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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 14-33 are currently pending. Claims 14, 16-19, 25-27, 29, and 30 have been amended.
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.
The following limitations are being interpreted under 112(f):
a hyperspectral image capture unit configured to capture in an operating state a hyperspectral recording of a food object in an image capture region. The claim utilizes the generic term unit and provides for the claimed function in claim 14. The specification at par. 9 specifies, “It is preferred that the hyperspectral image capture unit is designed as a hyperspectral camera. Advantageously, the hyperspectral image capture unit only comprises a single sensor element and in particularly only a single lens and/or a single object lens.”
control unit comprising a computing unit, non-volatile storage, and a program stored on the non-volatile storage, wherein the program, when executed by the computing unit, causes the control unit to ascertain an item of information based on the hyperspectral recording of the food object, wherein the item of information comprises a presence of an undesirable substance with the food object, wherein the undesirable substance comprises at least one of an allergen, spoiled food, packaging material, inedible material, pesticides, and cleaning product residue. The claim utilizes the generic term unit and provides for the claimed function in claim 14. Par. 11 of applicant’s spec specifies that the control unit is part of a household appliance and could perform data processing. Par. 11 also provides that a cloud computing unit could perform the data processing. The specification fails to provide sufficient structure of an algorithm/program for performing the claimed function. See 112(a) and 112(b) issues below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Per the 112(f) interpretation taken above, the specification does not provide support for the structure of the claimed “control unit”. Par. 11 of applicant’s spec specifies that the control unit is part of a household appliance and could perform data processing. Par. 11 also provides that a cloud computing unit could perform the data processing. The specification fails to provide sufficient structure of an algorithm/program for performing the claimed function.
Claims 14-33 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 14 and 27 have been amended to include the limitation, “wherein the item of information comprises a presence of an undesirable substance with the food object, wherein the undesirable substance comprises at least one of an allergen, spoiled food, packaging material, inedible material, pesticides, and cleaning product residue.”
The specification does not provide support for “packaging material”. Par 18 of applicant’s specification provides support for packaging residue such as transparent plastic. However, this does not provide support for the broadly claimed “packaging material”.
The specification does not provide support for “inedible material”. Par 18 of applicant’s specification provides support for packaging residue such as transparent plastic. However, this does not provide support for the broadly claimed “inedible material”. The specification also discusses egg shells and insects but it is unclear if these are meant to be classified as inedible.
The specification does not provide support for “cleaning product residue”. Par 18 of applicant’s specification provided support for dishwashing detergent residue. However, this does not provide support for the broadly claimed “cleaning product residue”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 27 recite the limitation “inedible material”. It is unclear what the scope of the claim limitation covers. The term “Inedible material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Par. 18 of applicant’s specification makes mention of egg shell residue and insects, but it is unclear if such would qualify as an inedible material.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “control unit” and invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide sufficient structure including algorithm or program for performing the claimed function of ascertaining an item of information in the operating state based on the state of the one object. It is unclear to the examiner what structure would be sufficient in order to read on the claimed control unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Eiter et al. (WO2018188913 citing to PGPub US 2020/0069111 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 25, 26, and 27, Eiter teaches a household appliance apparatus/method (1, par. 57), comprising: a hyperspectral image capture unit (7, par. 22 and 57) configured to capture, in an operating state ,a hyperspectral recording of a food object in an image capture region (par. 63: Captures image of food in oven.); and a control unit (8) comprising a computing unit, non-volatile storage, and a program stored on the non-volatile storage (par. 58: Control device is a programable controller and would read on a computing unit and non-volatile storage.), wherein the program, when executed by the computing unit, causes the control unit, in the operating state, to ascertain an item of information based on the hyperspectral recording of the food object (par. 61-63: Detects browning of food based on image and used to adjust and or terminate cooking sequence.), wherein the item of information comprises a presence of an undesirable substance with the food object, wherein the undesirable substance comprises at least one of an allergen, spoiled food, packaging material, inedible material, pesticides, and cleaning product residue. (par. 61-64 Discussed the object recognition includes detecting food, food browning/spoiling, material of the food container/inedible, and soiling of the oven/inedible.)
Note: Claims 14, 25, and 26 appear to be substantially duplicative of one another. It is suggested that the claims be amended to clearly distinguish between each other.
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Eiter teaches embodied as a cooking appliance apparatus. (par. 55, oven)
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Eiter teaches wherein the hyperspectral image capture unit is configured to capture the hyperspectral recording by using a plurality of scanning values which comprise each an item of hyperspectral image information with regard to the object. (par. 22-25: Individual pixels analyzed spectroscopically.)
Regarding claim 17, Eiter teaches wherein the item of information comprises an item of food-related information. (par. 61-63: Detects browning of food)
Regarding claim 18, Eiter teaches wherein the item of information comprises an item of information that is not food related. (par. 62, 64: plastic or metal, soiling)
Regarding claims 19 and 30, Eiter teaches wherein in the operating state the control unit is configured to trigger in the operating state an action based on the item of information. (par. 62 or 63: Warning or modifying cooking sequence.)
Regarding claims 20 and 31, Eiter teaches wherein the action comprises an output to a user. (par. 62 : Warning to user due to metal detected)
Regarding claims 21 and 32, Eiter teaches wherein the output comprises a warning. (par. 62 : Warning to user due to metal detected)
Regarding claim 22, Eiter teaches wherein the action comprises an adaptation of a household appliance operating parameter. (par. 62 or 63: Warning or modifying/ terminating cooking sequence.)
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Eiter teaches wherein the action comprises an adaptation of a recipe parameter. (Par. 63: Modifying/ terminating cooking sequence.)
Regarding claim 24, Eiter teaches wherein the control unit is configured to take into consideration a specific item of user information in the operating state. (par. 13, 29, 58: Various inputs by user.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that the 112f and corresponding 112a and 112b rejections are not appropriate as the claims include specific structure and further the specification provides for the control unit conducting data processing.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not currently directed to a control unit that is a general-purpose computer. The claims are directed to the program of the controller. The specification does not provide any support for showing possession of a program to perform the claimed function.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues in page 9 of response that Eiter does not teach identifying specific substances within the vegetables and the it does not teach identifying objects without image recognition.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is not currently limited to what is being argued. The claim does not limit the apparatus or method to identifying objects with image recognition, nor does it limit the detection to within food objects. Examiner notes that if applicant’s desire such an interpretation that claims be amended accordingly while avoiding new matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761