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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected due to the phrase are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea determining cooking instructions as is type of paper cook books.
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1 and 12 recite “an electronic apparatus” thus satisfying Step 1 of the Patent Office’s eligibility guidance test.
However the process does not satisfy Step 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance since a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case a processor, with a display and the act of displaying a plurality of recipes to cook according to a plurality of cooking apparatus is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The Independent claims solely require a manner of determining, the claims do not require an actual cooking step and or transformation as Claim 1 is a processor “configured to”, where the method of claim 12 is “an electronic apparatus configured to”.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. 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, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
With respect to Step 2A of the eligibility test whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception (Prong 1) and whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (Prong 2). The examiner notes that judicial exception may comprise mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). It is noted the recitation of generic computer components, in the instant case a processor of claim 1, in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. In the instant case, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
In the instant case applicants claims fail the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim recites the field of use as “providing” information regarding cooking prediction results but in this case imposes no limits on the process of cooking. Importantly the claims are silent to a cooking device and merely obtaining cooking information. The claims require mere data gathering steps and providing guide information for adjusting cooking settings, which also does not require a food perfection step and merely provides additional information to the user and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The process and “electronic apparatus” are used in their conventional way for a comprehensive recipe guide. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books. More specifically the claimed “identify identification information corresponding to a cooking object to be cooked from among a plurality of cooking objects” encompasses a user manually identifying a desired cooking object to be cooked and manually accessing a cookbook which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346).
The claimed “based on the identification information and cooking setting information corresponding to a user input” encompasses a user manually accessing a paper cook book corresponding to a user desired cooking” which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346)
The claimed “identify a cooking history corresponding to the cooking setting information from among the plurality of cooking histories” encompasses a user manually accessing a paper cook book where the cooking history is a desired recipe or type of cooking relative different cooking objects and/or cooking types and which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346)
The claimed “obtain a cooking prediction result corresponding to the cooking setting information based on the cooking history” encompasses a user manually accessing a paper cook book to obtain a desired cooking result, i.e. a cooking prediction based on cooking history, as is the purpose and intent of paper cook books which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346)
The claimed “indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking or roasting regarding the cooking object” encompasses a user manually accessing a paper cook book and manually determining a desired degree of cooking or type of cooking.
The claimed provide, to a user information regarding the cooking prediction result and guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information encompasses a user manually accessing a paper cook book and following a paper recipe which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346).
The claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping since the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In addition, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user determining the desired cooking type and food type which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cook book which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346) per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
The processor is used in their conventional way of gathering data and comparing, i.e. determining which can be performed mentally and is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cookbook per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
With regard to Prong 2A, the Guidance states that a judicial exception in conjunction with an improvements to the functioning of a computer is eligible. However mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
With respect to step 2B, the element is conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field as taught by Hur et al. (20200018551) and Bhogal (10801734) and fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
In addition with respect to Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept. While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue in determining claim eligibility, it is not a transformative test. See MPEP 2106.05(b). In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court held that “a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” Parker v. Flook, 427 U.S. 584, 595, n18 (1978). The MPEP sets forth some relevant factors in determining whether a machine-implemented method satisfies subject matter eligibility: the particularity of the machine, whether the machine implements the steps of the method, and whether the involvement of the machine is extra-solution activity or a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
With respect to step 2B, the claim elements are conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field as taught by Hur et al. (20200018551) and Bhogal (10801734) fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
For example, when evaluating the claim reciting an abstract idea and a series of data gathering steps the claims recite the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The combination of steps gather and display data in a conventional manner as Hur et al. (20200018551) and Bhogal (10801734) and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With regard to the particularity of the machine, the claims are silent to any type of associated apparatus which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. In addition the claims though claim “cooking objects” the objects themselves are not even limited by type and or food or non-food and importantly do not require a cooking device since the “cooking object” is merely “to be cooked”. The claimed apparatus encompasses several different types of cooking appliances both food and non-food, where numerous cooking apparatus are known leading one to determine that the recitation of a “an electronic apparatus” is insufficient to provide particularity to the claimed machine.
While use of a machine to accomplish a claimed method may provide an inventive concept, Appellant’s claims are silent to any machine and is merely a machine on which the method operates. In addition, the claims are silent to any food perfecting, i.e. cooking or actually use of the obtained information that directs the operation of the appliance and is merely “configured to”. Being silent to such, where different cooking apparatuses perform vastly different operations with different methods and outcomes. Application of the same “configured to” control the plurality of cooking apparatuses shows that the cooking apparatuses is merely a machine on which the control method operates, failing to provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
The examiner evaluates whether the claims provide additional element(s) or combination of elements amount(s) to no more than:
In the instant case the claimed additional element of a memory and a user interface are mere instructions to implement the idea as known in the art as evident by Hur et al. (20200018551) and Bhogal (10801734). The memory and user interface provide post‐solution activity, i.e. user choose that could be attached to any cooking device using known pre-stored data. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the claims are mere instructions and choices of known cooking recipes. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps merely display options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food.
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of comparing recipes for cooking and merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information.
Claims drawn to judicial exceptions are not made patent eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, n14 (1981). Applicant’s recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea of “to control a plurality of cooking apparatuses” is an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use, rendering the claims ineligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Following the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance from the Office, Applicant’s invention is unpatentable under § 101.
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 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 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hur et al. (20200018551).
Hur teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (par. 0269), a plurality of cooking histories (par. 0365, .366), corresponding to a plurality of cooking objects (par. 0285, 0308); and
a processor (par. 0373) configured to execute the instructions to:
identify identification information corresponding to a cooking object to be cooked from among the plurality of cooking objects (par. 0285, 0308);
based on the identification information and cooking setting information corresponding to a user input (par. 0144, 0155, 0156, 0364), identify a cooking history corresponding to the cooking setting information from among the plurality of cooking histories stored in the memory (par. 0286, par. 0269; par. 0365 stored);
obtain a cooking prediction result corresponding to the cooking setting information based on the cooking history (par. 0269, 0286; par. 0365) and indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking regarding the cooking object (par. 0365 more heating; par. 0366 less heating) and
provide, to a user of the electronic apparatus, a user interface that indicates information regarding the cooking prediction result (par. 0145, 0160, par. 0347 notice; par. 0364-0365) and guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information (par. 0364-0365 feedback).
Claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: provide, to the user, guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information based on at least one of context information regarding the cooking object and user preference information (par. 0364-0366), and wherein the context information regarding the cooking object comprises at least one of a weight of the cooking object (par. 0364 set course weight), temperature information of an interior of a cooking chamber (par. 0365, 0366 cooking temp.), and state information of the cooking object (par. 0365, 0366, more less heat).
Claim 3, wherein the guide information comprises a recommended adjustment range of at least one of a cooking time and a cooking temperature comprised by the cooking setting information (par. 0365, 0366).
Claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a user command indicating a selection of a degree of cooking (par. 0365, 0366) regarding the cooking object and obtain the user command as the user preference information (par. 0364 modify course for future).
Claim 6, further comprising: a communication interface (par. 0156), wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive, via the communication interface, information regarding whether a specific function has been executed in an external device (par. 0156 preheat); and obtain, based on the information regarding whether the specific function has been executed, the context information regarding the cooking object (par. 0155, 0160), and wherein the specific function comprises at least one of a pre-cooking function (par. 0155) and a defrosting function regarding the cooking object (par. 0370, 0371).
Claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: identify, using a neural network model (par. 0284), the cooking prediction result by inputting the cooking object (par. 0286) and the cooking setting information to the neural network model (par. 0284), and wherein the neural network model is trained to output the cooking prediction result regarding the cooking object based on at least one of a cooking time (par. 0290) and a cooking temperature (par. 0290) comprised by the cooking setting information (par. 0286, 0290).
Claim 8, further comprising: a camera (par. 0152), wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain an image capturing an interior of a cooking chamber through the camera (par. 0152) and obtain the identification information regarding the cooking object based on the image (par. 0157).
Claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: based on a cooking command being received (par. 0155), cook the cooking object based on the cooking setting information (par. 0364), obtain a cooking result regarding the cooking object after the cooking of the cooking object is completed (par. 0364 feedback) and add the cooking result to the plurality of cooking histories (par. 0365-0366 store).
With respect to Independent claim 12, a controlling method of an electronic apparatus, the controlling method comprising:
identify identification information corresponding to a cooking object to be cooked from among the plurality of cooking objects (par. 0285, 0308);
based on the identification information and cooking setting information corresponding to a user input (par. 0144, 0155, 0156, 0364), identify a cooking history corresponding to the cooking setting information from among the plurality of cooking histories stored in the memory (par. 0286, par. 0269; par. 0365 stored);
obtain a cooking prediction result corresponding to the cooking setting information based on the cooking history (par. 0269, 0286; par. 0365) and indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking regarding the cooking object (par. 0365 more heating; par. 0366 less heating) and
provide, to a user of the electronic apparatus, a user interface that indicates information regarding the cooking prediction result (par. 0145, 0160, par. 0347 notice; par. 0364-0365) and guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information (par. 0364-0365 feedback).
Claim 13, provide, to the user, guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information based on at least one of context information regarding the cooking object and user preference information (par. 0364-0366), and wherein the context information regarding the cooking object comprises at least one of a weight of the cooking object (par. 0364 set course weight), temperature information of an interior of a cooking chamber (par. 0365, 0366 cooking temp.), and state information of the cooking object (par. 0365, 0366, more less heat).
Claim 14, wherein the guide information comprises a recommended adjustment range of at least one of a cooking time and a cooking temperature comprised by the cooking setting information (par. 0365, 0366).
Claim 17, identify, using a neural network model (par. 0284), the cooking prediction result by inputting the cooking object (par. 0286) and the cooking setting information to the neural network model (par. 0284), and wherein the neural network model is trained to output the cooking prediction result regarding the cooking object based on at least one of a cooking time (par. 0290) and a cooking temperature (par. 0290) comprised by the cooking setting information (par. 0286, 0290).
Claim 18, further comprising: obtaining, using a camera of the electronic apparatus an image capturing an interior of a cooking chamber (par. 0152) and obtaining the identification information regarding the cooking object based on the image (par. 0157).
Claim 19, based on a cooking command being received (par. 0155), cooking the cooking object based on the cooking setting information (par. 0364), obtaining a cooking result regarding the cooking object after the cooking of the cooking object is completed (par. 0364 feedback) and adding the cooking result to the plurality of cooking histories (par. 0365-0366 store).
Claim 21, wherein the user input comprises at least one of a cooking time (par. 0144) during which and a cooking temperature (par. 0144) at which the user input instructs the electronic apparatus to cook the cooking object, the electronic apparatus is configured to receive the user input through a panel of the electronic apparatus (fig. 4 panel relative ref. 14, 15, 16), the electronic apparatus comprises a microwave induction oven (par. 0140), and the panel of the electronic apparatus is on the microwave indication oven and is configured to receive the user input (fig. 4; par. 0143-0144).
Claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on receiving cooking setting information adjusted by the user after providing the guide information (par. 0364-0366), obtain an updated cooking prediction result (par. 0364, 0365 store).
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhogal et al. (10801734).
Bhogal teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (col. 19 lines 17-19), a plurality of cooking histories (col. 19 lines 35-37), and a plurality of cooking objects (col. 19 lines 41-46; col. 23 lines 30-40); and
a processor (col. 17 line 65) configured to execute the instructions to:
identify identification information (col. 19 lines 9-15) corresponding to a cooking object, to be cooked from among the plurality of cooking objects (col. 18 lines 30-33);
based on the identification and cooking setting information corresponding to a user input (col. 19 lines 8-10 input parameters, lines 25-31), identify a cooking history corresponding to the cooking setting information from among the plurality of cooking histories stored in the memory (col. 19 lines 35-41);
obtain a cooking prediction result corresponding to the cooking setting information based on the cooking history (col. 19 line 35-36) and indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking regarding the cooking object (col. 19 lines 28-30; browner; col. 19 lines 43-48 doneness) and
provide, to a user of the electronic apparatus, a user interface (col. 14 lines 30-36) that indicates information regarding the cooking prediction result (col. 18 lines 34-38; col. 34 lines 37-45; col. 32 lines 22-23 during cooking) and guide information for adjusting the cooking setting (col. 19 line 9, lines 24-30, col. 32 lines 28-30; crispier).
Claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: provide, to the user, guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information based on at least one of context information regarding the cooking object and user preference information and wherein the context information regarding the cooking object comprises at least one of a weight of the cooking object (col. 18 lines 30-2), temperature information of an interior of a cooking chamber and state information of the cooking object (col. 19 lines 26-29).
Claim 3, wherein the guide information comprises a recommended adjustment range of at least one of a cooking time and a cooking temperature comprised by the cooking setting information (col. 19 lines 24-28, col. 19 lines 27-31).
Claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a user command indicating a selection of the degree of cooking (col. 19 line 29) regarding the cooking object and obtain the user command as the user preference information (col. 19 lines 29-35).
Claims 5, further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the cooking object (col. 33 lines 39-44, col. 34 lines 14-15), wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to identify, based on the temperature of the cooking object, at least one of temperature information of an interior of the cooking chamber and the state information of the cooking object (col. 34 lines 48-50).
Claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: identify, using a neural network model (col. 19 line 51), the cooking prediction result by inputting the cooking object and the cooking setting information to the neural network model (col. 19 lines 41-51), and wherein the neural network model is trained to output the cooking prediction result regarding the cooking object based on at least one of a cooking time (col. 19 lines 20-24) and a cooking temperature (col. 19 lines 20-24) comprised by the cooking setting information (col. 19 lines 20-24).
Claim 8, further comprising: a camera (col. 10 lines 59-65), wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain an image capturing an interior of a cooking chamber through the camera (col. 10 lines 59-65) and obtain the identification information regarding the cooking object based on the image (col. 10 lines 59-65).
Claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: based on a cooking command being received (, cook the cooking object based on the cooking setting information, obtain a cooking result regarding the cooking object after the cooking of the cooking object is completed (col. 19 lines 24-30) and add the cooking result to the plurality of cooking histories (col. 19 lines 24-30).
Claim 10, further comprising: a camera (col. 10 lines 59-65), wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain an image capturing an interior of a cooking chamber through the camera after the cooking of the cooking object is completed (col. 10 lines 59-65), and
obtain the cooking result regarding the cooking object by analyzing the image (col. 10 lines 59-65).
With respect to Independent claim 12, a controlling method of an electronic apparatus, the controlling method comprising:
identify identification information (col. 19 lines 9-15) corresponding to a cooking object, to be cooked from among the plurality of cooking objects (col. 18 lines 30-33);
based on the identification and cooking setting information corresponding to a user input (col. 19 lines 8-10 input parameters, lines 25-31), identify a cooking history corresponding to the cooking setting information from among the plurality of cooking histories stored in the memory (col. 19 lines 35-41);
obtain a cooking prediction result corresponding to the cooking setting information based on the cooking history (col. 19 line 35-36) and indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking regarding the cooking object (col. 19 lines 28-30; browner; col. 19 lines 43-48 doneness) and
provide, to a user of the electronic apparatus, a user interface (col. 14 lines 30-36) that indicates information regarding the cooking prediction result (col. 18 lines 34-38; col. 34 lines 37-45; col. 32 lines 22-23 during cooking) and guide information for adjusting the cooking setting (col. 19 line 9, lines 24-30, col. 32 lines 28-30; crispier).
Claim 13, provide, to the user, guide information for adjusting the cooking setting information based on at least one of context information regarding the cooking object and user preference information and wherein the context information regarding the cooking object comprises at least one of a weight of the cooking object (col. 18 lines 30-2), temperature information of an interior of a cooking chamber and state information of the cooking object (col. 19 lines 26-29).
Claim 14 wherein the guide information comprises a recommended adjustment range of at least one of a cooking time and a cooking temperature comprised by the cooking setting information (col. 19 lines 24-28, col. 19 lines 27-31).
Claim 16, identify, based on the temperature of the cooking object, at least one of temperature information of an interior of the cooking chamber and the state information of the cooking object (col. 34 lines 48-50).
Claim 17, identify, using a neural network model (col. 19 line 51), the cooking prediction result by inputting the cooking object and the cooking setting information to the neural network model (col. 19 lines 41-51), and wherein the neural network model is trained to output the cooking prediction result regarding the cooking object based on at least one of a cooking time (col. 19 lines 20-24) and a cooking temperature (col. 19 lines 20-24) comprised by the cooking setting information (col. 19 lines 20-24).
Claim 18, further comprising: obtain an image capturing an interior of a cooking chamber through the camera (col. 10 lines 59-65) and obtain the identification information regarding the cooking object based on the image (col. 10 lines 59-65).
Claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: based on a cooking command being received (, cook the cooking object based on the cooking setting information, obtain a cooking result regarding the cooking object after the cooking of the cooking object is completed (col. 19 lines 24-30) and add the cooking result to the plurality of cooking histories (col. 19 lines 24-30).
Claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on receiving cooking setting information adjusted by the user after providing the guide information (col. 19 lines 24-26), obtain an updated cooking prediction result (col. 19 lines 25-31).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhogal et al. (10801734).
Bhogal teaches with respect to claim 21, user input including cooking parameters (col. 19 lines 8-10) at which the user input instructs the electronic apparatus to cook the cooking object (col. 18 line 66), the electronic apparatus is configured to receive the user input through a panel of the electronic apparatus (col. 14 lines 44-59), the electronic apparatus comprises an oven (col. 17 line 1), and the panel of the electronic apparatus is on the oven and is configured to receive the user input (col. 14 lines 30-35).
Though Bhogal is silent to explicitly teaching input of cooking time and cooking temperature. Since Bhogal teaches cooking time and a user interface for input of cooking parameters (col. 19 lines 8-10) and cooking temperature as controlling factors for cooking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach input of cooking parameters as taught by Bhogal such as time and temperature for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of instructs the electronic apparatus to cook the cooking object as taught by Bhogal.
Bhogal teaches an oven. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the electronic apparatus used to control a cooking device as taught by Bhogal being a microwave induction oven since the cooking parameters are not dependent on the device itself and thus achieving a same controlled cooking as taught by Bhogal.
With respect to claim 22, Bhogal teaches the cooking prediction including a determination that the food target parameter may comprise differences during cooking including drying out (col. 33 lines 46-54). Thus since Bhogal teaches a same cooking prediction with respect to the food during cooking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach based on a likelihood of the cooking object being burnt, with respect to the teaching of the food drying out as taught by Bhogal, the cooking prediction result includes information indicating that the cooking object is likely to be burnt due to the food drying out as taught by Bhogal and the cooking object is food (col. 33 line 42-44).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the 101 rejection and claim 19, it is initially noted claim 19 is a dependent claim.
It is further noted claim 19 encompasses mental steps as Independent claim 12.
The claim recites the field of use as “providing” information regarding cooking prediction results but in this case imposes no limits on the process of cooking. Importantly the claims are silent to a cooking device and merely obtaining cooking information. The claims require mere data gathering steps and providing guide information for adjusting cooking settings, which also does not require a food perfection step and merely provides additional information to the user and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The process and “electronic apparatus” are used in their conventional way for a comprehensive recipe guide. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books. More specifically the claimed “identify identification information corresponding to a cooking object to be cooked from among a plurality of cooking objects” encompasses a user manually identifying a desired cooking object to be cooked and manually accessing a cookbook which are known to provide a same information for determining cooking parameters and detail how long and under what conditions different food items should be cooked to obtain the user desired result as taught by Luo et al. (WO2017178346).
Importantly though urged an improvement in the art, the claimed additional element of a memory and a user interface are mere instructions to implement the idea as known in the art as evident by Hur et al. (20200018551) and Bhogal (10801734). The memory and user interface provide post‐solution activity, i.e. user choose that could be attached to any cooking device using known pre-stored data. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the claims are mere instructions and choices of known cooking recipes. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps merely display options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food.
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of comparing recipes for cooking and merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information.
Claims drawn to judicial exceptions are not made patent eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, n14 (1981). Applicant’s recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea of “to control a plurality of cooking apparatuses” is an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use, rendering the claims ineligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Though applicant urges updated guidance of 8/4/25. Importantly the guidance did not change the Eligibility Guidance with respect to a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case a processor, with a display and the act of displaying a plurality of recipes to cook according to a plurality of cooking apparatus is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The Independent claims solely require a manner of determining, the claims do not require an actual cooking step and or transformation as Claim 1 is a processor “configured to”, where the method of claim 12 is “an electronic apparatus configured to”.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. 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, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
With respect to applicants urgings directed to the prior art being silent to indicating a degree of cooking among a plurality of degrees of cooking regarding the cooking object, applicant is urged to par. 0365 more heating; par. 0366 less heating of Hur and col. 19 lines 28-30; browner; col. 19 lines 43-48 doneness as taught by Bhogal.
With respect to claim 22, Bhogal teaches the cooking prediction including a determination that the food target parameter may comprise differences during cooking including drying out (col. 33 lines 46-54). Thus since Bhogal teaches a same cooking prediction with respect to the food during cooking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach based on a likelihood of the cooking object being burnt, with respect to the teaching of the food drying out as taught by Bhogal, the cooking prediction result includes information indicating that the cooking object is likely to be burnt due to the food drying out as taught by Bhogal and the cooking object is food (col. 33 line 42-44).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792