DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, 20 and 22 are rejected due to the phrase are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea of displaying options to a user terminal apparatus as taught by Buehler (par. 0461).
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1 and 12 recite “to control a plurality of cooking devices” thus satisfying Step 1 of the Patent Office’s eligibility guidance test.
However the process does not satisfy Step 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance since a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case a processor and memory, with a display and the act of displaying a plurality of recipes to cook according to a plurality of cooking apparatus is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The claims solely require a manner of displaying, the claims do not require an actual cooking step or transformation as Claim 1 is one or more processors “communicatively coupled to the communication interface”, where the method of claim 12 is “an electronic apparatus configured to control”.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
With respect to Step 2A of the eligibility test whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception (Prong 1) and whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (Prong 2). The examiner notes that judicial exception may comprise mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). It is noted the recitation of generic computer components, in the instant case a processor, memory and/or communication interface of claim 1, in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. In the instant case, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
In the instant case Appellants claims fail the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim recites the field of use as “to control a plurality of cooking apparatus” but in this case imposes no limits on the process of cooking. The claims require mere data gathering steps, i.e. display options, to visualize a result i.e. providing a “recipe guide” or with respect to claim 12 a “recipe message” based on a plurality of recipes being selected as taught by Buehler and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The processor and “electronic apparatus” and user interface are used in their conventional way for “generate” a comprehensive recipe guide and display options. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books “for guiding a user to perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included” in a “comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes using the plurality of cooking apparatus” and numerical times and temperature observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping since the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea such as is specifically the case since the display merely provides information to a user to “perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included”, i.e. on/off of the cooking apparatus, temperature setting and/or providing the food to the cooking apparatus and/or present list for selection as is known in the art as taught by Buehler
In addition, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually controlling cooking based on cooking times and an order such as in the instant case the mental process of determining which of the plurality has the longest cooking time and ordering such first, prior to beginning a subsequent which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
In addition with respect to the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim recites based on a user selecting a first option among the plurality of options, a first screen having a plurality of options and generate a comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the first option, which encompasses the user manually accessing a type of food cook book or cook book relative to regional/country cooking. Alternatively and/or additionally, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, i.e. a user memory. The claimed generating of the comprehensive recipe guide encompasses known and typical options provided by paper cook books to achieve a desired chosen type of food by known recipes or cooking relative to regional/country by known recipes, including differently determining a cooking order, i.e. recipe steps, a cooking amount of time, i.e cook time, and a cooking method, i.e. type of device, type of cooking style, degree of doneness, temperature, etc., based on which option desired by the user which are not outside the mental capability of the user.
The claims require mere data gathering steps, i.e. display options, to visualize a result i.e. providing a “recipe guide” or with respect to claim 12 a “recipe message” based on a plurality of recipes being selected as taught by Buehler and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The processor and “electronic apparatus” and user interface are used in their conventional way for “generate” a comprehensive recipe guide and display options. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books “for guiding a user to perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included” in a “comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes using the plurality of cooking apparatus” and numerical times and temperature observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping since the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea such as is specifically the case since the display merely provides information to a user by a first user interface (UI) associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465), the first UI including a first screen having a plurality of options selectable by a user (par. 0461, 0462, 0432, 0435) and associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0432, 0435, 0461, 0462), the plurality of options including a minimum time option (par. 0432 at time requested by user) and an optimum time option (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) with respect to recipe cooking apparatus options (par. 0216, 0218), the minimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes in a shortest amount of time (par. 0432 optimally complete; par. 0435 immediately as opposed to later), the optimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes based on characteristics of cuisines of the plurality of recipes so that warm dish recipes are completed last (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user (par. 0222; par. 0484) as taught by Buehler and “perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included”, i.e. on/off of the cooking apparatus, temperature setting and/or providing the food to the cooking apparatus and/or present list for selection as is known in the art as taught by Buehler which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cookbook per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
More specifically with respect to Independent claim 12, but for “an electronic apparatus”, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user to “perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included” such as manually controlling cooking based on cooking times and an order and/or the mental process of determining which of the plurality has the longest cooking time and ordering such first, prior to beginning a subsequent and/or request a type of food or present a list for selection which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
In addition with respect to step 2A, the examiner notes that in addition to mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, the judicial exception further may comprise mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas, equations and calculations. Applicants claims recite control of the “cooking apparatuses based on an order and cooking time”. However imposes no limits on a specific parameter defining order, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits. As such, Applicant’s claims further fail the eligibility test of step 2A, prong 1.
With regard to Prong 2A, the Guidance states that a judicial exception in conjunction with an improvements to the functioning of a computer is eligible. However mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as in the instant case “based on a cooking section which requires an operation of at least one cooking apparatus being started in the comprehensive recipe guide, control the communication interface to transmit a control signal on the at least one cooking apparatus”. The transmitted control signal is not limited, is not directed to providing to a cooking device and merely encompasses providing information about, i.e. on the cooking device and/or alternatively information to a display. But for a control signal and communication interface the claim element encompasses the user manually following a recipe either by a cook book or by memory.
With respect to step 2B, the element is conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field as taught by Buehler where applicants recitation of for guiding a user to “perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included” and/or “a comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes using the plurality of cooking apparatus” fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
In addition with respect to Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept. While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue in determining claim eligibility, it is not a transformative test. See MPEP 2106.05(b). In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court held that “a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” Parker v. Flook, 427 U.S. 584, 595, n18 (1978). The MPEP sets forth some relevant factors in determining whether a machine-implemented method satisfies subject matter eligibility: the particularity of the machine, whether the machine implements the steps of the method, and whether the involvement of the machine is extra-solution activity or a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
With respect to step 2B, the element is conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field as taught by Buehler where applicants recitation of displaying to a user to “perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included” and/or “a comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes using the plurality of cooking apparatus” fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
For example, when evaluating the claim reciting an abstract idea and a series of data gathering steps the claims recite the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The combination of steps gather and display data in a conventional manner as Buehler and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With regard to the particularity of the machine, appellants claims are silent to any type of associated cooking apparatus which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicants Specification lists several different types of cooking appliances at par. 0075, in addition to non-cooking appliances which can be controlled, including “kitchen hood” and various other home appliances such as dishwashers. Leading one to determine that Appellant’s recitation of a “cooking apparatuses” is insufficient to provide particularity to the claimed machine.
While use of a machine to accomplish a claimed method may provide an inventive concept, Appellant’s claims are silent to any machine and is merely a machine on which the method operates. In addition, the claims are silent to any food perfecting, i.e. cooking or actually use of the obtained information that directs the operation of the appliance and is merely “configured to”. Being silent to such, where different cooking apparatuses perform vastly different operations with different methods and outcomes. Application of the same “configured to” control the plurality of cooking apparatuses shows that the cooking apparatuses is merely a machine on which the control method operates, failing to provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
The examiner evaluates whether the claims provide additional element(s) or combination of elements including “control” “based on an order and cooking time” amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer for more than one food to be cooked according to time as known in the art as evident by Buehler and post‐solution activity, i.e. user choose that could be attached to any cooking device using known pre-stored data. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the claims are mere instructions and choices of known cooking recipes as taught by Buehler. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps merely display options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food.
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of comparing recipes for cooking apparatuses by a generic display and merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information, i.e. provide, to the user terminal apparatus, a user interface (UI) associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option. But for the general purpose programed computer and displaying of information on a first screen, the claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information selectable by a user, as opposed to manually accessing different pages of a paper cook book which is not outside the mental capability of a user.
Claims drawn to judicial exceptions are not made patent eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, n14 (1981). Applicant’s recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea of “to control a plurality of cooking apparatuses” is an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use, rendering the claims ineligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Following the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance from the Office, Applicant’s invention is unpatentable under § 101.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehler (20050193901).
Buehler teaches with respect to claim 1, an electronic apparatus comprising:
a communication interface (par. 0451, par. 0428)
memory storing at least one instruction (par. 0356 data from previous time, timing, heat input; par. 0360 known pre-cooking temperature; par. 0425) and
a processor (par. 0431 main controller; par. 0436, 0469) communicatively coupled to the communication interface and memory (par. 0431, par. 0461),
where the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor individually, cause the electronic apparatus to,
receive a user command selecting a plurality of recipes (par. 0360 salmon over polenta and vegetables; par. 0462, 0432),
based on the plurality of recipes selected, provide, to a user terminal apparatus (par. 0461), a first user interface (UI) associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465), the first UI including a first screen having a plurality of options selectable by a user (par. 0461, 0462, 0432, 0435) and associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0432, 0435, 0461, 0462), the plurality of options including a minimum time option (par. 0432 at time requested by user) and an optimum time option (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) with respect to recipe cooking apparatus options (par. 0216, 0218), the minimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes in a shortest amount of time (par. 0432 optimally complete; par. 0435 immediately as opposed to later), the optimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes based on characteristics of cuisines of the plurality of recipes so that warm dish recipes are completed last (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user (par. 0222; par. 0484),
receive a user command selecting a first option among the plurality of options (par. 0461-0463) associated with the comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465),
based on the user command selecting the plurality of recipes and the user command selecting the first option among the plurality of options (par. 0461-0463), associated with the comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0461-0465), generate a comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes (par. 0360 modeled; par. 0432) and the first option (par. 0461-0463),
wherein the generating of the comprehensive recipe guide includes differently determining a cooking order (par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360), a cooking amount of time (par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe), and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461).
provide, to the user terminal apparatus (par. 0476), a first guide message (par. 0476, par. 0464 return list) for guiding a user to perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0464 requires selection; alternatively, par. 0475-0476) and
control a plurality of cooking apparatuses based on the cooking order, the cooking amount of time and the cooking method provided in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0432, 0435, 0217) and
Wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to
based on a cooking section which requires an operation of at least one cooking apparatus being started in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0360; par. 0429), control the communication interface to transmit a control signal on the at least one cooking apparatus (par. 0431).
Though silent to explicitly teachings the interface including a plurality of options selectable by a user on a first screen, where the plurality of options include a minimum time option, an optimum time option, and a cooking apparatus option, Buehler does teach the controller including the same options for selection and more specifically selection associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465) including determining a cooking order (par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360), a cooking amount of time (par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe), and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information taught as a singular display option relative the user interface of Buehler as a plurality of options thus providing a same selection options for user selection and scheduling of a meal by choosing what a user wants and the device makes it as further taught by Buehler (par. 0461).
Though silent to a cooking apparatus option, the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user. Buehler teaches the recipe including appropriate cooking apparatus including ovens, deep fryers and grills since certain recipes require specific apparatus (par. 0217, 0218, 0456). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cooking apparatus option thus providing the user alternate preparation options as taught by Buehler (par. 0445) thus achieving a same cooking of food using appropriate cooking devices (par. 0456) and more specifically the option of cooking apparatus which provide a desired flavor since the desired flavor for certain dishes is hard to duplicate using other cooking apparatus as taught by Buehler (par. 0222).
With respect to Independent claim 12, a method performed by an electronic apparatus, the method comprising
Receiving, by the electronic apparatus (par. 0461), a user command selecting a plurality of recipes (par. 0360; par. 0462, 0432),
based on the plurality of recipes selected, provide, to a user terminal apparatus (par. 0461), a first user interface (UI) associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465), the first UI including a first screen having a plurality of options selectable by a user (par. 0461, 0462, 0432, 0435) and associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0432, 0435, 0461, 0462), the plurality of options including a minimum time option (par. 0432 at time requested by user) and an optimum time option (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) with respect to recipe cooking apparatus options (par. 0216, 0218), the minimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes in a shortest amount of time (par. 0432 optimally complete; par. 0435 immediately as opposed to later), the optimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes based on characteristics of cuisines of the plurality of recipes so that warm dish recipes are completed last (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user (par. 0222; par. 0484),
receiving, by the electronic apparatus, a user command selecting a first option among the plurality of options (par. 0461-0463) associated with the comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0461-0465)
based on the user command selecting the plurality of recipes and the user command selecting the first option among the plurality of options (par. 0461-0463), associated with the comprehensive recipe guide generating standard (par. 0461-0465), generating, by the electronic apparatus (par. 0460-462), a comprehensive recipe guide to uniformly perform cooking according to the plurality of recipes (par. 0360 modeled; par. 0432) and the first option (par. 0461-0463), wherein the generating of the comprehensive recipe guide includes differently determining a cooking order (par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360), a cooking amount of time (par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe), and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461).
providing, by the electronic apparatus (par. 0476), a guide message (par. 0476, par. 0464 return list) for guiding a user to perform a user action in a preparation section which requires the user action in performing at least part of an operation of at least one recipe of the plurality of recipes included in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0464 requires selection; alternatively, par. 0475-0476) and
controlling, by the electronic apparatus, a plurality of cooking apparatuses based on the cooking order, the cooking amount of time and the cooking method provided in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0432, 0435, 0217)
based on a cooking section which requires an operation of at least one cooking apparatus being started in the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0360; par. 0429), control the communication interface to transmit a control signal on the at least one cooking apparatus (par. 0431).
Though silent to explicitly teachings the interface including a plurality of options selectable by a user on a first screen, where the plurality of options include a minimum time option, an optimum time option, and a cooking apparatus option, Buehler does teach the controller including the same options for selection and more specifically selection associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465) including determining a cooking order (par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360), a cooking amount of time (par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe), and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information taught as a singular display option relative the user interface of Buehler as a plurality of options thus providing a same selection options for user selection and scheduling of a meal by choosing what a user wants and the device makes it as further taught by Buehler (par. 0461).
Though silent to a cooking apparatus option, the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user. Buehler teaches the recipe including appropriate cooking apparatus including ovens, deep fryers and grills since certain recipes require specific apparatus (par. 0217, 0218, 0456). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cooking apparatus option thus providing the user alternate preparation options as taught by Buehler (par. 0445) thus achieving a same cooking of food using appropriate cooking devices (par. 0456) and more specifically the option of cooking apparatus which provide a desired flavor since the desired flavor for certain dishes is hard to duplicate using other cooking apparatus as taught by Buehler (par. 0222).
With respect to claims 2 and 13, the processor further based on a characteristic of a cuisine which is created based on the plurality of recipes, set(ting) by the electronic apparatus a priority order of the plurality of recipes (par. 0432-0433), and determine or determining by the electronic apparatus, a completion order of the plurality of recipes differently according to the priority order (par. 0432-0433).
Claims 3 and 14, wherein the processor or electronic apparatus provides a search result to the user terminal apparatus by searching cooking apparatuses capable of communicating with the user terminal apparatus (par. 0451 cooking devices communicate), receive a selection command on the plurality of cooking apparatuses from among the searched cooking apparatuses (par. 0451), and generate a recipe list comprising recipes cookable by the plurality of cooking apparatuses selected by the selection command (par. 0451 new set of varied cooking programs).
Claims 5 and 18, the processor or electronic apparatus is further configured to: obtain private user information from a server through the communication interface (par. 0451 private relative devices, par. 0464 favorite dishes; par. 0465 preferred ingredients) and generate a user customized recipe by modifying a standard recipe for respective foods based on the private user information (par. 0451, par. 0464 favorite dishes; par. 0465 preferred ingredients) and wherein the recipe list comprises the user customized recipe (par. 0451, par. 0464 favorite dishes; par. 0465 preferred ingredients).
Claim 6, wherein the private user information comprises at least one of food preferences of the user (par. 0451, 0464, 0465), information on items possessed (par. 0463), or activity information (par. 0451 ratings; previous cooking).
With respect to claim 7, Buehler teaches the processor is further configured to determine, based on recipe information of the plurality of recipes (par. 0406; not interfere with current cooking processes), soiling of cooking tools and dishes used in cooking according to the comprehensive recipe guide (par. 0406, par. 0490 after meal), and control a dish washer (par. 0386; wash area; par. 0484 last 3 lines) to perform a wash operation (par. 0406, 0490) according to a wash course of the dish washer (par. 0406; as soon as possible) corresponding to the soiling of the cooking tools and dishes used in the cooking (par. 0406, 0490).
Though silent to determining a soiling degree, in addition to teaching the processor configured to perform cleaning tasks, since Buehler further teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks to remove bulk cooking debris (par. 408) as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386).
In addition, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case though silent to determining a soiling degree, in addition to teaching the processor configured to perform cleaning tasks, since Buehler further teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize different degree of soiling relative amounts, food types and other variables which “needs additional cleaning” such as to remove bulk cooking debris as taught by Buehler (par. 0408) and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) relative soiling degree, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” as taught by Buehler and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414)..
With respect to claim 8, though silent to control the dish washer to set a wash course corresponding to a highest soiling degree from among the determined soiling degrees. Importantly, in addition to teaching the processor configured to perform cleaning tasks, since Buehler further teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) and the wash course set to perform cleaning tasks as soon as possible as taught by Buehler (par. 0406).
In addition, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case though silent to setting a wash course according to a soiling degree. Since Buehler teaches the processor configured to perform cleaning tasks, since Buehler teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” such as to remove bulk cooking debris as taught by Buehler (par. 0408) and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a wash course according to a determined soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) and the wash course set to perform cleaning tasks as soon as possible as taught by Buehler (par. 0406).
Claim 9, since Buehler further teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the dish washer to set a wash course corresponding to a highest soiling degree from among the determined soiling degrees, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) corresponding to a highest soiling degree from among the determined soiling degrees, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” as taught by Buehler (par. 0406) and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414)..
In addition, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case though silent to determining a soiling degree to determine a wash course, in addition to teaching the processor configured to perform cleaning tasks, since Buehler further teaches determining cleaning by type of food cooked and other variables monitored, in addition to being configured to determine a degree of cleaning needed, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize different degree of soiling relative amounts, food types and other variables which “needs additional cleaning” and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a wash course based on the determined soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) relative soiling degree, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” as taught by Buehler and/or washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location as taught (par. 0414).
Though silent to different areas for washing according to soiling degree, Buehler does teach multiple types of washing tools and areas to be washed (par. 0387-0408), in addition to teaching washing according to soil degree, i.e. need soaking prior to being moved to a different location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to different wash areas based on the determined soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) relative soiling degree, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” as taught by Buehler in a different location according to soling as further taught.
Claim 10, wherein the recipe information comprises food item information (par. 0428) and cooking tool (par. 0426) and dish information (par. 0429, 0430) to perform cooking according to a recipe (par. 0439).
Claim 11, since Buehler teaches a processor capable of being configured relative performing cleaning tasks, since Buehler teaches a user display for providing communication between the user and control system (par. 0461) and since Buehler teaches the processor is further configured to provide, to the dish washer, a guide message guiding the cooking tools and the dishes to be arranged in the dish washer (par. 0490, par. 0408) and since Buehler teaches washing in different areas according to soiling degree (par. 0414).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach guide message guiding the cooking tools and the dishes to be arranged in different areas in the dish washer according to the determined soiling degree, relative the cleaning tasks as taught by Buehler thus achieving a same desired autonomous cleaning system for cleaning tools and containers as taught by Buehler (par. 0385-0386) relative soiling degree, i.e. “needs additional cleaning” as taught by Buehler and/or relative bulk cooking debris as further taught by Buehler (par. 0408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the guide message guiding arrangement therein of the cooking tools and dishes relative the display and user interface as taught by Buehler for its art recognized purpose of providing information to the user specific to the location of the cooking tools as taught by Buehler (par. 0426).
With respect to claim 16, wherein the providing of the guide message comprises: displaying by the electronic apparatus a user interface (UI) associated with a corresponding recipe (par. 0476 user assistance)
displaying, by the electronic apparatus in the UI, a request to perform the user action (par. 0476 what to do) and
displaying, by the electronic apparatus in the UI, an input confirming the requested action is completed (par. 0476 notifies task finished).
Though silent to the same claimed information on a second UI, since the purpose and intent is providing a user with information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information taught as a second display option relative the user interface of Buehler as a request to perform the user action (par. 0476 what to do) and displaying, an input confirming the requested action is completed (par. 0476 notifies task finished) as further taught by Buehler (par. 0461) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of displaying recipe specific information requiring user action.
Claim 17, wherein the providing of the guide message further comprises displaying, by the electronic apparatus in the UI, a cooking progress situation of the recipe (par. 0429), where the second UI is taken with respect to claim 16.
With respect to claim 20, wherein the first guide message comprises a user interface (UI) associated with a recipe of the plurality of recipes (par. 0439), and wherein the UI includes a first area identifying the recipe (par. 04620464), displaying the user action requested for the user to perform (par. 0476), and displaying to the user to perform an input for confirming completion of the user action (par. 0476 last 3 lines).
Though silent to the same claimed information on a second UI which includes a second screen having a first area, second and third area. Since the purpose and intent is providing a user with information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information taught as a second display option relative the user interface of Buehler as second screen having a first area, second and third area thus providing a same information the user, namely identifying the recipe (par. 04620464), displaying the user action requested for the user to perform (par. 0476), and displaying to the user to perform an input for confirming completion of the user action (par. 0476 last 3 lines) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of displaying recipe specific information requiring user action.
Though silent to the same information which is displayed being displayed relative different areas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information to different areas thus achieving a same desired options and instruction to be displayed to a user.
Claim 22, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to:
generate the comprehensive recipe guide by utilizing control algorithms (par. 0459).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or further incorporate an artificial intelligence (AI) model into the control algorithm of Buehler thus achieving a same information which is both updated in real time and utilized as part of a distributed genetic algorithm or other optimization scheme, such as in the instant case AI, to improve the control algorithm (par. 0459) and the same advantage of better recipes without excess effort and testing as further taught (par. 0451).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the 101 rejection and practical application. Importantly it is noted the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case a processor and memory, with a display and the act of displaying a plurality of recipes to cook according to a plurality of cooking apparatus is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The claims solely require a manner of displaying, the claims do not require an actual cooking step or transformation as Claim 1 is one or more processors “communicatively coupled to the communication interface”, where the method of claim 12 is “an electronic apparatus configured to control”.
With respect to applicants urging the claims improve user convenience. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
With respect to applicants urging the amended claims “directly controls a physical apparatus”, as noted by applicant the urged control is a signal. Providing information by a signal is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, claim 1 recites such additional elements at a level of generality that corresponds to mere use of “a communication interface” as tools to perform the mental processes recited therein. In particular, the claims not recite any details as to how the electronic apparatus identify the at least one cooking instruction, determine a request is received, or modify the selected cooking instruction based on variables variable other than user selection and merely provide the information by a signal which amounts to extra-solution activity in conjunction with using the tools to apply the method and merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use.
With respect to applicants urging of improvement in the area of computer technology, importantly the claimed displaying does not require significantly more. More specifically, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually controlling cooking based on cooking times and an order such as in the instant case the mental process of determining which of the plurality has the longest cooking time and ordering such first, prior to beginning a subsequent which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books, i.e. options including a minimum time option and an optimum time option with respect to recipe cooking apparatus options, the minimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes so that an amount of time spent until cooking the plurality of recipes is complete is a shortest amount of time, the optimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes based on characteristics of cuisines of the plurality of recipes so that warm dish recipes are completed last the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea such as is specifically the case since the display merely provides information to a user which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cookbook per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
Claims drawn to judicial exceptions are not made patent eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, n14 (1981). Applicant’s recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea of “to control a plurality of cooking apparatuses” is an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use, rendering the claims ineligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Following the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance from the Office, Applicant’s invention is unpatentable under § 101.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Buehler and applicants urging Buehler is silent to generating a comprehensive recipe guide so as to differently control a way in which cooking is performed. Though silent to the options on a single display, Buehler does teach a minimum time option (par. 0432 at time requested by user) and an optimum time option (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later), recipe cooking apparatus options (par. 0216, 0218), the minimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes in a shortest amount of time (par. 0432 optimally complete; par. 0435 immediately as opposed to later), the optimum time option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes based on characteristics of cuisines of the plurality of recipes so that warm dish recipes are completed last (par. 0437, par. 0360-362; par. 0435 schedule for later) the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user (par. 0222; par. 0484).
More specifically, Buehler teaches determining a cooking order par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360, a cooking amount of time at par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe, and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461).
With respect to applicants urging the Office uses applicants own disclosure. Buehler specifically teaches a user interface for displaying options. Buehler teaches the options of cooking including a scheduler which optimizes the order of preparation steps to produce dishes of highest quality and have them ready at a requested time by a user while using the least amount of energy and other resources (par. 0433).
Buehler further teaches the user interface for providing displaying option and user selection (par. 0461-462).
Though silent to explicitly teachings the interface including a plurality of options selectable by a user on a first screen, where the plurality of options include a minimum time option, an optimum time option, and a cooking apparatus option, Buehler does teach the controller including the same options for selection and more specifically selection associated with a comprehensive recipe guide generating option (par. 0461-0465) including determining a cooking order (par. 0432 scheduler, par. 0360), a cooking amount of time (par. 0432 immediately vs later; par. 0360 individual ingredient recipe), and a cooking method (par. 0432 resources, par. 0360) based on which option among the minimum time option (par. 0435), the optimum time option (par. 0435, 0432), and the cooking apparatus option (par. 0222; par. 0484) is selected by the user command (par. 0461). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same information taught as a singular display option relative the user interface of Buehler as a plurality of options thus providing a same selection options for user selection and scheduling of a meal by choosing what a user wants and the device makes it as further taught by Buehler (par. 0461).
Though silent to a cooking apparatus option, the cooking apparatus option being an option for cooking the plurality of recipes using only cooking apparatuses desired by a user. Buehler teaches the recipe including appropriate cooking apparatus including ovens, deep fryers and grills since certain recipes require specific apparatus (par. 0217, 0218, 0456). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cooking apparatus option thus providing the user alternate preparation options as taught by Buehler (par. 0445) thus achieving a same cooking of food using appropriate cooking devices (par. 0456) and more specifically the option of cooking apparatus which provide a desired flavor since the desired flavor for certain dishes is hard to duplicate using other cooking apparatus as taught by Buehler (par. 0222).
Applicants urging with respect to claim 12 are taken as above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights