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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit” in claim 10.
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 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, 7 and 9 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 2, the limitation “information on an arrangement action at each time on the basis of time-series data of the arrangement information” is unclear “at each time” what happens? When is the arrangement action generated?
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 limitation “an acquisition unit” 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. In this case, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 2018-0098485).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an information processing device (100; Fig. 6) comprising: an arrangement generation unit configured to generate new arrangement information (para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047) which is information on a new arrangement on the basis of 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 an arrangement action 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).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement generation unit generates the new arrangement information including information on an arrangement action at each time on the basis of time-series data of the arrangement information (para. 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement generation unit generates the new arrangement information on the basis of the arrangement information further including layout information which is information on a layout of arranged food ingredients (para. 0012-0014;0041-0043; 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement generation unit generates the new arrangement information on the basis of the arrangement information further including tableware information which is information on tableware used for the arrangement (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: a recipe generation unit 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 a cooking step when food ingredients used for the new arrangement are prepared (para. 0034-0064).
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 on the basis of 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 an arrangement action 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).
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Oleynik (US 9,815,191).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 5, except for, further comprising: an order command generation unit configured to generate an order command for causing a cooking robot to perform the cooking step and the new arrangement step on the basis of the recipe data of a predetermined dish.
Oleynik teaches an information processing device (abstract) comprising an order command generation unit configured to generate an order command for causing a cooking robot to perform the cooking step and the new arrangement step on the basis of the recipe data of a predetermined dish (Col. 18, lines 11-55; Col. 22, lines 2-8; Col. 28, lines 50-61).
Therefore, it would have 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 an order command generation unit configured to generate an order command for causing a cooking robot to perform the cooking step and the new arrangement step on the basis of the recipe data of a predetermined dish, to execute the cooking steps faster, and minimize errors.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein at least any one of the food ingredient information, the arrangement action information, and 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 an arrangement action by the cooking person.
Oleynik teaches wherein at least any one of the food ingredient information, the arrangement action information, and 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 an arrangement action by the cooking person (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).
Therefore, it would have 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 obtaining at least any one of the food ingredient information, the arrangement action information, and the cooking tool information by imaging a state of arrangement by the cooking person or analyzing sensor data obtained by measuring an arrangement action by the cooking person, for a more accurate information gathering.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 2, except for, wherein the arrangement generation unit generates the new arrangement information on the basis of a model generated by performing learning on the basis of time-series data of the arrangement information, subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for an arrangement of the cooking person, and an image indicating an arrangement result made by the cooking person.
Oleynik teaches wherein the arrangement generation unit generates the new arrangement information on the basis of a model generated by performing learning on the basis of time-series data of the arrangement information (Col. 15, lines 4-15; Col. 25, lines 36-41; Col. 86, lines 16-18), subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for an arrangement of the cooking person (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), and an image indicating an arrangement result made by the cooking person (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).
Therefore, it would have 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 generating the new arrangement information on the basis of a model generated by performing learning on the basis of time-series data of the arrangement information, subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation of a person for an arrangement of the cooking person, and an image indicating an arrangement result made by the cooking person, to minimize cooking errors.
Regarding claim 9, Park and Oleynik combined teach the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the model is a neural network that uses a subjective evaluation of a person for an arrangement and an image indicating a predetermined arrangement result as inputs and 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, further comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire the subjective evaluation and the image indicating the predetermined arrangement result which are inputs of the model, on the basis of an input by a user who requires the new arrangement (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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2019/0291277, US 2016/0081515 and US 2010/0171716.
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 01/21/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761