Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
On page 8, applicant argues Roy does not disclose a smart kitchen. However, the claim does not contain add any specific structure to the term “smart” in the preamble. Applicant doesn’t explain why the system in the claim is considered “smart” while the system in Roy is not smart.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant makes no argument, comparing and contrasting the differences of Roy and Buchler with the claims. Applicant does not argue against the reason for the combination.
Applicant argues Roy does not teach one or more processors executing one or more recipe files, each recipe file including one or more cooking operations for controlling the one or more smart appliances, each smart appliance executing one or more food preparation operations based on one or more datasets from the one or more recipe files, the one or more processors generating a command for controlling the one or more smart appliances from the one or more recipe files or from the user, the one or more datasets comprising one or more data over a time period; "and" executing each cooking operation by a smart applicant in the one or more smart appliances with a predetermined start time, a predetermined duration, and a control dataset.
Roy discloses “selecting a recipe file” (See Paragraph [0040]). A recipe file would be stored in a memory. The apparatus includes computer such as micro-processors, memory, storage, etc. (See Paragraph [0039]) The appliance cooks the recipe based on the user selection. (See Paragraph [0040] and Fig 14) The recipe file contains cooking times and the appliance would execute the recipe based on the cooking times and conditions. (See Claim 1)
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/26/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 1, line 14 recites “control dataset”. The specification as originally filed does not reference a “control dataset”.
Claim 11 also recites “control dataset”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
If the bracketed portion of claim 1 is determined to be included in the claim limitations, Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains two sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite “control dataset”. The specification as originally filed does not reference a “control dataset”. No explanation is provided on where this limitation is found or how any part of the specification would be interpreted for this limitation to be included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites [dependent claim – wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances.]
This addition is underlined and in brackets. It is not clear whether or not applicant is intending to add this limitation to claim 1. It is also unclear what is meant by “dependent claim –“.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more sensors" in the bracketed portion of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "one or more sensors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 already recites sensors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al (US 2015/0114236) in view of Buchler (US 2005/0193901).
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses, A smart kitchen having a kitchen module (the claim does not set forth parameters for what must be included to make a kitchen “smart”), comprising: a kitchen furniture, and one or more smart appliances (See Fix 1-4); one or more sensors (See Paragraph [0039]); an interface means for interfacing one or more controlling functions in the kitchen module (input device for allowing a user to control functions of the device, See Paragraph [0039]-[0040]); and one or more processors executing a recipe file for controlling the one or more smart appliances (the device contains a computer, which would have a processor for executing and controlling a recipe, See Abstract, [0004], [0010] each smart appliance executing one or more food preparation operations(See Paragraph [0040]), the one or more processors generating a command for controlling the one or more smart appliances from the recipe file or from the user (See Paragraph [0014], [0037], [0041])
Roy also discloses “selecting a recipe file” (See Paragraph [0040]). A recipe file would be stored in a memory. The apparatus includes computer such as micro-processors, memory, storage, etc. (See Paragraph [0039]) The appliance cooks the recipe based on the user selection. (See Paragraph [0040] and Fig 14) The recipe file contains cooking times and the appliance would execute the recipe based on the cooking times, which would include a start and stop time based on the data in the recipe file, and conditions. (See Claim 1)
Roy fails to discloses the one or more datasets comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances.
Buchler discloses using algorithms which are changed based on feedback for precise control of the device. (See Paragraphs [0017], [0356], [0432], [0451]), As the graphical curve in the present application is changing based on feedback it would represent an algorithm. The graphical curve would be based on data from a dataset. Each data point in the set would be used to create the curve. It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide one or more graphical curves comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances for evolving recipes and control of the kitchen modules over time or to provide real-time feedback in order to control parameters of the recipe.
Regarding claim 2, the recipes are stored in a computer database. (See Paragraph [0010], [0014]) Regarding claim 3, Figs 9-12, show a robotic arm 4 with an end effector such as a stirrer 47 which would be controlled by the computer processor. (see Paragraphs [0033], [0038]) Regarding claims 4 and 10, the device includes sensors such as level sensor or laser sensors integrated into it. (See Paragraph [0039], [0041], Claim 8)
Regarding claim 5, Roy discloses the device is connected to a network and may be controlled remotely by communicating between an interface and the kitchen appliance. (See Abstract). However, Roy fails to disclose the voice activation command. Buchler discloses a robotic kitchen cooking appliance having a user interface with voice recognition for allowing the user to tell the device what they want to make. (See Paragraph [0461]) It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide the voice activation for allowing a user to control the device hands-free.
Regarding claim 6, Roy fails to discloses the one or more datasets comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances.
Buchler discloses using algorithms which are changed based on feedback for precise control of the device. (See Paragraphs [0017], [0356], [0432], [0451]), As the graphical curve in the present application is changing based on feedback it would represent an algorithm. The graphical curve would be based on data from a dataset. Each data point in the set would be used to create the curve. It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide one or more graphical curves comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances for evolving recipes and control of the kitchen modules over time or to provide real-time feedback in order to control parameters of the recipe.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Roy fails to disclose wherein the step of the interface means for operating the kitchen module or obtaining real-time information from the one or more objects in the kitchen module comprises (1) receiving a chef or user command to select the recipe for recording or execution (2) interfacing one or more real-time smart appliances statuses, (3) interfacing recipe execution feedback, (4) visualizing one or more objects, a respective objection position and/or a respective object orientation in the kitchen, or (5) controlling the one or more smart appliances, or any combinations thereof. However, Buchler discloses providing real time feedback for controlling temperature of the cooking surface. As cooking temperature is part of the recipe this is considered to meet the limitations of “recipe execution feedback”. The temperature is being monitored during execution of the recipe. (See Paragraph [0356]) It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide, wherein the step of the interface means for operating the kitchen module or obtaining real-time information from the one or more objects in the kitchen module comprises (1) receiving a chef or user command to select the recipe for recording or execution (2) interfacing one or more real-time smart appliances statuses, (3) interfacing recipe execution feedback, (4) visualizing one or more objects, a respective objection position and/or a respective object orientation in the kitchen, or (5) controlling the one or more smart appliances, or any combinations thereof for more precisely controlling the operation of the device while carrying out the execution of the recipe.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Roy discloses a method for operating a smart kitchen, comprising: receiving a command from a recipe file or from a user, by a processor, for controlling one or more smart appliances operating in a kitchen module (see claim 1), executing the recipe file by one or more processors for controlling one or more smart appliances to prepare a food dish (see claim 1), However, Roy fails to disclose, each smart appliance executing one or more food preparation operations based on one or more graphical curves from the recipe file, the one or more graphical curves comprising one or more data over a time period; and receiving a first set of data by one or more sensors for subsequent corrective or feedback by the one or more smart appliances in preparing the food dish.
Roy also discloses “selecting a recipe file” (See Paragraph [0040]). A recipe file would be stored in a memory. The apparatus includes computer such as micro-processors, memory, storage, etc. (See Paragraph [0039]) The appliance cooks the recipe based on the user selection. (See Paragraph [0040] and Fig 14) The recipe file contains cooking times and the appliance would execute the recipe based on the cooking times, which would include a start and stop time based on the data in the recipe file, and conditions. (See Claim 1)
Buchler discloses using algorithms which are changed based on feedback for precise control of the device. (See Paragraphs [0017], [0356], [0432], [0451]), As the graphical curve in the present application is changing based on feedback it would represent an algorithm. It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide one or more graphical curves comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances for evolving recipes and control of the kitchen modules over time or to provide real-time feedback in order to control parameters of the recipe.
Regarding claim 12, Roy discloses start time, stop time and would include a food type (See Paragraph [0014]) Regarding claim 13, Figs 9-12, show a robotic arm 4 with an end effector such as a stirrer 47 which would be controlled by the computer processor. (see Paragraphs [0033], [0038]) Regarding claim 15-16, Roy discloses using a laser sensor to measure quantity of ingredients.
Regarding claim 19, Roy discloses the device is connected to a network and may be controlled remotely by communicating between an interface and the kitchen appliance. (See Abstract). However, Roy fails to disclose the voice activation command. Buchler discloses a robotic kitchen cooking appliance having a user interface with voice recognition for allowing the user to tell the device what they want to make. (See Paragraph [0461]) It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide the voice activation for allowing a user to control the device hands-free.
Regarding claim 20, Roy discloses, A smart kitchen having a kitchen module (the claim does not set forth parameters for what must be included to make a kitchen “smart”), comprising: a kitchen furniture, and one or more smart appliances (See Fix 1-4); one or more sensors (See Paragraph [0039]); an interface means for interfacing one or more controlling functions in the kitchen module (input device for allowing a user to control functions of the device, See Paragraph [0039]-[0040]); and one or more processors executing a recipe file for controlling the one or more smart appliances (the device contains a computer, which would have a processor for executing and controlling a recipe, See Abstract, [0004], [0010] each smart appliance executing one or more food preparation operations(See Paragraph [0040]), the one or more processors generating a command for controlling the one or more smart appliances from the recipe file or from the user (See Paragraph [0014], [0037], [0041])
Roy fails to discloses the one or more datasets comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances.
Buchler discloses using algorithms which are changed based on feedback for precise control of the device. (See Paragraphs [0017], [0356], [0432], [0451]), As the graphical curve in the present application is changing based on feedback it would represent an algorithm. The graphical curve would be based on data from a dataset. Each data point in the set would be used to create the curve. It would have been obvious to adapt Roy in view of Buchler to provide one or more datasets comprising one or more data over a time period; wherein the one or more sensors for receiving a first set of data for subsequent corrective or feedback during execution of the recipe file by the one or more smart appliances for evolving recipes and control of the kitchen modules over time or to provide real-time feedback in order to control parameters of the recipe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17, 18 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights