DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 1/7/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. This Office Action is made final.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-10, i.e. the deletion of “recipe generation unit”, preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the corresponding interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn. In light of this, however, the indicated allowability of Claims 1-10 is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 as presented below, as the claims are no longer being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 1, it recites generating a new recipe based on chemical structures of food ingredients, information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients, and subjective flavor information of food ingredients as evaluated by people.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (see MPEP §
2106), the limitations described above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover
performance of the claimed steps in the mind. For example, a chef may generate a recipe in his or her mind (or with pen and paper) on the basis of different types of food ingredient information. A chef could consider chemical structures such as rising agents (e.g. baking powder), as well as measured (e.g. an amount of sodium or sugar content) and subjective flavor information (e.g. either the chef’s own flavor preferences or those of diners) in determining a recipe. Therefore, the claim encompasses the mental act of decision-making on the basis of various available information types. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea by including limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites “an information processing device comprising circuitry” to perform the claimed method. However, this element is recited at a high-level of generality. The claim fails to recite any detail as to the structure of the “information processing device” or “circuitry”, or how it particularly functions to perform the abstract steps. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it fails to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s).
The claim also recites that the information used to generate a new recipe is chemical structures of food ingredients, information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients with a sensor, and subjective flavor information as evaluated by people. However, these limitations merely describe what the data/information represents, without making the claim any less abstract. For example, were a chef provided flavor information having been obtained from a sensor, he or she could abstractly generate a recipe on the basis of that information in the mind or with pen and paper via decision making. Thus, the limitations fail to impose a meaningful limit on the claimed method and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(h), “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information [and] analyzing it…to data related to the electric power grid…is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer component(s) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Moreover, claiming mental steps using data that is restricted to a particular type amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use, which fails to provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(h), “Limiting the use of the formula…to determining the circumference of a wheel” and “Limiting the abstract idea…to data related to the electric power grid”. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claims 2-6 and 8-10, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to make the claims patent eligible.
Specifically, the claims recite further mental steps (or mathematical calculations such as in Claim 5), and/or further describe what data being relied upon in the decision making represent, without reciting any additional elements that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per Claim 11, it recites a method comprising generating a new recipe based on chemical structures of food ingredients, information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients, and subjective flavor information of the measured flavors of food ingredients as evaluated by people.
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance
, the limitations described above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover
performance of the claimed steps in the mind. For example, a chef may generate a recipe on the basis of different types of food ingredient information in his or her mind, or with pen and paper. A chef could consider chemical structures such as rising agents (e.g. baking powder), as well as measured (e.g. an amount of sodium or sugar content) and subjective flavor information (e.g. either the chef’s own flavor preferences or those of diners) in determining a recipe. Therefore, the claim encompasses the mental act of decision-making on the basis of various available information types. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea by including limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites that the method is executed “by at least one processor of an information processing device”. However, this element is recited at a high-level of generality. The claim fails to recite any detail as to the structure of the “processor” or “information processing device”, or how it particularly functions to perform the abstract steps. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it fails to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s).
The claim also recites that the information used to generate a new recipe is chemical structures of food ingredients, information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients with a sensor, and subjective flavor information as evaluated by people. However, these limitations merely describe what the data/information represents, without making the claim any less abstract. For example, were a chef provided flavor information having been obtained from a sensor, he or she could abstractly generate a recipe on the basis of that information in the mind or with pen and paper via decision making. Thus, the limitations fail to impose a meaningful limit on the claimed method and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(h), “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information [and] analyzing it…to data related to the electric power grid…is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements described above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer component(s) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Moreover, claiming mental steps using data that is restricted to a particular type amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use, which fails to provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(h), “Limiting the use of the formula…to determining the circumference of a wheel” and “Limiting the abstract idea…to data related to the electric power grid”. Accordingly, Claim 11 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 3, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron et al. (US 2018/0084809) in view of Pinel et al. (US 9,971,737).
As per Claim 1, Byron discloses an information processing device comprising circuitry configured to generate a new recipe based on sensing information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients using a sensor (Abstract and Figures 1-2, 7 and Paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0016-0017, and 0021-0025, a system comprising a processor and a memory obtains a flavor signature from an odor sensor device, and generates a flavor signature delta from a first prepared dish and a second prepared dish, wherein suggestions – such as for ingredients and cooking procedures – for subsequently preparing a “third” dish, i.e. a new recipe, are generated based on the flavor signature and/or flavor signature delta); and flavor subjective information representing subjective evaluation of people with respect to flavors of food ingredients (Figures 2, 5 and Paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0040, the flavor signature delta is calculated based partly on diner profile(s) which contain flavor biases and flavor memory data, wherein the new recipe is generated based on the flavor signature delta).
Byron does not explicitly disclose generating a new recipe based on chemical structure information representing chemical structures of food ingredients used for cooking.
However, Pinel teaches generating a new recipe based on chemical structure information representing chemical structures of food ingredients used for cooking (Figures 4, 7 and Column 1, lines 33-48 and Column 3, lines 6-33 and Column 11, line 62 through Column 12, line 5 and Column 12, lines 40-65, a new recipe is generated based on identifying the chemical constituents for food ingredients, and possibly substituting an ingredient based on the chemical constituents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the recipe ingredient substitution taught by Pinel with the recipe generator of Byron because it provides for further flexibility in recipe generation as well as increased safety by avoiding allergies, avoiding missing ingredients, and providing healthy alternatives (Pinel, Column 3, lines 6-33).
As per Claim 3, Byron does not explicitly disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the new recipe using food ingredients included in a combination of food ingredients selected based on chemical structures represented by the chemical structure information.
However, Pinel teaches generating the new recipe using food ingredients included in a combination of food ingredients selected based on chemical structures represented by the chemical structure information (Figures 4-6 and Column 1, lines 33-48 and Column 3, lines 6-33 and Column 12, lines 40-65 and Column 13, line 25 through Column 14, line 20, a new recipe is generated using a plurality of substituted food ingredients that are selected/identified according to their chemical compositions and the chemical compositions of the original food ingredients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the recipe ingredient substitution taught by Pinel with the recipe generator of Byron because it provides for further flexibility in recipe generation as well as increased safety by avoiding allergies, avoiding missing ingredients, and providing healthy alternatives (Pinel, Column 3, lines 6-33).
As per Claim 6, Byron discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the new recipe in which the chemical structure information, the sensing information, and the flavor subjective information with respect to food ingredients used for cooking performed according to the new recipe are associated (Figures 5, 7 and Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0016-0017 and 0020, the flavor signatures and adjusted flavor signature delta associates measured food ingredients, dietary constraints/substituted ingredients – i.e. chemical structure information – and diner’s flavor biases and flavor memory information).
As per Claim 9, Byron discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the sensing information is information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients using a flavor measuring instrument (Figures 1, 5, 7 and Paragraphs 0025, 0027 and 0032, an odor sensor device determines a flavor signature of a dish for identifying food ingredients).
As per Claim 10, Byron discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the flavor subjective information is information representing a subjective evaluation value of a flavor from a person who ate a food ingredient (Paragraph 0035, flavor biases specify diner reactions and sensitivities to a particular ingredient in a dish they have consumed, such as whether a dish had too much garlic or needed more salt).
As per Claim 11, Byron discloses an information processing method executed by at least one processor of an information processing device, comprising: generating a new recipe based on sensing information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients using a sensor (Abstract and Figures 1-2, 7 and Paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0016-0017, 0021-0025 and 0034-0063, a system comprising a processor and a memory obtains a flavor signature from an odor sensor device, wherein suggestions for subsequently preparing a dish, i.e. a new recipe, are generated based on the flavor signature); and flavor subjective information representing subjective evaluation of people with respect to flavors of food ingredients corresponding to the flavors of the food ingredients measured using the sensor (Figures 2, 5 and Paragraphs 0016-0018, 0035-0036, 0040 and 0055-0058, the flavor signature delta indicates e.g. missing or inadequate ingredients as measured by the odor sensor device, wherein the flavor signature delta may be adjusted based on diners’ biases toward the measured ingredients, wherein the new recipe is generated based on the flavor signature delta).
Byron does not explicitly disclose generating a recipe based on chemical structure information representing chemical structures of food ingredients used for cooking.
However, Pinel teaches generating a new recipe based on chemical structure information representing chemical structures of food ingredients used for cooking (Figures 4, 7 and Column 1, lines 33-48 and Column 3, lines 6-33 and Column 11, line 62 through Column 12, line 5 and Column 12, lines 40-65, a new recipe is generated based on identifying the chemical constituents for food ingredients, and possibly substituting an ingredient based on the chemical constituents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the recipe ingredient substitution taught by Pinel with the recipe generator of Byron because it provides for further flexibility in recipe generation as well as increased safety by avoiding allergies, avoiding missing ingredients, and providing healthy alternatives (Pinel, Column 3, lines 6-33).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Pinel, and in view of Aboujassoum et al. (US 2016/0081515).
As per Claim 7, Byron in view of Pinel does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate commands for causing a cooking robot to execute cooking operations according to each process described in the new recipe based on recipe data representing the new recipe generated by the circuitry.
However, Aboujassoum teaches an automated cooking device wherein a user may select a recipe or generate a new recipe, wherein the device is further configured to generate commands for causing a cooking robot to execute cooking operations according to each process described in the new recipe based on recipe data representing the new recipe generated by the device (Abstract and Figures 1B-2, 8, 10, 18 and Paragraphs 0028, 0040, 0048 and 0053, a user may generate a new recipe, wherein cooking instructions for controlling the automated cooking device (ACD) are generated from the recipe and used to direct a cooking routine of the ACD for automatically cooking the recipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the recipe-controlled automated cooking device taught by Aboujassoum with the recipe generation and cooking assistance operations of Byron in view of Pinel because it allows for the generated/customized recipes of Byron and Pinel to be prepared by untrained individuals with little or no training in the art of cooking, provides for the recipes to be conveniently prepared while enabling users to conserve money and time as well as eat healthier through the use of fresh ingredients, and provides the flexibility of ingredient amount, variety, and brand customization while preparing the recipes (Aboujassoum, Paragraphs 0025-0026). Additionally, Aboujassoum advantageously calculates and provides the nutritional information of the recipes (Aboujassoum, Paragraph 0027). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the recipe generation and cooking assistance operations of Byron in view of Pinel to the recipe-controlled automated cooking device taught by Aboujassoum because it provides suggestions for cooking a dish or modifying a recipe as it is being prepared, thus enabling a user of the ACD to modify a recipe’s ingredients, cooking steps, etc. such that the prepared dish meets the user’s expectations more fully (Byron, Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0016-0018 and 0022).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Pinel, and in view of Pinel et al. (US 2015/0199608, hereinafter “Pinel ‘608”).
As per Claim 8, Byron in view of Pinel does not explicitly disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the chemical structure information is information obtained by measuring chemical structures of food ingredients using an analyzer.
However, Pinel ‘608 similarly teaches an odor sensor device for analyzing food flavors, wherein the device senses flavor compounds of a food to determine the molecular structure(s) and physiochemical descriptors of the flavor compounds (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0012, 0014-0015 and 0025, an “electronic nose” analyzes food to identify individual flavor compounds, wherein the structural and physiochemical descriptors of the flavor compounds are used to enhance the food such as by identifying missing or substitute ingredients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the odor sensing food analysis models of Pinel ‘608 with that of Byron in view of Pinel because it provides for further enhancing the food being prepared (Pinel ‘608, Paragraphs 0002 and 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) filed 1/7/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states on page 7 of the Remarks that Claim 11 has been amended and requests withdrawal of the corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant's statement(s) do not explain how the
claim overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 made by the Examiner in the previous Office action, nor do they point out disagreements with the Examiner's contentions made in the rejection in question. Applicant’s statements amount to a general allegation that the claim(s) are patent-eligible without providing arguments for the Examiner to consider and respond to. Therefore, the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are made/maintained as set forth in the claim rejection(s) presented above.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues on Pages 7-8 of the Remarks that the references by Byron and Pinel fail to teach "generating a new recipe based on chemical structure information representing chemical structures of food ingredients used for cooking, sensing information obtained by measuring flavors of food ingredients using a sensor, and flavor subjective information representing subjective evaluation of people with respect to flavors of food ingredients corresponding to the flavors of the food ingredients measured using the sensor," as recited by amended independent Claim 11.
The Examiner respectfully submits that independent Claim 11 is taught by the combination of Byron and Pinel as described in the above rejection of the claim. Specifically, Byron teaches using an odor sensor device to measure first and second flavor signatures from a first and second dish, respectively, and preparing and/or presenting one or more suggestions for preparing a third dish, i.e. a new recipe, based on the flavor signatures and their identified food ingredients and odor compounds. Similarly, Pinel explicitly generates a new recipe for a dish based on identifying the chemical constituents for food ingredients (see Pinel, Figure 7). Moreover, Byron discloses using the measured flavor signature(s) of a dish to compute a “flavor signature delta” to identify missing or inadequate ingredients in the dish, adjusting the flavor signature delta based on diners’ subjective biases toward those ingredients, and generating cooking suggestions (i.e. a new recipe) for subsequently preparing the dish based on the identified missing/inadequate ingredients and the diner’s preferences toward the food ingredients in the dish. Thus, the combination of Byron and Pinel teaches the limitations in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include 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 MATTHEW SANDIFER whose telephone number is (571)270-5175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30am-6pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MATTHEW D SANDIFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151