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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A cooking simulation of the ingredients in combination”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a presentation unit” in claims 1-11, “a recipe generating unit” in claims 14 and 15, and “a command generating unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0122] discloses as illustrated in FIG. 17, the cooking simulation device 1 realizes a simulation subject recognizing unit 131, a simulation calculation unit 132, and a presentation unit 133. At least some of the functional units illustrated in FIG. 17 are realized by the CPU 101 of FIG. 16 executing a predetermined program.
Paragraph [0135] discloses the simulation calculation unit 132 outputs
information indicating the simulation result, to the presentation unit 133.
Paragraph [0136] discloses the presentation unit 133 controls the display 109 to display a simulation screen according to the result of a simulation by the simulation calculation unit 132.
Paragraph [0137] discloses further, in a case where the presentation unit 133 presents a simulation result by synthesized voice, the presentation unit 133 outputs, according to the result of a simulation by the simulation calculation unit 132, voice indicating the simulation result from the speaker 110.
Paragraph [0143] discloses in Step S5, the presentation unit 133 controls the display 109 to present the simulation result to the chef.
Paragraph [0263] discloses as illustrated in FIG. 34, the data processing device 301 realizes a command generating unit 431. The command generating unit 431 includes a recipe data acquiring unit 451, a robot state estimating unit 452, a control unit 453, and a command output unit 454.
Paragraph [0275] discloses the NEW recipe data generating unit 502 receives selection of an ingredient by the chef who has checked a simulation result presented by the presentation unit 133. In ingredient selection, a predetermined ingredient is selected from appropriate ingredients by using voice. The NEW recipe data generating unit 502 updates the content of the original recipe data such that the ingredient selected by the chef is used in the cooking processes, to thereby generate NEW recipe data.
Paragraph [0277] discloses in Step S101, the original recipe data acquiring unit 501 communicates with the server configured to manage recipe data and acquires original recipe data.
Paragraph [0280] discloses in Step S104, the presentation unit 133 presents the result of the simulation by the simulation calculation unit 132 to the chef.
Paragraph [0281] discloses in Step S105, the NEW recipe data generating unit 502 receives selection of an ingredient by the chef who has checked the simulation result presented by the presentation unit 133.
Paragraph [0282] discloses in Step S106, the NEW recipe data generating unit 502 updates the content of the original recipe data such that the ingredient selected by the chef is used in the cooking processes and thereby generates NEW recipe data.
Paragraph [0294] discloses the command generating unit 431 of FIG. 38 acquires NEW recipe data generated by the NEW recipe data generating unit 502 and controls the cooking robot 302 according to the NEW recipe data.
Paragraph [0295] discloses in such a way, the information processing unit 511 including the NEW recipe data generating unit 502 and the command generating unit 431 may be provided in the same device such as the cooking simulation device 1 or the data processing device 301.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawluczyk et. Al. (US 20220323997) in view of Hua (US 20220287498).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Pawluczyk discloses an information processing device 106 (fig. 1, i.e. called a device) and an information processing method (abstract) comprising:
a presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) configured to present, using sensor information obtained by measuring (603, i.e. a measurement device), by a sensor (705-1, 705-2, 712-1, 712-2, 715, 1405; ¶ 0042, 0047, 0155-0156, 0167, 0171, 0253),
a flavor (101, i.e. called a flavor of a food product) of an ingredient (i.e. called food parameters) that is used in cooking, ingredient affinity information indicating an affinity of the ingredients in combination (¶ 0035, 0042, 0046-0047, 0094), and
flavor subjective information indicating a subjective evaluation by people (i.e. called experts or users) regarding the flavor of the ingredient (¶ 0105, 0106, 0203) or
a flavor of the ingredients in combination (¶ 0106, 0156, 0159, 0161).
Pawluczyk discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a state of the affinity of the ingredients in combination.
However, Hua teaches a state of the affinity of the ingredients in combination (¶ 0052, 0058).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of cooking food products. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk and Hua before him or her, to include such suitable food ingredients in combination of Hua because it provides a method and a device for automatically cooking food, which determines and adjusts corresponding cooking parameters based on the state of food ingredients in real-time, thereby cooking dishes with stable quality. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a continuous improvement of intelligence cooking devices and personalized options with adjustable parameters of ingredients to select from during the cooking process (¶ 0002).
With respect to claim 2, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) presents the state of the affinity of the ingredients in combination in conjunction with the flavors of the ingredients described in a recipe or the flavor of the ingredients in combination (¶ 0105-0106, i.e. recognized flavor in combination of one or more of food parameters).
With respect to claim 3, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) presents the state of the affinity of the ingredients in a new combination that is not described in the recipe (¶ 0203, i.e. a new type of food parameter, a new flavor, a new chemical, a new type of contaminant, a new type of time-distant event (e.g. a new food handling technique being employed at a farm producing the food products).
With respect to claim 4, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) presents the state of the affinity of the ingredients in combination in conjunction with an action of a user (602, e.g. determining flavor profiles and/or quality profiles of the food products or user/expert/operator tracking history of the food products) cooking (¶ 0154, 0159, 0161).
With respect to claim 5, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) presents the state of the affinity of the ingredients in a new combination that the user cooking has not recognized (¶ 0203, i.e. unknown food parameters/features or a new type of food parameter; ¶ 0229, i.e. different food parameters).
With respect to claim 11, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) presents the affinity of the ingredients in combination by using chemical structure information indicating chemical structures of the ingredients (¶ 0095, 0155-0156, 0159).
With respect to claim 12, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the sensor information includes information obtained by measuring, by a flavor measuring instrument (603, i.e. a measurement device), the flavor of the ingredient in a cooking process (¶ 0154)-0156).
With respect to claim 13, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the flavor subjective information includes information indicating a flavor subjective evaluation value provided by people who have eaten the ingredient (¶ 0105, 0106, 0203).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawluczyk et. Al. (US 20220323997) in view of Hua (US 20220287498) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20220167788).
Regarding claim 6, Pawluczyk in view of Hua discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the presentation unit displays a first icon representing a first ingredient and a second icon representing a second ingredient that achieves an affinity satisfying a predetermined condition in combination with the first ingredient, on a display screen side by side.
However, Oh et al. teaches wherein the presentation unit (440) displays a first icon representing a first ingredient and a second icon representing a second ingredient that achieves an affinity satisfying a predetermined condition in combination with the first ingredient, on a display screen side by side (abstract; ¶ 0047, 0071, 0073, 0083-0084).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of the preparation of food. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such combination of ingredients of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
With respect to claim 7, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Oh further discloses wherein the presentation unit (440) regards the first icon as a reference and displays the second icon in plural number around the first icon (¶ 0114, 0118-0119).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such combination of ingredients arrangement of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
With respect to claim 8, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Oh further discloses wherein the presentation unit (440) displays, in a case where the first ingredient and the second ingredient achieve the affinity satisfying the condition in combination, the first icon and the second icon being merged on the display screen in a manner that the affinity of the first ingredient and the second ingredient in combination is identifiable (¶ 0003, 0030, 0076-0077).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such identifiers of ingredients of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
With respect to claim 9, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Oh further discloses wherein the presentation unit (440) displays, in a case where the first ingredient and the second ingredient achieve the affinity satisfying the condition in combination, the first icon and the second icon being merged on the display screen in a manner that a flavor of the first ingredient and the second ingredient in combination is identifiable (¶ 0045, 0076-0077).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such identifiers of flavors of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
With respect to claim 10, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pawluczyk further discloses wherein the presentation unit (122, i.e. called the communication interface) moves at least one of the first icon and the second icon depending on the affinity of the first ingredient and the second ingredient in combination (¶ 0105-0106).
With respect to claim 14, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Oh further discloses a recipe generating unit (405, i.e. called a recipe capture module) configured to generate a new recipe (450) by using a combination of the ingredients selected by a user from combinations of the ingredients presented (¶ 0007, 0030, 0072-0073).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such a recipe generation module of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
With respect to claim 15, Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Oh further discloses a command generating unit (420, i.e. a recipe guidance module) configured to generate, according to recipe data indicating the new recipe generated by the recipe generating unit, an instruction command for causing a cooking robot to execute a cooking operation corresponding to each process described in the new recipe (0082-0091).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pawluczyk in view of Hua and Oh before him or her, to include such command(s)/instruction(s) module(s) of Oh because it achieves a desired ending characteristic of a cooked food product based on a size or dimensions of a food item or ingredient, outcomes previously achieved by the cooking appliance, and/or preferences of the user. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a cooking appliance which facilitates convenient, automatic user interactions with the appliance as the user cooks (¶ 0033).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mahapatra et al. (US 20220273139). Aboujassoum et al. (US 20160081515). Cohen (US 11,610,276). Tojo et al. (US 200900991691). HSU et al. (US 20200300774). And Oleynik (US 20150290795).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights