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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Objections to the specification are withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment of the specification.
Upon further consideration, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is applied.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102, examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Byron does not teach the amended limitations and directs applicant to the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “eminating” should be -emanating-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. (Currently amended) A processor-implemented method to utilize digital capabilities to assist in food preparation, the method comprising:
capturing one or more characteristics comprising an aroma of a dish associated with a recipe using one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an olfactory sensor;
visualizing using artificial intelligence systems the aroma eminating from the dish;
identifying, at two or more steps of the recipe comprising a recipe profile, one or more aroma profiles of the dish based on the captured one or more characteristics comprising the aroma;
comparing the one or more aroma profiles of the dish to one or more aroma profiles comprising the recipe profile; and responsive to the comparing, providing feedback of the dish to a user.
8. (Currently amended) A computer system to utilize digital capabilities to assist in food preparation, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer- readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
capturing one or more characteristics comprising an aroma of a dish associated with a recipe using one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an olfactory sensor;
visualizing using artificial intelligence systems the aroma eminating from the dish;
identifying, at two or more steps of the recipe comprising a recipe profile, one or more aroma profiles of the dish based on the captured one or more characteristics comprising the aroma;
comparing the one or more aroma profiles of the dish to one or more aroma profiles comprising the recipe profile; and responsive to the comparing, providing feedback of the dish to a user.
15. (Currently amended) A computer program product to utilize digital capabilities to assist in food preparation, the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
capturing one or more characteristics comprising an aroma of a dish associated with a recipe using one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an olfactory sensor;
visualizing using artificial intelligence systems the aroma eminating from the dish;
identifying, at two or more steps of the recipe comprising a recipe profile, one or more aroma profiles of the dish based on the captured one or more characteristics comprising the aroma;
comparing the one or more aroma profiles of the dish to one or more aroma profiles comprising the recipe profile; and
responsive to the comparing, providing feedback of the dish to a user.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. using artificial intelligence to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the clam limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because processor, memories, and computers are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), 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, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
The aroma sensor is considered a well known and conventional element (see art rejection below for evidence that aroma sensors are well known) used for necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Visualizing aromas, i.e. displaying, is considered extra solution activity and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 2-7, 9-14m 16-20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron (US 20180084809), hereinafter ‘Byron’.
Regarding Claim 1, 8, and 15, Byron discloses one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (e.g., a system having a processor and a memory. The memory stores program code, which, when executed on the processor, performs an operation [0007]),
capturing one or more characteristics comprising an aroma of a dish associated with a recipe using one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an olfactory sensor (e.g., the odor sensor device 110 is configured to capture odors (i.e., one or more characteristics comprising an aroma) from a given sample. Given a sample of a dish prepared according to a recipe (i.e., of a dish associated with a recipe), a controller application 112 executing on the device may cause the odor sensor (i.e., the one or more sensors comprise an olfactory sensor) device 110 to volatilize the sample [0024]),
using artificial intelligence systems the aroma eminating from the dish (e.g. see paragraph [0041] “ In one embodiment, the generation component 215 may identify mappings of odor compounds (i.e. aroma emanating from the dish)…The mappings may also be predefined based on a training set of flavor vectors—under this approach, a machine learning algorithm (i.e. artificial intelligence systems)”).
identifying, at two or more steps of the recipe comprising a recipe profile, one or more aroma profiles of the dish based on the captured one or more characteristics comprising the aroma (e.g., sensing (i.e., identifying) and adjusting odor characteristics of a dish (i.e., one or more aroma profiles of the dish) based on flavor signature data obtained (i.e., based on the captured one or more characteristics comprising the aroma) during or after the preparation of the dish (i.e., at two or more steps of the recipe comprising a recipe profile) [0016], and Fig. 5 item 515 “Obtain actual flavor signature for the dish at one or more states of the recipe”, examiner notes that one or more stages reads on at two or more steps of the recipe),
comparing the one or more aroma profiles of the dish to one or more aroma profiles comprising the recipe profile (e.g., representing the difference between (i.e., comparing) the flavor signatures. In particular, an index in the flavor signature delta that has a non-zero value indicates that a corresponding odor compound is present in the canonical dish (i.e., to one or more aroma profiles comprising the recipe profile) but absent (or are relatively weak compared to the canonical dish flavor signature) in the actual dish (i.e., one or more aroma profiles of the dish) [0030]),
and responsive to the comparing, providing feedback of the dish to a user (e.g., providing suggestions (i.e., providing feedback of the dish to a user) for preparing a given dish based on a flavor signature delta generated for the dish. Where the determination component 705 determines, from an obtained flavor signature delta between a canonical and an actual dish (i.e., responsive to the comparing), values identifying missing components of the canonical dish [0061]).
Although Byron does not explicitly teach visualizing aromas, Byron teaches visualizing ingredients corresponding to aromas (e.g. see [0033] “In some cases, the signature management application 107 may identify more than one ingredient corresponding to a particular compound…the QA application 122 may return a listing of recipe combinations using the identified ingredients. The signature management application 107 may output (i.e. visualize) to the user, the listing of combinations as ranked (e.g., by number of similar recipes using the ingredients, relevance, and the like).” and [0053] “the output device 424 may be any conventional display screen”, the display screen visualizes the ingredient which corresponds to the aroma). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the display used for visualizing ingredients of Byron for visualizing the aromas of Byron since the aromas correspond to ingredients and would provide information for accurately recreating a dish.
Regarding Claim 2 and 9, Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 1 and 8. Byron further discloses responsive to receiving a recipe profile request, modifying the recipe profile based on diner preferences (e.g., adjust the flavor signature delta based on a profile associated with a diner (i.e., modifying the recipe profile based on diner preferences), which indicates dietary constraints and the like that the diner may have [0020]; the signature management application 107 may maintain one or more recipe profiles 226 (i.e., responsive to receiving a recipe profile request), each recipe profile 226 corresponding to a given dish [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, 10, and 16 Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2, 8, and 15. Byron further discloses modifying the recipe profile is further based on user preferences (e.g., may adjust values in the flavor signature delta (i.e., modifying the recipe profile) based on a diner profile (i.e., user preferences) [0040]).
Regarding Claim 7, 14, and 17, Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2, 8, and 15. Byron further discloses determining whether the user has applied the feedback to the dish (e.g., the computing system may identify (i.e., determining), based on a given flavor signature delta (i.e., the feedback to the dish), missing ingredients or cooking techniques that should have been applied (i.e., whether the user has applied) in the corresponding stage [0021]).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Tokuda (US 20130149676), hereinafter ‘Tokuda’.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2, 8, and 15.
Byron does not explicitly disclose comparing the one or more aroma profiles of a user's dish to that of a different user's or an expert's dish through use of a video feature.
Tokuda discloses comparing the one or more aroma profiles of a user's dish to that of a different user's or an expert's dish through use of a video feature (e.g., virtual cooking server 150, may allow a client to download information (e.g., text, audio, image, and video files (i.e., video feature)) from the server [0041]; Camera 148 may capture digital images and/or videos (i.e., video feature). Display 149 may display digital images and/or videos (i.e., video feature) [0042]; recipe recommendations may be generated based on the VCR (i.e., through use of a video feature) and the personal recipe profile. The one or more recipe recommendations may be generated by comparing the total flavor intensity value (i.e., comparing the one or more aroma profiles) associated with a particular recipe (i.e., of a user's dish) with one or more different total flavor intensity values associated with different recipes (i.e., a different user's or an expert's dish) (e.g., recipes that satisfy one or more particular flavor values including taste values and aromatic values) [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Byron with Tokuda for comparing the one or more aroma profiles of a user's dish to that of a different user's or an expert's dish through use of a video feature as this would give the advantage that the particular recipe may be identified by acquiring a particular virtual cooking result associated with the particular recipe, comparing one or more taste values associated with the particular virtual cooking result with the one or more target taste values, comparing one or more aromatic values associated with the particular virtual cooking result with the one or more target aromatic values, and comparing one or more flavor metrics associated with the particular virtual cooking result with the one or more target flavor metrics, (see Tokuda [0164]).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Covell (US 20210383302), hereinafter ‘Covell’.
Regarding Claim 5, 12, and 19, Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2, 8, and 15.
Byron does not explicitly disclose receiving, during execution of the recipe, real-time or near-real-time feedback from an expert or another user using augmented reality capabilities.
Covell discloses receiving, during execution of the recipe, real-time or near-real-time feedback from an expert or another user using augmented reality capabilities (e.g., determine an optimal sequence of ingredient selection by the employee, and display real time augmented reality (AR) (i.e., real-time or near-real-time using augmented reality capabilities) order selection markers, alerts, and instructions to assist the employee in preparing (i.e., receiving, during execution of the recipe) the customer's order [0012]; identifies and analyzes emotional reactions of the customer (i.e., feedback from an expert or another user) in response to specific actions associated with the preparation of the food item by the employee. Based on the analyzed emotional reactions, the emotion recognition module provides real-time suggestions or alerts to the employee via the AR overlay 122 to modify the preparation of the food item [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Byron with Covell for receiving, during execution of the recipe, real-time or near-real-time feedback from an expert or another user using augmented reality capabilities as this would give the advantage to provide visual indicators in an overlay displayed to an employee (i.e., user) wearing an AR headset to assist the employee (i.e., user) in collecting ingredients and preparing a food item that includes the collected ingredients or detect cross-contamination of ingredients within a food preparation area and display an alert about the cross-contamination in an overlay displayed to an employee (i.e., user) wearing an AR headset, (see Covell, [0014-0015]).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron in view of Ciepiel (US 20210152649), hereinafter ‘Ciepiel’.
Regarding Claim 6, 13, and 20, Byron discloses the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2, 8, and 15.
Byron does not explicitly disclose detecting, before or during execution of the recipe, freshness of one or more ingredients based on the captured characteristics of the dish using artificial intelligence systems.
Ciepiel discloses detecting, before or during execution of the recipe, freshness of one or more ingredients based on the captured characteristics of the dish using artificial intelligence systems (e.g., device 410 may provide output or notifications to a user during the blending, preparation, and/or creation of a recipe (i.e., detecting, before or during execution of the recipe) [0095]; ingredient component 110 may receive or determine status information (i.e., based on the captured characteristics of the dish) associated with ingredients. Status information may include information about a state of an ingredient. Such states may include, for example, raw, cooked (e.g., level of doneness, type of cooking, etc.), frozen, thawed, temperature, fresh (i.e., freshness of one or more ingredients) [0045]; automated components supported through artificial intelligence (i.e., using artificial intelligence systems) (e.g., a capacity to make inference) [0027]; recipe component 140 (as well as other components of system 100) may utilize artificial intelligence (i.e., using artificial intelligence systems), statistical models, or other processes and/or algorithms [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Byron with Ciepiel for detecting, before or during execution of the recipe, freshness of one or more ingredients based on the captured characteristics of the dish using artificial intelligence systems as this would give the advantage to automatically learn and perform a number of functions, including but not limited to determining, according to added ingredients (e.g., states and/or quantities) (i.e., freshness), additional ingredients to add to meet user preferences, blending processes associated with functions of a blender motor, suggested recipes, target goals for dietary or fitness needs, and the likes, (see Ciepiel, [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilkinson et al., US 20190236678, an odor sensor (abstract, [0013]), recipe components [0013], visualization of aroma (e.g. see fig 2 step 208)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-0349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Allana Lewin Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857