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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 10/20/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 15, 21 and 40-42 has /have been amended, claims 4-14, 17, 19-20, 22 and 24-37 were previously cancelled, claim 43 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 are pending in the application with claims 1-3 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 15-16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-43 are as follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the non-rectangular shapes outlined in claim 43 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under [0068], line 2 contains the information "a computerised device 111"; line 3 contains the information "a computerised device 101". Two different numerical 111 and 101 cannot be used to identify the same “a computerised device".
Under [0068], line 1 contains the information "a cooking appliance 110a”; [0069], line 5 contains the information "sous vide device 110a"; [0071], line 1 contains the information "cooking system 100a"; [0092], line 2 contains the information "the appliance 100a". Numerical 110a been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Under [0071], line 1 contains the information "cooking system 100a"; line 2 contains the information "cooking system 110b". Two different numerical 100a and 110a cannot be used to identify the same "cooking system”.
Under [0073], last line contains the information "a communication network 30"; under [0076] line 9 contains the information "bag 30". Numerical 30 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
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 15-16,18,21,23 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of the claims recites at least one step or instruction for reviewing visual information and determining a food characteristic based on the information which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Visually reviewing indicia, and/or the food itself and determining characteristics of the food item based on the information qualifies as a mental process.
For example, claim 38 recites obtaining image data of a generic indicia, which is broad enough to encompass text or a picture, processing that image data, and then determining a characteristic of the food item based on the image data. Similarly, claim 39 includes the same functions but exclusively based on a visual representation of the food and generic food characteristics, which could be for example already known to a user. These limitations amount to observation, judgment, and evaluation which are grouped as mental processes.
Further, the dependent claims 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 claimed functions/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 claim 38 and its respective dependent claims is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (computing device, processor, a souse vide device and souse vide bag), 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) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: The processor, computing device, souse vide device and souse vide bag recited the independent claim and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements 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 (souse vide cooking), 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 a generic cooking machine in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 38 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
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. 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 the independent claim (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent claim 38 (and its respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of the claims 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.
in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed computing device and processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. 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 technology, 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 algorithms required for the computing device and processor. 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 the claims 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, claimed apparatus is 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, the souse vide device and the souse vide bag 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 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, each claim is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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: computing device in claims 15-16,18,21,23 and 38-43. While the computing device is indicated as having a processor in paragraph 38, the processor alone cannot perform the functions recited in the claims, i.e. the algorithmic structure found on the processor is not found in the claims and therefore requires the computing device to be reviewed under 112(f). No specifics to any of the algorithmic structure required to complete the claimed functions is found in the disclosure, instead references to the algorithm are generic and undefined.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 15-16,18,21,23 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 38, and its independent claims, the disclosure does not set forth the specific algorithm(s) necessary to complete the functions claimed. For example, there is no discussion of how an incomplete image, of any level of completeness, can be adjusted to accurately identify the indicia of the souse vide bag. Further, with respect to use of a computer vision algorithm, there is no discussion of how different food items (breaded tofu, breaded raw chicken, breaded cooked chicken, etc.) that appear identical from the outside can be accurately identified and then can be accommodated for in developing a cooking program, for example since raw breaded chicken would necessarily require different cooking requirements to reach completion. Accordingly, the disclosure is deemed to not comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 15-16,18,21,23 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “memory of the computing device” in line 7 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “memory of the computing device” and the memory of the computing device mentioned in line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim limitation “computing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 15, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare et al. (US 2015/0257574 A1) in view of Denker et al. (US 2018/0324908 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 38, Hoare et al. disclose a cooking system including: a computing device (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1) configured to estimate one or more characteristics of a food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112]), the computing device having at least one processor (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1);
a sous vide device (a sous vide appliance for domestic use 10, [0088], Fig 1); and
a sous vide bag (see under [0073-0077 & 0108-0113], Figs 19-23),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine, a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (to a sous vide appliance 250 by providing the bag with an RFID tag 251, bar code or other means of remote identification. [0112], Fig 22);
Hoare et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag containing the food item;
determine, using at least some of the image data or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already);
determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in a memory of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia;
process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in three-dimensional (3D) space; and
determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia,
Denker et al. teach a cooking system including: a computing device (computing device 206, [0071]) configured to estimate one or more characteristics of a food item, the computing device having at least one processor (computing device 206… with a general-purpose processor, [0071]. Note: taught by Hoare et al. already);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A.) indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag (an integral label printer for creating a barcode such as a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.) containing the food item (“the sous vide bag containing the food item” taught by Hoare et al. already);
determine, using at least some of the image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A) or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag (barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.), a bag identifier (meal kit profile database 1918 can store package identifiers of one or more known meal kits/food packages, [0172]) identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already);
determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data (a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.) stored in a memory (an operational memory 210, [0070], Fig 2) of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia (to determine a state of the food substance, [0117]; clearly, the memory of the computing device can store “a planar representation of the indicia” as claimed);
process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in the 3D space (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A; clearly, with the 3D image captured by camera 118A, the processor is capable of “process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in the 3D space” as claimed)
determine the one or more characteristics of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112], taught by Hoare et al.) based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia (the computing device captures one or more images in advance of the cook and determines properties of the food, [0115], Fig 9, clearly, the processor is capable of “determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia” as claimed),
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Hoare et al. with Denker et al.’s further teaching of wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag containing the food item; determine, using at least some of the image data or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag; determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in a memory of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia; process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in three-dimensional (3D) space; and determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia; because Denker et al. teach, in Abstract of providing an excellent computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image by adjusting the captured image with respect to the stabilized power and/or peak wavelength, and device comprises feedback components operable to receive the adjusted captured image, extract features, and analyze the one or more features to determine an event, property, measurement and/or status during operation.
Regarding Claims 15, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 39-43, Hoare et al. in view of Denker et al. further disclose:
Claim 15, wherein the sous vide device includes one or more sensors to monitor the food item during cooking (RFID tag 251… information such as a recommended cooking time 253 and they suggested cooking temperature 254. [0112], Hoare et al.), wherein the at least one processor of the computing device is further configured to:
receive feedback data from the one or more sensors (the camera 118A includes an infrared sensor to provide thermal images to the computing device as feedback to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0067], Denker et al.);
modify the cooking program based at least in part on the feedback data (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.); and transfer, to the at least one processor, data indicative of the cooking program as modified (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.);
wherein the sous vide device (a sous vide appliance for domestic use 10, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.) is controlled by the at least one processor (microprocessor, MCU or other controlled device 14, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.) according to the cooking program as modified (to adjust the controls of the heating elements 218 in real-time according to a heat adjustment algorithm, [0081], Denker et al.).
Claim 16, wherein at least one of the feedback data, the cooking program, and the cooking program as modified is communicated between the computing device and the cooking appliance sous vide device via a user device (a user interface 13, [0088], Fig 1, Hoare et al.).
Claim 18, wherein the image data includes one or more images of the sous vide bag containing the food item, the sous vide bag bearing the indicia (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Denker et al. Note: “the sous vide bag containing the food item” taught by Hoare et al. already).
Claim 21, wherein the at least one processor of the computing device is configured to:
record, in the memory of the computing device, a status associated with the bag identifier, the status being indicative of the sous vide bag having been used (meal kit profile database 1918 can store package identifiers of one or more known meal kits/food packages, [0172], Denker et al.);
receive subsequent image data (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A, Denker et al.);
determine, based on the identifier of the sous vide bag captured in the subsequent image data and the status recorded in memory of the computing device, if the sous vide bag has previously been used (means for reading the tag 231, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.); and
in response to the sous vide bag having been previously used, prevent the sous vide device being controlled to cook the food item in the sous vide bag (enables the designer to specify a change of tactic/logic based on a cooking appliance's recognition of a package identifier, [0172], Denker et al.).
Claim 23, wherein: the computing device is a server processing system which receives the image data from a user device including a camera to capture the image data; or
the computing device is a user device including a camera to capture the image data (interactive user interface can be implemented on a mobile device (e.g., smart phone or electronic tablet) having a network connection with the cooking appliance, [0149], Fig 16, Denker et al.).
Claim 39, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
process the image data using a computer-vision algorithm (computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image by adjusting the captured image with respect to the stabilized power and/or peak wavelength, [0006], Denker et al.); or
receive one or more user input characteristics of the food item, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the one or more characteristics of the food item further based on the one or more user input characteristics of the food item; or
generate a cooking program based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the food item, wherein the cooking program includes at least one of a cook time and a cooking temperature.
Claim 40, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive the cooking program from the computing device (programmatically calculate how much heating… will impart to the food matter, [0123], Denker et al.); and
control one or more cooking components according to the cooking program (the computing device 206 can instruct the power source 202 to provide a set amount of DC power to the filament driver, [0075], Denker et al.).
Claim 41, wherein the at least one processor ((computing device 206… with a general-purpose processor, [0071], Denker et al.) is further configured to:
identify air bubbles in the sous vide bag (presence of steam emanating from the food or presence of bubbles… can be used to model the interior temperature for the food and/or the state of the cooking process, [0128], Denker et al.); and
present a prompt to a user to reposition the food item if it is determined that there are excessive air bubbles in the sous vide bag (Image capture and processing can also be used to detect events that may impact cooking or that results in problems for the end user, [0241], Denker et al.).
Claim 42, wherein the one or more characteristics of the food item include at least one of a weight, a thickness, a volume, a shape, and a surface heat transfer coefficient of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag as input into the scales through a user interface 260, [0112], Hoare et al.).
Claim 43, wherein the sous vide bag comprises at least one shape selected from the group of a circular shape, a rectilinear shape (see under [0073-0077 & 0108-0113], Figs 19-23), an oval shape, a polygonal shape, and a triangular shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “The machine-readable code 234 and the indicia 236 both encode information, however they do so in completely distinct ways as described in paragraphs [0079] and [0080] of the Specification. Paragraph [0079], set forth below, explains that information encoded in the identifier 234 is contained in the two-dimensional bar code or of the quick response (QR) code: [0079] The identifier 234 can be a 2D bar code, OR code, or other identifier that is scannable by the user device 500 ( e.g., readable via an application running on a mobile phone or tablet) for receiving information about the bag 30. For example, the identifier 234 can link to information about a cooking program, cooking instructions, food item 12 to be cooked, recipes, manufacturing information, best by dates, etc. Specification, paragraph [0079] (emphasis added). Applicant further submits that it is generally known that two-dimensional bar codes and QR codes function best if they are used on a flat surfaces without wrinkles. In contrast, the indicia recited by claim 3 8 is three-dimensional and the information encoded in the indicia is contained in the three-dimensional distortion of the indicia caused by the presence of food in the sous vide bag, as is explained in paragraphs [0067], [0080], and [0083] of the Specification”, and “As previously noted, claim 38 recites "indicia on the sous vide bag," and Applicant submits that Hoare and Denker do not teach or suggest this feature. Hoare describes an integral label printer for creating a barcode, such as 2D barcode 255. Hoare, paragraph [0112] ("Electronic scales associated with the appliance 250 may have an integral label printer for creating a barcode such as a 2 D barcode 255. The barcode may be encoded with, information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag as input into the scales through a user interface 260 located on or associated with the scales 262."); see also Hoare, Figure 22. However, for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that two-dimensional barcodes of Hoare do not teach or suggest the three-dimensional indicia required by claim 38. Applicant further submits that Denker does cure the deficiencies of Denker with respect to this feature of claim 38. In addition, Applicant submits that Hoare and Denker do not teach or suggest "determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in a memory of the computing device a planar representation of the indicia," as recited by claim 38. The Final Office Action cites to the description by Denker of determining the state of the food substance from a segmented image. Final Office Action, page 5, citing Denker, paragraph [0117]. However, Applicant submits that this description by Denker does not cure the deficiencies of Hoare with respect the above-noted limitation, and further a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the description of segmenting a captured image by Denker as teaching or suggest modifying a two-dimensional barcode to arrive at the three-dimensional indicia used to determine the planar representation of claim 38. Similarly, Applicant submits that Hoare and Denker do not teach or suggest "process the image data using the planar representation of the indicia to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in three-dimensional (3D) space" and "determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia," as recited by claim 38. The Final Office Action cites the description by Denker of a camera that can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber and cites and description by Hoare of determining” information based on the two-dimensional barcode. Final Office Action, page 6, citing Denker, paragraph [0063] ("The camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber 102.") and Figure IA and Hoare, paragraph [0112] ("The barcode may be encoded with, information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag as input into the scales through a user interface 260 located on or associated with the scales 262. Barcodes may also be used by third party food providers to encode Internet links, data, cooking instructions or etc."), [0115], and Figure 9. Applicant submits, however, that these descriptions by Hoare and Denker do not teach or suggest the above-noted features of claim 38. Applicant further submits that the use of two-dimensional barcodes, such as 2D barcode 255 of Hoare, or QR codes teaches away from the claimed indicia since barcodes and QR codes need to be flat to enable their encoded information to be read, whereas it is the three-dimensional information encoded in the distortion of the indicia that is used in the indicia of claim 38. See MPEP § 2143.01 (VI) (the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation of a reference). In addition, beyond changing the fundamental principle of operation of the barcodes described by Hoare, Applicant also submits that it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify two-dimensional barcodes to the claimed three-dimensional indicia without the impermissible use of hindsight, and there is no teaching or suggestion in Hoare or Denker to do so. See MPEP § 2142 ("impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.")”.
The examiner’s response: The combination of Hoare et al. (US 2015/0257574 A1) in view of Denker et al. (US 2018/0324908 A1) teach exactly a cooking system, disclosed all the limitations as recited in the independent claim 1 as shown above. Hoare et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive image data indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag containing the food item; determine, using at least some of the image data or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already); determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data stored in a memory of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia; process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in three-dimensional (3D) space; and determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia. Denker et al. teach a cooking system including: a computing device (computing device 206, [0071]) configured to estimate one or more characteristics of a food item, the computing device having at least one processor (computing device 206… with a general-purpose processor, [0071]. Note: taught by Hoare et al. already); wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A.) indicative of indicia on the sous vide bag (an integral label printer for creating a barcode such as a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.) containing the food item (“the sous vide bag containing the food item” taught by Hoare et al. already); determine, using at least some of the image data (camera 118A… capture an image of content… inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A) or a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag (barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, taught by Hoare et al.), a bag identifier (meal kit profile database 1918 can store package identifiers of one or more known meal kits/food packages, [0172]) identifying the sous vide bag (“processor is configured to determine, using a machine-readable code on the sous vide bag, a bag identifier identifying the sous vide bag” taught by Hoare et al. already); determine, using the bag identifier and indicia data (a 2D barcode 255, [0112], Fig 22, Hoare et al.) stored in a memory (an operational memory 210, [0070], Fig 2) of the computing device, a planar representation of the indicia (to determine a state of the food substance, [0117]; clearly, the memory of the computing device can store “a planar representation of the indicia” as claimed); process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in the 3D space (camera 118A can be adapted to capture an image of content at least partially inside the chamber 102, [0063], Fig 1A; clearly, with the 3D image captured by camera 118A, the processor is capable of “process the image data using the planar representation of the indica to determine a location or distortion of the indicia in the 3D space” as claimed) determine the one or more characteristics of the food item (information regarding the weight determined by the scales and the size, shape and content of the bag, [0112], taught by Hoare et al.) based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia (the computing device captures one or more images in advance of the cook and determines properties of the food, [0115], Fig 9, clearly, the processor is capable of “determine the one or more characteristics of the food item based at least in part on the location or distortion of the indicia” as claimed), for the purpose of providing an excellent computing device is operable to generate an adjusted captured image by adjusting the captured image with respect to the stabilized power and/or peak wavelength, and device comprises feedback components operable to receive the adjusted captured image, extract features, and analyze the one or more features to determine an event, property, measurement and/or status during operation (see Abstract). limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim (MPEP 2173.05(q)). During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner sh