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 1-15 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 of displaying options to a user terminal apparatus as taught by Buehler (par. 0461).
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1, 9 and 15 recite “a cooking 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 memory for storing instructions corresponding to a recipe and perform a cooking operation by the cooking apparatus is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The claims solely require a manner of identifying information, the claims do not require an actual cooking step or transformation since the claimed “to perform a cooking operation” is not limited and encompasses pre-heating, i.e. a cooking operation and not an actual cooking step and/or more broadly merely activating the cooking apparatus, i.e. power on, to control the cooking operation in an apparatus which is not limited
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, encompasses user manually performing the steps, which 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.
It is noted Independent claim 9 is silent to a processor and thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind thus is 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 “control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation” but in this case imposes no limits on the process of cooking. The claims require mere data gathering steps, i.e. identifying whether input corresponds to a cooking act and obtaining images, to visualize a result i.e. providing “detect” “based on the image” as taught by Do et al. and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The process and “processor” are used in their conventional way. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a camera to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and graphically obtain information such as is known with paper cook books, as taught by Do (par. 0047) and observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. 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 of Independent claims 1 and 15 and the mental steps of claim 9, do 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 manually:
Acquiring an image of the cooking apparatus (user visually; manual observation as recognized by Hua 20220287498; par. 0071) and at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (user visually),
Detecting an input of a user to control of the cooking apparatus (user manually input), such as claimed “activating the cooking apparatus” (user manually turning power on)
based on the image and the input detected, identify whether the input corresponds to a whether a user intends to initiate the cooking operation (user manually determine; power on, positive determination), and
based on identifying that the user intends to initiate the cooking operation (power on), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation corresponding to the input (user perform; power on; cooking operation not limited).
Which are steps not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
More specifically with respect to Independent claims 1, 9 and 15, the mental process of determining and identifying by visual inspection and user manual activation of the cooking apparatus is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform by manual observation and mental decision making per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
The processor is used in their conventional way of gathering data and comparing, i.e. identifying which can be performed mentally or as taught by Do according to cook books (par. 0047) 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 cookbook per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
In addition with respect to step 2A, the examiner notes that in addition to mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, the judicial exception further may comprise mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas, equations and calculations. Applicants claims recite “detect, through the user interface, an input of a user”. However imposes no limits on a specific parameter, and merely encompass a user manually introducing heating, i.e. power, removing heating, i.e. power off, increasing heating, i.e. power on increases heat, decreasing heating, i.e. power off decreases heat, activating the cooking apparatus, i.e. power on, or deactivating the cooking apparatus, i.e. power off. The claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits which require an actual cooking of the food, since the cooking operation encompasses operations prior to any food perfecting, such as pre-heating. As such, Applicant’s claims further fail the eligibility test of step 2A, prong 1.
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 Do where applicants recitation of “based on the image and the user input”, identifying whether the input corresponds to intent 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).
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 camera to visualize options and/or to organize, store and determine information. The combination of steps gather and identify data in a conventional manner as taught by Do and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With regard to the particularity of the machine, Independent claim 1 is silent to any type of associated cooking apparatus which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. applicants Specification lists several different types of cooking appliances at par. 0046, in addition to non-cooking appliances, cooling, which can be controlled including “the cooking apparatus 100 may be an electronic apparatus that can perform various cooking operations (e.g.: heating, cooling) other than a heating operation.”. Leading one to determine that applicants recitation of a “cooking apparatus” is insufficient to provide particularity to the claimed machine.
With regard to the particularity of the machine, Independent claims 9 and 15 are limited by “a cooktop or an oven”. Importantly applicants specification is silent to the claimed “cooktop” and thus is supported by applicants disclosure at par. 0051 of applicants specification as the broadly taught “various electronic apparatus that are used to cook food”.
“the cooking apparatus 100 may be a gas stove, an induction, an oven, or a microwave oven. However, the disclosure is not limited thereto, and the cooking apparatus 100 may be various electronic apparatuses that are used in cooking food, and can perform cooking operations of food such as heating, cooling, etc. through the cooking part.
Thus since applicants “cooktop” is an option and encompasses any indoor or outdoor grill, a stovetop, hot plates, stir fryers, air fryers with food support as examples which perform and achieve distinct and disparate types of cooking, the claimed “cooktop” is insufficient to provide an inventive concept and since applicants Specification lists several different types of cooking appliances which can be controlled including a “cooktop” relative the specification teaching “the cooking apparatus 100 may be an electronic apparatus that can perform various cooking operations (e.g.: heating, cooling) other than a heating operation.”. Leading one to determine that applicants recitation of a “cooktop” is insufficient to provide particularity to the claimed machine.
While use of a machine to accomplish a claimed method may provide an inventive concept, applicants 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 encompass pre-heating of the apparatus before placing the food therein. Being silent to such, where different cooking apparatuses perform vastly different operations with different methods and outcomes. Application of the same “performing a cooking operation” on the cooking apparatuses shows that the cooking apparatus 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 including “a camera” amount(s) to no more than: identifying mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer for food to be cooked according to known images, as known in the art as evident by Do and as known of paper cook books with illustrations and post‐solution activity, i.e. identify whether the input corresponds to a cooking act, 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 as taught by Do. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using images to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and obtain information. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps merely compare options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food.
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of following a recipe and merely encompass the abstract ideas of following stored information and identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and determine 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 1-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Do et al. (20090258331).
Do teaches with respect to Independent claim 1 a cooking apparatus performing a cooking operation , the cooking apparatus comprising:
a camera (par. 0042; video input device) configured to capture an image of the cooking apparatus (par. 0120; preparation device; par. 0135; par. 0109) and at least part of an area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0042; capture user action; par. 0109)
a user interface (par. 0111 interactive surface of cooking device; par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard)
at least one memory storing at least one instruction (par. 0043; par. 0106 ref. 464) and
at least one processor (par. 0033)
wherein the at least one instruction (par. 0111; par. 0134 appliance instruction), when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the cooking apparatus to,
acquire, through the camera, the image of the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 sensor to id ingredient, highlighted area; par. 0120; video input device) and the at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0111, par. 0109, par. 0042),
detect, through the user interface, an input of a user to control the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 correct ingredient input; alternatively par. 0111 oven control; alternatively par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard) to perform the cooking operation comprising at least one of introducing heating (par. 0111), removing heating, increasing heating (par. 0111), decreasing heating, activating the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 “bake”), or deactivating the cooking apparatus
based on the image and the input detected through the user interface (par. 0111), identify whether the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 correct ingredient ref. 609 “intends” due to ingredient; determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120), and
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 yes; par. 0135 last 5 lines), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation (par. 0111 “yes” set oven parameters; par. 0134).
With respect to Independent claim 9, a method of controlling a cooking apparatus, the method comprising:
Acquiring, through a camera (par. 0042; video input device) of the cooking apparatus, an image of the cooking apparatus (par. 0120; video input device; par. 0111 correct ingredient, implement) and at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0109, par. 0042), wherein the cooking apparatus comprises a cooktop (par. 0109; par. 0135 configurable burner surface) or an oven (par. 0111)
detecting, through a user interface (par. 0111 interactive surface of cooking device; par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard), an input of a user to control the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 correct ingredient input; alternatively par. 0111 oven control; alternatively par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard) to perform the cooking operation comprising at least one of introducing heating (par. 0111), removing heating, increasing heating (par. 0111), decreasing heating, activating the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 “bake”), or deactivating the cooking apparatus
based on the image (par. 0111 ingredient correct) and the input detected through the user interface (par. 0111 ingredient placed), identify whether the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 correct ingredient ref. 609 “intends” due to ingredient; determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120), and
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 yes; par. 0135 last 5 lines), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation (par. 0111 “yes” set oven parameters “bake”, “350F”; par. 0135).
With respect to Independent claim 15, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (par. 0141) having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor (par. 0033) cause the at least one processor to execute a method of controlling a cooking apparatus performing a cooking operation (par. 0134 appliance instruction) to:
Acquiring, through a camera (par. 0042; video input device) of the cooking apparatus, an image of the cooking apparatus (par. 0120; video input device; par. 0111 correct ingredient, implement) and at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0109, par. 0042), wherein the cooking apparatus comprises a cooktop (par. 0109; par. 0135 configurable burner surface) or an oven (par. 0111)
detecting, through a user interface (par. 0111 interactive surface of cooking device; par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard), an input of a user to control the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 correct ingredient input; alternatively par. 0111 oven control; alternatively par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard) to perform the cooking operation comprising at least one of introducing heating (par. 0111), removing heating, increasing heating (par. 0111), decreasing heating, activating the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 “bake”), or deactivating the cooking apparatus
based on the image (par. 0111 ingredient correct) and the input detected through the user interface (par. 0111 ingredient placed), identify whether the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 correct ingredient ref. 609 “intends” due to ingredient; determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120), and
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 yes; par. 0135 last 5 lines), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation (par. 0111 “yes” set oven parameters “bake”, “350F”; par. 0135).
Claims 2 and 10, wherein the at least one instruction when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the cooking apparatus to, based on identifying that the user does not intend to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 wrong ingredient “no” branch 607), prevent performance of the cooking operation (par. 0111 alert).
Claim 3, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with an external electronic apparatus (par. 0038, 0040), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to cause the cooking apparatus to:
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 oven on, temp.; par. 0120; image input; yes;), identify whether the cooking operation is matched to a current cooking step based on recipe information (par. 0111 yes), and
based on identifying that the cooking operating is matched to the current cooking step (par. 0111), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking (par. 0111 turn oven on; par. 0135 last 4 lines).
Claims 4 and 12, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to, further causes the cooking apparatus to, based on identifying that the cooking operation (par. 0111 oven) is not matched to the current cooking step (par. 0111 appliance control not needed), provide a notification seeking confirmation that the intends to initiate cooking operation (par. 0011 branch current preparation step).
Claims 5 and 13, wherein the at least one instruction when executed by the processor further causes the cooking apparatus to, based on identifying that the cooking operation is not matched to the current cooking step (par. 0111, par. 0112 next action needed; par. 0121; cannot be identified; par. 0135 if a burner surface, does not accept remote instructions), provide a notification comprising information on the cooking operation matched to the current cooking step based on the recipe information (par. 0111; par. 0112 have user perform next action; par. 0121; cannot be identified; par. 0135 if a burner surface, does not accept remote instructions).
Claims 6 and 14, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, further causes the cooking apparatus to, based on identifying that the user does not intend to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation, (par. 0111, par. 0112 next action needed; par. 0121; cannot be identified; par. 0135 if a burner surface, does not accept remote instructions), initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 next branch;par. 0112 next action needed; par. 0121; must enter; par. 0134 if a burner surface, does not accept remote instructions must enter) and subsequently cancel the cooking operation (par. 0111 no; par. 0112 next action cancel previous needed; par. 0121; user no longer required to enter; par. 0135 if a burner surface, user instructed cancel remote instructions needed)
Claim 11, the method further comprising:
acquiring recipe information (par. 0120; image input; yes; alternatively par. 0112 within acceptable threshold)
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 correct ;par. 0120; image input; yes;), identifying whether the cooking operation is matched to a current cooking step based on the recipe information (par. 0111 oven on, temp. par. 0120; image input; yes;), and
wherein the performing the cooking operation comprises:
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 oven on, temp) and identifying that the cooking operation is matched to the current cooking step performing the cooking (par. 0111 turn oven on; select next processing step; par. 0112 next action needed; par. 0135 last 4 lines).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (20090258331).
With respect to claim 7,
Do teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to acquire, through the camera, image frames of the cooking apparatus (par. 0120; preparation device; par. 0135; par. 0109) and the at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0042; capture user action; par. 0109) and identify, based on the plurality of images, identify whether the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 ingredient correct; determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120),
Though silent to explicitly teaching a plurality of image frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the images as taught by Do as a plurality of section image frames divided into predetermined sections for a same purpose of using images to compare image data for recognizing based on the plurality of section image frames, whether the input corresponds to a cooking act using the cooking apparatus as taught by Do (par. 0111 determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120).
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the images as taught by Do, the plurality of section image frames comprise a first plurality of section image frames and a second plurality of section image frames corresponding to one or more predetermined sections, and wherein the first plurality of section image frames and the second plurality of section image frames comprise at least one same image frame from among the plurality of image frames for a same purpose of using images to compare image data for recognizing based on the plurality of section image frames, whether the input corresponds to a cooking act using the cooking apparatus as taught by Do (par. 0111 determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the 101 rejection that the claims are directed to specific control functions. As noted by applicant “the claims provide a clear series of data acquisition and processing steps in support of a control function of the claimed apparatus”. However and importantly, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor of Independent claims 1 and 15 and the mental steps of claim 9, do 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 manually:
Acquiring an image of the cooking apparatus (user visually; manual observation as recognized by Hua 20220287498; par. 0071) and at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (user visually),
Detecting an input of a user to control of the cooking apparatus (user manually input), such as claimed “activating the cooking apparatus” (user manually turning power on)
based on the image and the input detected, identify whether the input corresponds to a whether a user intends to initiate the cooking operation (user manually determine; power on, positive determination), and
based on identifying that the user intends to initiate the cooking operation (power on), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation corresponding to the input (user perform; power on; cooking operation not limited).
Which are steps not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
More specifically with respect to Independent claims 1, 9 and 15, the mental process of determining and identifying by visual inspection and user manual activation of the cooking apparatus is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform by manual observation and mental decision making per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
With respect to applicants urging the claims are directed to solving a specific problem. It is noted the claims are silent to such. The claims merely require detecting and acquiring information for a cooking operation which are steps not outside the mental capability of a user.
Applicants claims recite “detect, through the user interface, an input of a user”. However imposes no limits on a specific parameter, and merely encompass a user manually introducing heating, i.e. power, removing heating, i.e. power off, increasing heating, i.e. power on increases heat, decreasing heating, i.e. power off decreases heat, activating the cooking apparatus, i.e. power on, or deactivating the cooking apparatus, i.e. power off. The claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits which require an actual cooking of the food, since the cooking operation encompasses operations prior to any food perfecting, such as pre-heating. As such, Applicant’s claims further fail the eligibility test of step 2A, prong 1.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Do. Do teaches wherein the at least one instruction (par. 0111; par. 0134 appliance instruction), when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the cooking apparatus to,
acquire, through the camera, the image of the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 sensor to id ingredient, highlighted area; par. 0120; video input device) and the at least part of the area surrounding the cooking apparatus (par. 0111, par. 0109, par. 0042),
detect, through the user interface, an input of a user to control the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 correct ingredient input; alternatively par. 0111 oven control; alternatively par. 0038; par. 0041; voice input; par. 0106 user selects; par. 0121 keyboard) to perform the cooking operation comprising at least one of introducing heating (par. 0111), removing heating, increasing heating (par. 0111), decreasing heating, activating the cooking apparatus (par. 0111 “bake”), or deactivating the cooking apparatus
based on the image and the input detected through the user interface (par. 0111), identify whether the user intends to enter the input to initiate the cooking operation (par. 0111 correct ingredient ref. 609 “intends” due to ingredient; determine whether selected recipe involves control of kitchen appliance; par. 0112 images of user performing action, par. 0120), and
based on identifying that the user intends to enter the input to initiate cooking operation (par. 0111 yes; par. 0135 last 5 lines), control the cooking apparatus to perform the cooking operation (par. 0111 “yes” set oven parameters; par. 0134).
Applicants urging directed to Hua are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
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