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 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.
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1 and 7 recite a server thus satisfying Step 1 of the Patent Office’s eligibility guidance test.
With respect to step 2a of the eligibility test and 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 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.
Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are being claimed as being performed on a computer. Generically reciting a server and remote device may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
In the instant case the mere nominal recitation of the generic server and transceiver configured to perform communication does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case is merely a manner of sending signals, imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable, i.e. a recipe and selection and do not add any meaningful limits merely encompasses the user manually accessing a cook book, identifying a desired food, i.e. frozen, identifying a desired doneness level, i.e. cooking step and manually controlling the cooking device to achieve a cook food. In addition, mere observation by monitoring a cooking process as is routine and conventional.
More directly the claims merely encompass internet communication with a server which is not limited and thus includes any and all means of perform communication with a user terminal and a cooking device as opposed to mentally maintaining a memory or manually accessing a cook book.
It is further noted the claims are silent to an actual transformation step and merely encompass providing the information to a cooking device which can be performed manually by a user and accessing a paper cook book for information corresponding the recipe as desired by a user which is a step 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.
The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books and numerical times and temperature observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion, i.e. recipe information. 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 computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea
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 appellant 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).
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. The claims recite cooking instruction based on an undefined variable. The claims impose no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits. As such, Appellant’s claims further fail the eligibility test of step 2A, prong 1.
With regard to Prong Two, the Guidance states that a judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim provides reasonable integration into a practical application. However, if an element does not more than link a judicial exception to a particular field of use, then the judicial exception may not be integrated into a practical application. As explained below, the Examiner finds that the claimed recitation of “a cooking device” fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong Two.
Turning to Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept. While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue in determining claim eligibility, it is not a transformative test. See MPEP 2106.05(b). In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court held that “a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” Parker v. Flook, 427 U.S. 584, 595, n18 (1978). The MPEP sets forth some relevant factors in determining whether a machine-implemented method satisfies subject matter eligibility: the particularity of the machine, whether the machine implements the steps of the method, and whether the involvement of the machine is extra-solution activity or a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
With regard to the particularity of the machine, applicants claims are silent to any type of associated cooking device or any type of “transceiver” which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicants Specification lists several different types of cooking appliances and more specifically per applicants pre-grant publication at par. 0065 “types of the cooking device 30b are not, however, limited thereto, and may include well-known types of cooking device such as an immersion circulator, a probe, etc.” Leading one to determine that the recitation of a “cooking device” 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. As indicated above, Applicants Specification discloses that the method is implemented by a server and transceiver however 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. Being silent to such, where different appliances perform vastly different operations with different methods and outcomes. Application of the same “recipe comprises a defrosting step and a cooking step” shows that the cooking device is merely a machine on which the control method operates, failing to provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
The 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 post‐solution activity that could be attached to almost any “recipe”, food or non-food by merely following a recipe and determining personal preference. By failing to explain how the process variable is selected, integrate into any specified cooking process or appliance, or specify a cooking of a food, the claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps do not add any meaningful limits on use of the method for acquiring data, either manual or automated. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the exception. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp. vs. CLS).
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). Applicants recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea 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).
To summarize, because claims 1 and 11 recite subject matter judicially excepted from patent eligibility, do not integrate the judicially excepted subject matter into a practical application, and simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicially excepted subject matter.
Following the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance from the Office, Applicants 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 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minvielle (20180003687).
Minvielle teaches a server (par. 0086; par. 0251; par. 0326) comprising:
a transceiver (par. 0085, 0086; par. 0198; par. 0260 “receive” and “send”, i.e. definition of transceiver transmit and receive) configured to perform communication with a user terminal (par. 0198 handheld device, cellular phone, tablet computer, PDA; par. 0261) and a cooking device (par. 0260 last 9 lines; send conditioning protocols to conditioner; microwave; par. 0261) and
a processor (par. 0083 server computer; substance database ref. 550) operatively connected to the transceiver (par. 0083 server computer),
wherein the processor is configured to, based on receiving a selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0180; par. 0224), control the transceiver to transmit (par. 0224), to the user terminal (par. 0224 “selected by the consumer after presented”), recipe guide information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0224; conditioning protocol obtained from substance database ref. 550), and transmit, to the cooking device (par. 0224 conditioner ref. 570), control information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0224 conditioning protocol),
wherein the recipe comprises a defrosting step (par. 0224) and a cooking step (par. 0224), which use the cooking device (par. 0224).
With respect to Independent claim 11, a method of controlling a server (par. 0086; par. 0251; par. 0326) comprising a transceiver (par. 0085, 0086; par. 0198; par. 0260 “receive” and “send”, i.e. definition of transceiver transmit and receive) for performing communication with a user terminal (par. 0198 handheld device, cellular phone, tablet computer, PDA; par. 0261) and a cooking device (par. 0260 last 9 lines; send conditioning protocols to conditioner; microwave; par. 0261)
the method comprising:
based on receiving a selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0180; par. 0224), controlling the transceiver to transmit (par. 0224), to the user terminal (par. 0224 “selected by the consumer after presented”), recipe guide information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0224; conditioning protocol obtained from substance database ref. 550), and
controlling the transceiver to transmit (par. 0224 from substance database ref. 550) control information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0224 conditioning protocol) to the cooking device (par. 0224 conditioner ref. 570),
wherein the recipe comprises a defrosting step (par. 0224) and a cooking step (par. 0224), which use the cooking device (par. 0224).
Claims 2 and 12, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine at least one recipe based on the cooking device (par. 0224 microwave; par. 0257 type), a cooking object that is available (par. 0226), and a user-selected recipe name (par. 0224; par. 0170, 0180 types or categories; par. 0261), and control the transceiver to transmit information about the at least one recipe to the user terminal (par. 0224 from substance database ref. 550).
Claims 3 and 13, wherein the processor is further configured to:
search for a recipe corresponding to the user-selected recipe name and available with the cooking device and the cooking object (par. 0224; par. 0170, 0180 types or categories; par. 0261), and
based on the searched recipe comprising a defrosting step (par. 0224) without using the cooking device (par. 0254), determine a recipe by changing the defrosting step of the searched recipe to a defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0254; separate conditioning protocols for different conditioners of a same meal; alternatively par. 0257 type requesting; par. 0260 protocol selected compatible with particular type or settings; par. 0223 unit suggested).
Claims 4 and 14, wherein the processor is further configured to;
determine the control information for the cooking device by determining a defrosting time and a defrosting temperature based on information about the cooking object (par. 0198 conditioning parameters to defrost; par. 0204 based on weight/ingredient; par. 0226 dynamic information identifier; par. 0256).
Claims 5 and 15, wherein the at least one recipe comprises at least one of a recipe with a shortest cooking time (par. 0227 minimize N; maximize usage, finish same time; par. 0259), a recipe focused on taste (par. 0255, 0261, 0265, 0269), or a recipe focused on a condition of the cooking object (par. 0255, 0261, 0265, 0269).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the cooking device comprises a plurality of cooking devices (par. 0260), and wherein the processor is further configured to control the transceiver to transmit the control information to at least one of the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0261).
Claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to, based on at least one of a type of the recipe (par. 0198 conditioning parameters to defrost; par. 0204 based on weight/ingredient; par. 0226 dynamic information identifier; par. 0256) or a type of the cooking object on hand (par. 0257, 0260), determine a cooking device to perform the defrosting step of the recipe among the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0223 cooking unit suggested; par. 0198 relative information identifier; par. 0256 frozen or chilled determine; par. 0257).
Claim 8, wherein the recipe guide information comprises information about an operation order between the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0224) and information about a user action (par. 0224).
Claim 9, wherein the control information comprises at least one of information about an operation time of the cooking device (par. 0192 duration; par. 0224 cook time; par. 0256) or information about an operation temperature of the cooking device (par. 0224 internal temperature; par. 0192 optimal cooking temperature; 0259).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle (20180003687) in view of Buehler (20050193901).
Minvielle teaches server controlled cooking and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food preparation coordinated by a central server as taught by Buehler (par. 0451).
Buehler further teaches the control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490) for the art recognized purpose of providing a solution to the limitation of the prior art devices that they only handle a small portion of the tasks involved in preparing food including requiring the manual cleanup (par. 0007) by a device that can be used at home or in a restaurant, that operates almost completely autonomously, that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself as taught by Buehler (par. 0008)
Thus since Minvielle teaches operational control of different appliances by a server, since Minvielle teaches modules which are linked by the server (par. 0083-0086) since Buehler the control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler for its art recognized purpose of providing additional increased convenience to the user by being able to automatically wash dishes after the meal as taught by Buehler (par. 0386, 0490).
Buehler further teaches known cooking control systems are lacking a dishware storage system (par. 0155) which includes the cleaning system, and the advantage of further providing a functioning module (par. 0155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler, into the server controlled appliance functions as taught by Minvielle thus providing the art recognized purpose of providing a solution to the limitation of the prior art devices that they only handle a small portion of the tasks involved in preparing food including requiring the manual cleanup (par. 0007) by a device that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself as taught by Buehler (par. 0008).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10318123, 20070254080, 20070158335, 20060260601 directed to mobile cooking device communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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) 270-3475. 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