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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s response to the final office action, dated March 23, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
The Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9. The Applicant has cancelled claim 4.
The Applicant’s arguments, respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-9 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2023/0014774) in view of Wyper et al. (US 2020/0302417 A1) is fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made using Bhogal (US 10,739,013 B2) for claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2); and using Bhogal (US 10,739,013 B2) in view of Wyper et al. (US 2020/0302417 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 5 as necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, the Applicant's amendments as well as the remarks on page 5, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhogal (US 10,739,013 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bhogal discloses a display method comprising: acquiring, by a sensor of a projector (Figures 2 and 5 – the appliance, producing parameter values by sensors, project displayed information to the user; col 3, lns 12-30), identification information from a marker in which the identification information is recorded, the identification information associated with a plurality of procedures (col 23, lns 42-50); projecting, by a display device of the projector, a projection image concerning a first procedure of the plurality of procedures corresponding to the identification information; acquiring, by the sensor of the projector (col 23, lns 55-67), the identification information from the marker again after projecting the projection image concerning the first procedure, wherein acquiring the identification information again comprises acquiring the identification information after a period that is started after the identification information is acquired (col 23, lns 60-65 “dynamic adjustment of operating instructions”; col 24, lns 44-63; Fig. 22) and in which the identification information is not acquired (determining either user 1 or user 2 profile – if user 1 profile is selected, identification information for user 2 is not acquired because it’s not selected)
PNG
media_image1.png
760
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and after acquiring the identification information again (feedback loop to dynamically update cooking instructions), projecting, by the display device of the projector (Fig. 13), a projection image concerning a second procedure of the plurality of procedures performed later than the first procedure, the second procedure corresponding to the identification information (Fig 13 – Operation instruction associated with user profile) or Figs. 14 and 24). “Your oven learns from your feedback” – figure 16.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Bhogal discloses the display method, wherein acquiring the identification information again includes acquiring, by the projector, the identification information after a time period after the identification information is acquired (Fig 3, t1-55; of Fig. 22 t1-tn – labeled i1N).
Regarding claim 3, Bhogal discloses wherein acquiring the identification information again includes acquiring, by the sensor of the projector, the identification information after a time period after the projection image concerning the first procedure is displayed (col 30, lns 41-col 31, ln 11).
Regarding claim 6, Bhogal discloses receiving a first input for instructing to acquire the identification information again, wherein acquiring the identification information again includes acquiring, by the sensor of the projector, the identification information when the first input is received (col 13, lns 35-43 and 53-65). After a user profile is established (as a first input) the user is identified continuously throughout the cooking cycle along with initial cooking instructions (asking user to “rate the crispiness level” – top of mobile device 45, in figure 14) and any cooking updates thereafter as part of the dynamic learning feedback loop. Figure 13.
Regarding claim 7, Bhogal discloses receiving, by the projector, a second input “User to input preferred brownness level – Fig. 14) for instructing to project the projection image concerning the first procedure (crispiness level) after projecting the projection image concerning the second procedure; and projecting, by the projector, the projection image concerning the first procedure when the second input is received (col 30, lns 57-65 and col 31, ln 1-5).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal (US 10,739,013 B2) in view of Wyper et al. (US 2020/0302417 A1).
While Bhogal discloses a marker including identification information by the sensor of the projector, Bhogal is silent regarding location information of the marker.
Wyper discloses identification information from the marker located in a first position, and acquiring the identification information again includes acquiring, by the sensor of the projector, the identification information from the marker located in a second position different from the first position and, thereafter, acquiring, by the projector, the identification information from the marker located in the first position. Paragraph 0030 states, “The frictionless shopping platform 104 stores the customer profiles (anonymous identifiers provided by shopping sensor platform 106 and private/personal customer identifiers provided by customer via mobile app 102) in a storage resource 107, communicates payment information to financial services provider 108 and receives the corresponding payment approval or rejection of payment for invoices from the financial services provider 108, receives and stores anonymous shopping data from a shopping sensor platform 106, matches anonymous shopping IDs generated by the shopping sensor platform 106 to private customer data (e.g., customer identifier, payment information), sends location updates and check-in notifications with a unique ID to the shopping sensor platform 106, and receives authentication data from the mobile app 102 that is then sent to the authenticator 105 for authentication. And paragraph 0032 states that optical sensors can be integrated with computer vision systems for tracking and evaluating user movement which include communication of location updates “can be provided, by approval of the user, via the mobile device and the mobile app (e.g., the mobile app 102 being supported by the frictionless shopping platform 104).” See figures 5A and 5B
PNG
media_image2.png
465
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraphs 0057-0059 explain that in order to access the store, the QR code is used for entering the store and then again upon checking out at a check out kiosk. Since the ID marker is located on a shopper’s mobile device, the shopper is moving from one location to the next where at various points in the store, the marker ID can be read for purposes of tracking user movements to enhance security and safety of shoppers and to indicate the conclusion of a shopping session (parag 0069). It would have been obvious to include tracking marker movements (ID) at more than one location, as disclosed by Wyper, to the user profiles of Bhogal to indicate the conclusion of a set of procedures or instructions expected of a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Todeschini (US 2016/0042241 A1) discloses in paragraph [0020] customer information for verification or advertisement could be displayed using the interactive indicia reader (i.e., barcode reader). Here the reader is placed in a stand (e.g., in presentation mode) and the projected message is displayed on a surface for viewing until the next item is scanned. In this way, the customer could verify the scanned item is the item they intend to purchase. If not, a virtual button to cancel (i.e., undo) the transaction item could be pressed and the item would be removed or revised. What is more, advertisements of similar products could be displayed after a scan to recommend related items for purchase.
Suzuki (US 8,678,280 B2) discloses recording and printing QR codes at a point of sale (Figures 13 and 14)
Jun et al. US 12,072,489: Discloses a projector (150), figures 2D and 4 located on eyewear for identifying objects in an envrionment; col 3, lines 25-40).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Mehmood whose telephone number is (571)272-2976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm ET. 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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)272-4637. 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.
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights