation of the actual energy demand level (para. 20); storing the actual energy demand level and the deviation of the actual energy demand level in the control unit (Para. 83 discusses having target values stored in memory, and for temperature sensor outputs to be compared to target ΔT values. The temperature values also have to be stored in memory in order to be subsequently used to diagnose a malfunction.); and outputting a status of the cooking appliance determined from the deviation of the actual energy demand level (The method is in para. 20 and outputs with status are displayed on a screen as shown in FIGS. 4-18.).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, HELM discloses: A cooking appliance (FIGS. 1-3) comprising a steam heating system (abstract) and a control unit (17 in FIG. 3; para. 49-50), wherein the cooking appliance is configured to execute the method of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELM in view of BREUNIG et al. (DE 10201100458).
Regarding claims 3 and 4: As best understood, HELM does not disclose that the determination of the actual energy demand level is identified during the cooking operation. HELM discloses that the self-test is preferably done when the oven is not being used (para. 25).
BREUNIG however teaches a method (para. 19) of determining parameters from sensors and comparing these measured values to stored values and determining a deviation of the measured values from the stored values (para. 6), which is done during actual cooking processes (para. 7). BREUNIG also teaches that the measurements can be carried out over several cooking processes (para. 21-22), thus meeting the limitations of claim 4.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to carry out the measurements for the method of HELM during a cooking operation as taught by BREUNIG so that resource use can be optimized for cooking processes (para. 13-15 of BREUNIG).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELM.
Regarding claim 8: As best understood, HELM does not disclose executing a decision of one of keeping the cooking appliance and disposing of the cooking appliance based on the tightness parameter and the quality of the seal. However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the appliance arts to make decisions as to whether to keep using an appliance or to dispose of it. When a malfunction or fault is discovered, such decisions are made based on the severity of the malfunction, the cost of repair, the cost of replacement, and other factors that are obvious to one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims while also overcoming the numerous 112 issues discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests adapting the desired (target) values based on at least one of the age of the cooking appliance, the total operating time of the cooking appliance and on the total operating time of the steam heating system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. BRINKMANN et al. (DE 102019110198) teaches an oven with numerous sensors and taking measurements during a cooking operation, comparing those values to stored values, and diagnosing a leak or malfunction in the cooking appliance based on the deviation. CN 113805557 and CN 116147862 each teach using sensors to gather data and diagnose malfunctions, including in tightness, for an appliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights