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 .
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 2 and 7 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.
In claim 2, the limitation “an arrangement action” is unclear if it is referring to the arrangement action recited in claim 1, or a different arrangement action.
In claim 7, the limitation “an arrangement action” is unclear if it is referring to the arrangement action recited in claim 1, or a different arrangement action.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 2018-0098485) in view of Oleynik (US 9,815,191).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an information processing device (100; Fig. 6) comprising: circuitry configured to generate new arrangement information (para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047) which is information on a new arrangement based on arrangement information including food ingredient information which is information on food ingredients used for an arrangement of a dish (the user selects ingredients to compose a dish; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), arrangement action information which is information on each arrangement action performed by a cooking person (the steps of the recipe are provided once the recipe is generated; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), cooking tool information which is information on cooking tools used for the arrangement (para. 0025; para. 0029-0047).
Park fails to disclose a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person.
Oleynik teaches a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person (Col. 15, lines 4-15; Col. 25, lines 36-41; Col. 29, lines 24-56; Col. 86, lines 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device of Park, with Oleynik, by providing a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person, to minimize cooking errors.
Regarding claim 2, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the new arrangement information including information on an arrangement action performed at each time based on the time-series data of the arrangement information (Park; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the new arrangement information based on the arrangement information further including layout information which is information on a layout of arranged food ingredients (Park; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 4, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the new arrangement information based on the arrangement information further including tableware information which is information on tableware used for the arrangement (Park; para. 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate recipe data by associating cooking step information and the new arrangement information with each other, the cooking step information being information on each cooking step when food ingredients used for the new arrangement are prepared (Park; para. 0034-0064).
Regarding claim 6, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate an order command for causing a cooking robot to perform the cooking step and the new arrangement step based on the generated recipe data (Oleynik; Col. 18, lines 11-55; Col. 22, lines 2-8; Col. 28, lines 50-61); obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute the cooking steps faster, and minimize errors.
Regarding claim 7, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the food ingredient information, the arrangement action information, or the cooking tool information is information obtained by analyzing an image obtained by imaging a state of arrangement by the cooking person, or analyzing sensor data obtained by measuring each arrangement action by the cooking person (Oleynik; Col. 12, lines 37-51; Col. 16, lines 18-32; Col. 17, lines 46-53; Col. 27, lines 47-67; Col. 45, lines 61-66); obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a more accurate information gathering.
Regarding claim 8, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry generates the new arrangement information further based on an image indicating an arrangement result made by the cooking person (Oleynik; Col. 12, lines 37-51; Col. 16, lines 18-32; Col. 17, lines 46-53; Col. 27, lines 47-67; Col. 45, lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 9, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the neural network that uses the subjective evaluation of the person for each arrangement and an image indicating a predetermined arrangement result as inputs and wherein the neural network uses time-series data on the new arrangement as an output (Oleynik; Col. 15, lines 4-15; Col. 25, lines 36-41; Col. 29, lines 24-56; Col. 86, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 10, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry if further configured to acquire the subjective evaluation and the image indicating the predetermined arrangement result which are inputs of the model, based on an input by a user who requests the new arrangement (Oleynik; Col. 12, lines 37-51; Col. 16, lines 18-32; Col. 17, lines 46-53; Col. 27, lines 47-67; Col. 45, lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches an information processing method comprising: causing an information processing device to generate new arrangement information (para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047) which is information on a new arrangement based on arrangement information including food ingredient information which is information on food ingredients used for an arrangement of a dish (the user selects ingredients to compose a dish; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), arrangement action information which is information on each arrangement action performed by a cooking person (the steps of the recipe are provided once the recipe is generated; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), and cooking tool information which is information on cooking tools used for the arrangement (para. 0025; para. 0029-0047).
Park fails to disclose a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person.
Oleynik teaches a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person (Col. 15, lines 4-15; Col. 25, lines 36-41; Col. 29, lines 24-56; Col. 86, lines 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device of Park, with Oleynik, by providing a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person, to minimize cooking errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Park clearly does not teach or suggest, inter alia, "circuitry configured to generate new arrangement information which is information on a new arrangement based on arrangement information including food ingredient information which is information on food ingredients used for an arrangement of a dish, arrangement action information which is information on each arrangement action performed by a cooking person, cooking tool information which is information on cooking tools used for the arrangement, a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person," as recited by amended independent claim 1…Oleynik fails to remedy the deficiencies of Park, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Park in view of Oleynik still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, "circuitry configured to generate new arrangement information which is information on a new arrangement based on arrangement information including food ingredient information which is information on food ingredients used for an arrangement of a dish, arrangement action information which is information on each arrangement action performed by a cooking person, cooking tool information which is information on cooking tools used for the arrangement, a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person," as recited by amended independent claim 1” on remarks page 12, lines 1-10 and page 13, lines 6-17. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Park teaches an information processing device (100; Fig. 6) comprising: circuitry configured to generate new arrangement information (para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047) which is information on a new arrangement based on arrangement information including food ingredient information which is information on food ingredients used for an arrangement of a dish (the user selects ingredients to compose a dish; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), arrangement action information which is information on each arrangement action performed by a cooking person (the steps of the recipe are provided once the recipe is generated; para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047), cooking tool information which is information on cooking tools used for the arrangement (para. 0025; para. 0029-0047). Park fails to disclose a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person. Oleynik teaches a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person (Col. 15, lines 4-15; Col. 25, lines 36-41; Col. 29, lines 24-56; Col. 86, lines 16-18). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device of Park, with Oleynik, by providing a model including a neural network generated by performing learning based on time-series data of the arrangement information, and subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for each arrangement of the cooking person, to minimize cooking errors.
Regarding claims 2-11, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/16/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights