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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heating element, water tank, actuators, power source, digital touchscreen display unit, communication device, first actuator, second actuator and third actuator and stirring mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 has extra space between “an” and “image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: heating element, power source, storage device, communication device, user device and input device in claim 1 and stirring mechanism in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification does not define a structure for the heating element. The specification does not define a structure for the power source. The specification defines the storage device as magnetic disks, optical disks, or tape (paragraph 0082, lines 1-3). The specification does not define a structure for the communication device. The specification defines the user device as a smartphone, tablet, laptop (paragraph 0075, lines 2-4). The specification defines the input device as a touchscreen display (paragraph 0075, lines 5-6). The specification does not define the structure of a stirring mechanism.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2,3,4,5,7,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said actuator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is unclear since the claim require more actuators that are defined in the claims. The claim should be rewritten to state “wherein the three actuators include a first actuator configured…”.
Claim 4 limits a water tank which has no structure to support the function of a generic water tank that can dispense autonomously. Paragraph 0056 of the application indicates the cooker does the dispensing from the water tank. It is unclear what the scope of requiring the tank to complete the function is or how the tank performs the function.
Claim 5 is unclear because the limitation “transforming as a rotating drum” is undefined. There is no indication how the cooking pot is transformed and how that transformation materially happens. Also, in line 2 of claim 5 the limitation “its” is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "stirring mechanism" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said disposable meal pod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said sensors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “heating elements”, “power source”, “communication device” and “stirring mechanism“ invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitations above do not have a corresponding structure defined in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 which refers to a power source which is a structural limitation. Claim 8 defines the power source in terms to electric energy which is not a structure thereby broadening the required structure of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez (US20140377417).
With regards to claim 1, Martinez discloses a smart cooker for autonomously cooking meals (automated cooking system, Title), the smart cooker comprising: a meal pod with multi-compartment ingredient storage container (the rotary apparatus 37 is operable to rotatably position each container 89 for dispensing the at least one ingredient in a predetermined synchronization, paragraph 0037, lines 7-8); a removable cooking pot with a built in motorized stirrer (cooker 68 with a mixer tip 69 powered by a mixing motor hub 66, Fig. 6); a multi-dispensing motorized lid (housing lid 4 with a rotary axis aperture 27 which receives the rotary gear 42, Fig. 3B, 4B); a heating element (heating element 71 and heating device 79, Fig. 6); a water tank (liquid container 62 with liquid including water, paragraph 0040, lines 6-7), at least one actuator(rotary gear 42,mixing mechanism 57 and cooker circuitry 84 ,Fig. 6,paragraph 0039, lines 1-2); at least one sensor (cooker temperature sensor 73, Fig. 6); a power source (the housing 18 includes a 120 volt power outlet socket 22 that joins with a power outlet cable 7 for receiving power from an external power source, paragraph 0033, lines 11-13); a digital touchscreen display unit (CPU 926 may also be coupled to input/output interface 944 that connects to one or more input/output devices such as such as CD-ROM, video monitors, track balls, mice, keyboards, microphones, touch-sensitive displays, paragraph 0062, lines 1-2); a storage device (); a communication device configured for receiving at least one sensor data (mass memory storage 938, paragraph 0060, lines 2-5); a processor for analyzing at least one sensor data (a processor regulates cooking parameters, such as duration, temperature, and order of ingredients, abstract, lines 5-6); at least one user device (clients 902 and 904 include personal computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular phones and smartphones, paragraph 0056, lines 1-2); and at least one input device (CPU 926 may also be coupled to input/output interface 944 that connects to one or more input/output devices such as such as CD-ROM, video monitors, track balls, mice, keyboards, microphones, touch-sensitive displays, paragraph 0062, lines 1-2); wherein, during operation of the said smart cooker, the temperature of the heating element, the speed and time span of the said motorized stirrer, and the motorized multi-dispensing lid of the said meal pod is controlled based on the recipe data (central processing unit is the hardware within a computer that carries out the instructions of a computer program by performing the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations of the system. In some instances, the operations may include commands for regulating cooking devices, including cooking duration, temperature, and bar code identification, paragraph 0007, lines 1-3); wherein, the status of the cooking is sent to the user device and the said digital display unit of the smart cooker (CPU 926 may be coupled to GUI 940. GUI 940 enables a user to view the operation of computer operating system and software, paragraph 0061, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 2, Martinez discloses wherein the said actuator is three in number (rotary gear 42, mixing mechanism 57 and cooker circuitry 84 ,Fig. 6,paragraph 0039, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 3, Martinez discloses wherein a first actuator is configured for dispensing the ingredients in the compartment, a second actuator is configured for stirring the ingredients and the third actuator is configured for controlling the heating effect (rotary gear 42, mixing mechanism 57 and cooker circuitry 84 ,Fig. 6,paragraph 0039, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 4, Martinez discloses wherein, the said water tank dispenses water in the cooking pot autonomously, when needed, following each recipe instruction (the method 800 may then include a Step 814 of dispensing a liquid from the liquid container 62 into the cooker 68 and/or sauce cooker 82, paragraph 0050, lines 1-2).
With regards to claim 6, Martinez discloses wherein the said meal pod is disposable (rotary apparatus 37 has containers 89 having transparent film 91 that can be cut with blades and therefore plastic in nature, paragraph 0037, lines 0037, 1-9).
With regards to claim 7, Martinez discloses wherein the said disposable meal pod is of soft, thin plastic (rotary apparatus 37 has containers 89 having transparent film 91 that can be cut with blades and therefore plastic in nature, paragraph 0037, lines 0037, 1-9).
With regards to claim 8, Martinez discloses wherein the power source for the operation of the smart cooker is electrical energy (the housing 18 includes a 120-volt power outlet socket 22 that joins with a power outlet cable 7 for receiving power from an external power source, paragraph 0033, lines 11-13).
With regards to claim 9, Martinez discloses wherein the said sensors are at least one of thermal sensor (temperature sensor 73, Fig. 6), an image sensor (video camera 942, Fig. 6) or a watch (timers, paragraph 0017, lines 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bond et al (US20040195231).
With regards to claim 5, Martinez does not disclose wherein, the said cooking pot, has an alternative stirring functionality by transforming as a rotating drum, simulating its stirring mechanism.
Bond et al teaches wherein, the said cooking pot, has an alternative stirring functionality by transforming as a rotating drum, simulating its stirring mechanism (cooking container 78, on which transducers 70 and 72 are mounted, rotates along its longitudinal axis around shaft 80, paragraph 0047, lines 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Martinez and Bond et al before him or her, to modify the cook pot of Martinez to include the rotating drum of Bond et al because the combination allows for increased versatility of the types of food can be cook and increased sensing of the doneness of the food.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761