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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The argument received on December, 15 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, and 18-19 are amended. Thus, claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The reference US 2017/0348854 A1 was not correctly cited in the last Office action. The correct citation is shown on the attached PTO-892.
Applicant’s amendment filed December, 15 2025 to claim 6 has overcome the objection.
Applicant’s amendments filed December, 15 2025 with respect to the rejection with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed December, 15 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “mathematical concepts" and that any "Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application." The Applicant submits that this is a mischaracterization of the claimed invention and a misapplication of the subject matter eligibility guidance. The claims, as amended, are not directed to an improvement in mathematics, but rather to a specific technological improvement in computer modeling and automated cooking systems, which uses mathematical concepts to achieve a practical application… The claimed steps provide exactly this: a particular, ordered solution that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application, resulting in a more accurate estimation of the cooking object's internal state. As amended, claim 1, as well as claims 18 and 19, clarifies that this reconstruction is used for "subsequent estimations of the internal temperature of the cooking object" improving accuracy of thereof.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. An abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematics and model. Further, the additional elements such as circuitry, an information processing apparatus, cooking object, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 1, 18, and 19 are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
construct a three-dimensional model representing a shape and a temperature distribution of a cooking object on a basis of sensor data acquired by sensors that measure states of a cooking utensil and the cooking object;
estimate an internal temperature of the cooking object by performing thermal conduction analysis based on the three-dimensional model;
recognize a change in any one of a shape, volume, and posture of the cooking object changes in a cooking process;
in response to the recognized change, estimating a contact thermal resistance between the cooking object and a heating medium on the cooking utensil: and
reconstruct the three-dimensional model to be used in the thermal conduction analysis; and
use the three-dimensional model to provide subsequent estimations of the internal temperature of the cooking object.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (method).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the 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 limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, the limitations of “construct a three-dimensional model representing a shape and a temperature distribution of a cooking object on a basis of sensor data acquired by sensors that measure states of a cooking utensil and the cooking object (see paras. [0077]-[0081] of instant application)” and “estimate an internal temperature of the cooking object by performing thermal conduction analysis based on the three-dimensional model” are mathematical calculations (see paras. [0121]-para. [0180] of instant application), recognize a change in any one of a shape, volume, and posture of the cooking object changes in a cooking process (see para. [0043] of instant application), in response to the recognized change, estimating a contact thermal resistance between the cooking object and a heating medium on the cooking utensil (see paras. [0044]-[0046] of instant application), and reconstruct the three-dimensional model to be used in the thermal conduction analysis (see paras. [0079], [0111] of instant application), and “use the three-dimensional model to provide subsequent estimations of the internal temperature of the cooking object (see paras. [0088]-[0089] of instant application)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 18-19.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the 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. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: an information processing apparatus (preamble); circuit; cooking object;
In Claim 18: an information processing method (preamble); cooking object; and
In Claim 19: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing (preamble); cooking object.
The additional elements such as circuitry, cooking object, an information processing apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 1, 18, and 19 are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Shibusawa (JP 202091217A), Li (JP2017517322A)). For example, Shibusawa and Li teach circuitry, cooking object, an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium soring a program, and (page 3. lines 23-24, page 8, lines 12-18, and page 8, lines 39-40 of Shibusawa; page 7, line 27, page 8, lines 8-17, and page 13, line 38 of Li).
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 9-15, and 20-21,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations. The explanation for the rejection of Claim 1 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to Claims 2-6, 9-15, and 20-21. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
Regarding claim 7
The additional element of “extract a surface temperature of the cooking object and a temperature of a heating medium on a basis of the sensor data” is insignificant (gathering data) extra solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application(see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8
The additional element of “extract a surface temperature of the cooking object and a temperature of a heating medium on a basis of the sensor data” is insignificant (gathering data) extra solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application(see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 16
The additional element of “control a peripheral device on a basis of an estimation result of the internal temperature of the cooking object” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (see page 14,lines 20-21 of Shibusawa; page 13, lines 42-45 of Asawa (JP 2020169865 A). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17
The additional element of “control at least any one of a heating device that heats the cooking object, an information terminal that presents a heating state of the cooking object, or an air conditioner installed in a space in which the cooking object is cooked” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (see page 9, lines 18-21 of Shibusawa; page 7, lines 49-54 of Ito (JP 202223297A)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 stand rejected under 35 USC 101. No prior art rejection is applied because the prior art of record fails to teach the following claim features. Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the limitation of “recognize a change in any one of a shape, volume, and posture of the cooking object changes in a cooking process: in response to the recognized change, estimate a contact thermal resistance between the cooking object and a heating medium on the cooking utensil: and reconstruct the three-dimensional model to be used in the thermal conduction analysis; and use the three-dimensional model to provide subsequent estimations of the internal temperature of the cooking object.” Dependent claims 2, 4-17, and 20-21 further limit these independent claims and additionally not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858