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
This office action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 29 April 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 5, and 16 are amended. No claims fare added or cancelled. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a video display device comprising:
a plate (Cho, Fig. 1, 4000) configured to detect a weight of a food ingredient (Cho, ¶0103, at lease here “recognizes weight of the ingredients on the plate”);
a projector (3000) configured to project an image onto the plate (Cho, ¶0111, “projects cooking information onto the plate”);
a camera (Cho, 7000) configured to capture an input of a user (Cho, ¶0097, captures “ingredients image” put on plate) relative to the image projected, and the food ingredient (camera is positioned relative to those things); and
a controller configured to recognize the food ingredient located on the plate through the camera (Cho, ¶0009), and change the image and control the projector to project the image changed, in response to a weight change of the food ingredient or the input of the user (Cho, ¶¶0110, 0111, “the projector 3000 projects the cooking information onto the plate 4000” based on “ information about names and weights of the ingredients” acquired earlier ¶¶0105, 0106,), wherein the controller is configured to: receive user information of the user (¶0079, ¶0091).
However, Cho does not specifically disclose to “control the projector to display a cutting line on the food ingredient on the plate so that the food ingredient can be cut according to a daily recommended amount of the user, based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient”.
As noted above, Cho does receive information of the food and the user and it also does teach showing lines to cut based on grams, Cho, fig. 20, but Cho does not specifically connect the cutting lines based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient.
However, Lee does teach displaying … [a] cut according to a daily recommended amount of the user, based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient” (Lee, Figs. 12C&12D, ¶216). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Cho, to combine the required caloric intake requirement of Lee and use the cutting lines of Cho, as Cho can already identify the food and its nutritional value and the needs of the user to indicate how much of the food to cut off for proper caloric intake, to indicate how to cut the food according to the desired caloric intake and fitness outcome, and this would be using known and determined information in a known way to achieve the expected result of cutting the proper amount of food.
Regarding claim 2, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the controller is configured to recognize the food ingredient located on the plate through the camera, and control the projector to project the image changed to include cooking information regarding the food ingredient (Cho, ¶0014, “receiving, from a camera, an ingredients image of at least one ingredient on a plate; determining the at least one ingredient based on the ingredients image; obtaining a food recommendation list related to the at least one ingredient, based on user information about the user of the mobile device; obtaining cooking information about food that is selected from the food recommendation list; and providing the cooking information to a projector”).
Regarding claim 3, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a video display unit wherein the controller is configured to control a main body to output the image changed to include the cooking information including weight information of the food ingredient, calorie information of the food ingredient, a cooking list using the food ingredient, and information about a recommended amount of the food ingredient (¶¶0148, 0158, figs. 9, 11, “Referring to FIG. 11, when the food is selected, the mobile device 1000 may display an image, a name, a cooking time, calorie information, and nutrition information of the selected food. The mobile device 1000 may also display images, names, and weights of ingredients that are required by the user to cook the food.”).
Regarding claim 4, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a video display device wherein the controller is configured to control the projector to project a recipe based on a plurality of food ingredients in the image, in response to recognition of the plurality of food ingredients on a surface of the plate (¶0069, “The mobile device 1000 may determine what ingredients or food are on the plate 4000 based on an image provided by the camera 2000”).
Regarding claim 5, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a video display device wherein the cutting line is further generated based on user information including at least one of age, sex, or weight of a user (¶¶0015, 0017, “weight, gender”).
Regarding claim 6, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a video display device comprising: a communicator (communication network 7000) configured to communicate with at least one of a server or a home appliance (server 6000, a household appliance 5000).
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses a video display wherein: the home appliance is a refrigerator (Cho, ¶0067, “the household appliance may be a refrigerator), but does not further teach wherein the communicator is configured to control the home appliance to update a list registered in the home appliance with a portion of the food ingredient, in response to separation of the food ingredient from the plate. Now, Cho does teach wherein providing information about the ingredients that are available in the appliance (Cho, ¶0074), and the system receives information about ingredients on the plate (Cho, next paragraph ¶0075 “The server 6000 provides to the mobile device 1000 at least one of information about the ingredients on the plate 4000, a food recommendation list, and the cooking information about cooking food.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have these two teachings explicitly work together, to have the information in the appliance (i.e. refrigerator) of the available ingredients update according to the food on the plate and how it is being used or handled, in order to more accurately know how much of an ingredient is available for a particular recipe, and then how much more may be needed to complete the recipe, or how to adjust the recipe according to what ingredients are available.
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses a method comprising:
detecting a weight of a food ingredient (Cho, ¶0103, at lease here “recognizes weight of the ingredients on the plate”), the food ingredient located on a plate (Fig. 1, 4000);
projecting (¶0111, “projects cooking information onto the plate”), by a projector (3000), an image onto the plate;
capturing (¶0097, captures “ingredients image” put on plate), by a camera (7000), an input of a user relative to the image projected, and the food ingredient; and
receiving information about the user (Cho, ¶0015, 0017),
in response to a weight change of the food ingredient or the input of the user:
recognizing the food ingredient located on the plate through the camera (Cho, at least ¶0009), and
changing, by a controller, the image(¶¶0110, 0111, “the projector 3000 projects the cooking information onto the plate 4000” based on “ information about names and weights of the ingredients” acquired earlier ¶¶0105, 0106,); and
projecting, by the projector, the image changed (Cho, at least ¶¶0024, 0035, the projected image changes as the ingredients image on the plate).
Cho does not disclose
projecting, by the projector, a cutting line on the food ingredient on the plate so that the food ingredient can be cut according to a daily recommended amount of the user, based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient.
As noted above, Cho does receive information of the food and the user and it also does teach showing lines to cut based on grams, Cho, fig. 20, but Cho does not specifically connect the cutting lines based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient.
However, Lee does specifically does teach showing a cut according to a recommended amount of the user, based on the user information and calorie information corresponding to a type of the recognized food ingredient (Lee, Figs. 12C&12D, ¶216). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Cho, to combine the required caloric intake requirement of Lee and use the cutting lines of Cho, as Cho can already identify the food and its nutritional value and the needs of the user to indicate how much of the food to cut off for proper caloric intake, to indicate how to cut the food according to the desired caloric intake and fitness outcome, and this would be using known and determined information in a known way to achieve the expected result of cutting the proper amount of food.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) and further in view of Helminger (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0408411).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 6, as above, but does not further disclose a video display device wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a cooking command to the home appliance in response to detection of a user input about the cooking command. However, Helminger teaches a video display device wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a cooking command to the home appliance in response to detection of a user input about the cooking command (Helminger, ¶0010 “The interaction module can additionally comprise an optical scanning device, which is designed to determine a gesture of a user in a region above the working surface. In particular the interaction module can be designed to control a household appliance, more preferably a kitchen appliance.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of Helminger, to modify and add to Cho’s invention of getting foods and preparing foods for recipes, to actually control household appliances via the camera and projector, in order to have a more thorough invention, to continue cooking the food according to the recipe, but to have a hands free way of activating the appliances, so as not to get the buttons or activators of the appliance dirty with hands that are handling the food ingredients (Helminger, ¶0010 “This makes operation…easy and hygienic, even if the user does not have clean hands”; see Cho ¶¶0074, 0123, 0136, where the information of different household appliances, e.g. “oven, gas range, etc.”, is provided to the network, and “the household appliance 5000 may be directly connected to the mobile device 1000 or may be connected to the mobile device 1000 via a home gateway (not shown),” ).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) and further in view of Bhogal (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/ 0186260; effective filing date 18 December 2019).
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator to transmit a cooking value based on a recipe to the home appliance, in response to detection of a user input selecting the recipe based on the food ingredient. However, Bhogal teaches “to control the communicator to transmit a cooking value based on a recipe to the home appliance, in response to detection of a user input selecting the recipe based on the food ingredient” (Bhogal, at least ¶¶74-77 “ available ingredient information can be otherwise determined…. The cooking schedule is preferably determined based on the recipes within the recipe set, more preferably based on the instruction set associated with each recipe within the recipe set, but can additionally or alternatively be determined based on: the available resources, the available tools, the available ingredients”… ¶83“Instructing the resources according to the cooking schedule S140 functions to automatically control the resources to perform the assigned tasks.¶¶0086,0088, executing instructions at the resource, “where the resource is a cooking appliance”… “instructing the resources can include changing an actual resource state (e.g., to a predetermined state associated with step execution; update the state with a parameter value; etc.)”. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of Bhogal, to use the weight of the ingredient to modify a recipe which then is used to activate, transmit data and communicate with a kitchen appliance, in order to best control a cooking process and recipe based on the ingredients available, and to have the control streamlined and efficient, so that when the ingredient is detected and available, the recipe is quickly chosen and the appliance activated (e.g. an oven set to the right temperature, for instance) in order to most efficiently prepare a food item with all the controls easily at your disposal, such as in the display of Cho.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) and further in view of Ikeda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0031530).
Regarding claim 10, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a video display device wherein the controller is configured to control a main body to output a message confirming or rejecting updating in the image based on separation of the food ingredient from the plate. Now, Cho does disclose taking images of ingredients on the plate (Cho, ¶0088). But not how to handle the removal of ingredients. And Ikeda teaches having a message display system on its video imaging to display a warning if necessary, or prompting the user to take action such as removing a plate after finishing eating (Ikeda, ¶0667). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify Cho with the teachings of Ikeda, to notify the user and prompt the user of his activities, to confirm or reject an update, to ensure that the system is being updated properly and to know where are how the ingredients are being used or put away and such a prompting system would be obvious in light of the teachings of Ikeda.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) and further in view of LeeKong (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0139444) and Lima (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0136760).
Regarding claim 11, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, but does not further disclose a video display device wherein the controller is configured to: control a main body to output the image changed to include a plurality of zones for which different cooking is performed by a home appliance, and control the communicator to receive an input of the user determining a cooking value for each of the plurality of zones, and transmit the cooking value for each of the plurality of zones to the home appliance, wherein the home appliance is an oven capable of multi-zone cooking. However, LeeKong teaches to output the image changed to include a plurality of zones (450, zones 451, indicating heaters) for which different cooking is performed by a home appliance, and control the communicator to receive an input of the user determining a cooking value for each of the plurality of zones (452), and transmit the cooking value for each of the plurality of zones to the home appliance. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of LeeKong, to have the ability to cook in multiple zones once the ingredients are selected and to be able to control the appliances with the communicator within the projection image, in order to streamline the process and be more efficient in controlling the appliances, and to be able to control the appliances (preheating, for instance) from the place where the recipe is and the ingredients are being prepared.
However, Cho in view of Lee and LeeKong still does not teach wherein the home appliance is an oven capable of multi-zone cooking. However, Lima teaches having an oven kitchen appliance with multiple zones capable of being monitored and adjusted by a remote interface (Lima, ¶0031, “oven cavity may be divided into a plurality of different zones” and interface 950 monitors and controls ¶0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho in view of Lee in view of LeeKong with the teachings of Lima, to have the appliance be a multi-zone oven for controlling the cooking of the ingredients from the projector/interface, as LeeKong already teaches a multizone cooker, order to be able to more efficiently control a cooking process, and to have multiple foods and recipes being prepared at the same time, and the more and different appliances available allows for more foods to be prepared in different ways, and more and different recipes to be prepared.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) and further in view of Tagawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0232202).
Regarding claim 12, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a video display device wherein the controller is configured to control a main body to:
output a recipe for each stage of cooking which mixes a plurality of food ingredients in the image;
output a weight of a first food ingredient in real time based on input of the first food ingredient to a container for performing the stage of cooking, the first food ingredient among the plurality of food ingredients;
and output a message based on completion of the inputting of the first food ingredient, wherein the message is output visually for display or output as sound. Cho does not actually cook the food, but rather assembles the ingredients.
However, Tagawa teaches wherein the controller is configured to control a main body to:
output a recipe for each stage of cooking which mixes a plurality of food ingredients in the image (Tagawa, figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B);
[]input of the first food ingredient to a container for performing the stage of cooking”, the first food ingredient among the plurality of food ingredients (Tagawa, 0113, “container for containing the ingredient”; figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B; first ingredient among a plurality of food) ;
and output a message based on completion of the inputting of the first food ingredient, wherein the message is output visually for display or output as sound (Tagawa, e.g. Fig. 7A, 7B, “First” this “Next” this, “Next” is an output message, that first ingredient is dealt with). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of Tagawa, in order to use the food item for the recipe and to have sequence of the recipe be updated as food is prepared to know what the next step with the next ingredient is.
However, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa still does not teach to “output a weight of a first food ingredient in real time based” on input of the first food ingredient to a container for performing the stage of cooking. However, Cho does teach to take the weight of the ingredient to configure the recipe based on the weight (Cho, at least ¶0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa with a teaching of Cho, to have the weight of the ingredient when using it to make the recipe, in order to know exactly how much of the other ingredients are required in order to make the recipe (sometimes enough of an ingredient is not available, and that means the other ingredient amounts must be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 13, Cho in view of Tagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but do not further teach a video display device wherein the controller is configured to initialize an output weight in response to completion of the inputting of the first food ingredient. However, Cho does teach that if a weight of a first ingredient changes, then the required amount of a second ingredient would change (¶¶0019, 0020, “The operation of providing the cooking information may include operations of first providing the information about a type and a weight of the at least one additional ingredient to the projector, and sequentially providing, to the projector, the series of detailed cooking processes to the. When an amount of the at least one ingredient on the plate is changed, the method may further include an operation of obtaining new cooking information based on a new weight of the at least one ingredient, and the new cooking information may be provided to the projector“). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa, given that in the combination, Tagawa teaches the recipe and order of cooking, to have a teaching of Cho that a second ingredient may be changed if a first ingredient is changed, added to the combination of Cho in view of Tagawa, who teach prepare the food in the process of the recipe, to have the weight be modified as a result of the first weight, in order that the food be properly prepared and that only proper amounts are added to a recipe, and that the amount of each ingredient can vary depending on the amounts available of the others (For instance, if that recipe calls for 1 cup of A and 2 cups of B, but one only has 2/3 cup of A, then that would call for 1 1/3 cup of B to make the recipe proper).
Regarding claim 14, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but do not further teach a video display device wherein the controller is configured to update a required amount of a second food ingredient to maintain a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe, in response to the inputted amount of the first food ingredient exceeding a required amount of the first food ingredient. However, Cho does teach that if a weight of a first ingredient changes, then the required amount of a second ingredient would change (¶¶0019, 0020, “The operation of providing the cooking information may include operations of first providing the information about a type and a weight of the at least one additional ingredient to the projector, and sequentially providing, to the projector, the series of detailed cooking processes to the. When an amount of the at least one ingredient on the plate is changed, the method may further include an operation of obtaining new cooking information based on a new weight of the at least one ingredient, and the new cooking information may be provided to the projector“). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa, given that in the combination, Tagawa teaches the recipe and order of cooking, to have wherein the controller is configured to update a required amount of a second food ingredient to maintain a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe, in response to the inputted amount of the first food ingredient exceeding a required amount of the first food ingredient, in order to maintain the proper ratio of ingredients so that a recipe be properly prepared, and that only proper amounts of ingredients are added to a recipe, (even if the end result is a smaller amount of food) so that the end taste of the food cooking and preparation results as the recipe intended, and the thresholds would help guide how much more or less of the other ingredients need to be added or subtracted.
Regarding claim 17, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising: controlling a main body to output a recipe for each stage of cooking which mixes a plurality of food ingredients in the image (Tagawa, figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B);
[]input of the first food ingredient to a container, wherein the container is for performing the stage of cooking, and wherein the first food ingredient is from among the plurality of food ingredients (Tagawa, 0113, “container for containing the ingredient”; figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B; first ingredient among a plurality of food); and
outputting, visually for display or as a sound, a message based on completion of the inputting of the first food ingredient into the container(Tagawa, e.g. Fig. 7A, 7B, “First” this “Next” this, “Next” is an output message, that first ingredient is dealt with).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of Tagawa, in order to use the food item for the recipe and to have sequence of the recipe be updated as food is prepared to know what the next step with the next ingredient is.
However, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa still does not teach to outputting a weight of a first food ingredient in real time, based on outputting a weight of a first food ingredient in real time based” on input of the first food ingredient to a container for performing the stage of cooking. However, Cho does teach to take the weight of the ingredient to configure the recipe based on the weight (Cho, at least ¶0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa with a teaching of Cho, to have the weight of the ingredient when using it to make the recipe, in order to know exactly how much of the other ingredients are required in order to make the recipe (sometimes enough of an ingredient is not available, and that means the other ingredient amounts must be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 18, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising initializing an output weight in response to completion of the inputting of the first food ingredient into the container. However, Cho does teach to take the weight of the ingredient to configure the recipe based on the weight (Cho, at least ¶0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa with a teaching of Cho, to have the weight of the ingredient when using it to make the recipe, in order to know exactly how much of the other ingredients are required in order to make the recipe (sometimes enough of an ingredient is not available, and that means the other ingredient amounts must be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 19, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising in response to the inputted amount of the first food ingredient exceeding a required amount of the first food ingredient, updating a required amount of a second food ingredient to maintain a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe. . However, Cho does teach that if a weight of a first ingredient changes, then the required amount of a second ingredient would change (¶¶0019, 0020, “The operation of providing the cooking information may include operations of first providing the information about a type and a weight of the at least one additional ingredient to the projector, and sequentially providing, to the projector, the series of detailed cooking processes to the. When an amount of the at least one ingredient on the plate is changed, the method may further include an operation of obtaining new cooking information based on a new weight of the at least one ingredient, and the new cooking information may be provided to the projector“). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Tagawa, given that in the combination, Tagawa teaches the recipe and order of cooking, to have wherein the controller is configured to update a required amount of a second food ingredient to maintain a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe, in response to the inputted amount of the first food ingredient exceeding a required amount of the first food ingredient, in order to maintain the proper ratio of ingredients so that a recipe be properly prepared, and that only proper amounts of ingredients are added to a recipe, (even if the end result is a smaller amount of food) so that the end taste of the food cooking and preparation results as the recipe intended, and the thresholds would help guide how much more or less of the other ingredients need to be added or subtracted.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/ 03346691) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0286276) in view of Tagawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0232202).
Regarding claim 15, Cho in view of Lee and Tagawa teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, and further teaches a video display device wherein:
the main body further comprises a communicator configured to communicate with at least one of a server or a home appliance (Cho, ¶0016);
But Cho does not teach wherein the controller is configured to transmit, to the home appliance, a required amount of a second food ingredient corresponding to a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe, in response to completion of inputting of the first food ingredient; and the home appliance comprises a water purifier or an aerated water maker.
However, Cho does teach wherein a second ingredient may be required from a kitchen appliance and the amount may vary depending on the amount of the first ingredient (Cho, ¶¶0019,0020, 0031). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho, to have the appliance indicate how much of the second ingredient is required once the amount of the first ingredient is determined and inputted, in order to make the recipe properly according to the ingredients (the first ingredient specifically) available, and using a ratio of the amount of first ingredient to the amount of second ingredient in the recipe to determine how much of the second ingredient one should use based upon the amount of first ingredient available, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as the ratio proper ratio of the ingredient is the way to make the end food product as similar to the full recipe as possible and that it would taste the same (for instance, if the recipe calls for 1 cup of flower and 1 teaspoon of salt, if one has only ¾ cups of flour, then one should use only ¾ teaspoons of salt, so that the amount of salt per amount of flour is the same).
Nonetheless, Cho does not teach where in the home appliance comprises a water purifier or an aerated water maker. Now, Cho’s kitchen appliance may be a refrigerator, from which ingredients may be available (Cho, ¶0021). However, Park teaches “smart” home appliance which may be accessed through external terminals (Park 40) and may include such appliances as a refrigerator (21) or a water purifier, and one may access the ”refrigerator food list provision” for available food (Park, ¶¶129, 149). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of Lee with the teachings of Park, with Cho identifying a second ingredient in an appliance, Park recognizing that such an appliance may be a refrigerator or water purifier, needed to be accessed, such as for adding a second ingredient (purified water in this case) in a certain amount, and being able to access this ingredient instantly and remotely from the interface of Cho.
Regarding claim 20, Cho in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further disclose a method comprising in response to completion of inputting of the first food ingredient into the container, transmitting, to a home appliance, a required amount of a second food ingredient corresponding to a ratio of the second food ingredient to the first food ingredient set in the recipe, wherein the main body further comprises a communicator configured to communicate with at least one of a server or the home appliance, and wherein the home appliance comprises a water purifier or an aerated water maker.
But Cho does teach wherein a communicator is configured to communicate with at least one of a server or home appliance (¶0016), and wherein a second ingredient may be required from a kitchen appliance and the amount may vary depending on the amount of the first ingredient (Cho, ¶¶0019,0020, 0031). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho, to have the appliance indicate how much of the second ingredient is required once the amount of the first ingredient is determined and inputted, in order to make the recipe properly according to the ingredients (the first ingredient specifically) available, and using a ratio of the amount of first ingredient to the amount of second ingredient in the recipe to determine how much of the second ingredient one should use based upon the amount of first ingredient available, would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as the ratio proper ratio of the ingredient is the way to make the end food product as similar to the full recipe as possible and that it would taste the same (for instance, if the recipe calls for 1 cup of flower and 1 teaspoon of salt, if one has only ¾ cups of flour, then one should use only ¾ teaspoons of salt, so that the amount of salt per amount of flour is the same).
Nonetheless, Cho does not teach where in the home appliance comprises a water purifier or an aerated water maker. Now, Cho’s kitchen appliance may be a refrigerator, from which ingredients may be available (Cho, ¶0021). However, Park teaches “smart” home appliance which may be accessed through external terminals (Park 40) and may include such appliances as a refrigerator (21) or a water purifier, and one may access the ”refrigerator food list provision” for available food (Park, ¶¶129, 149). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho with the teachings of Park, with Cho identifying a second ingredient in an appliance, Park recognizing that such an appliance may be a refrigerator or water purifier, needed to be accessed, such as for adding a second ingredient (purified water in this case) in a certain amount, and being able to access this ingredient instantly and remotely from the interface of Cho.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights