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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 and 3-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “step 7: identifying whether the types of each food image are the same, if yes, classifying semantic of each area and mark the category of each food image; if not, taking the food image as a new input, and returning to step 4”. However, nowhere in the specification describes in detail about the “identifying whether the types of each food image are the same, if yes, classifying semantic of each area and mark the category of each food image; if not, taking the food image as a new input, and returning to step 4”. It is also not clear as to what is being compared in this step. Although in Fig. 2 of the instant application shows the judging step; however, that step is to determine whether the accuracy of the classifier has been improved. Determining the accuracy of the classifier is not the same as determining the types of each food image are the same. As such, claim 1 includes subject matter that is not supported by the specification and fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under this section because claims 3-6 are depend from claim 1.
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 1 and 3-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the target frame" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, claim 1 recites “step 7: identifying whether the types of each food image are the same, if yes, classifying semantic of each area and mark the category of each food image; if not, taking the food image as a new input, and returning to step 4”. However, it is not clear as to what is being compared to determined “whether the types of each food image are the same”. In addition, it is not clear as to what is meant by “classifying semantic of each area”. Nowhere in the specification describes the details of step 7. Although Fig. 2 of the specification shows a determination step; however, that determination step is to determine whether the fusion step has any improvement. As such, claim 1 includes subject matter that is not clear and indefinite.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under this section because they depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 2019/0213416) discloses an electronic device and method for processing information associated with food and provide food intake recommendations.
Yu et al. (US 2021/0166077) discloses a method for collecting photos of food items that is fed to augmented reality environment in an application that invokes a machine learning model to generate classification information for the photos.
Ting et al. (US 9,449,029) discloses a method and system for diet management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights