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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson et al. (20170035249) in view of Dunn et al. (20180233064).
Dickson teaches a food preparation system, comprising:
a receptacle configured to receive ingredients (par. 0031 ref. 110);
a weight sensor (par. 0031 ref. 105) configured to weigh the ingredients added to the receptacle (par. 0034) and
a processor arrangement (par. 0031; computing device) configured to:
identify (par. 0053 last 4 line; par. 0043 ingredients, amount; par. 0044 user modify recipe; par. 0050) or receive identification (par. 0060 camera) of the ingredients added to the receptacle when a recipe is being followed (par. 0043 ingredients, amount; par. 0044 user modify recipe; par. 0050; par. 0060 camera)
for each identified ingredient and its added weight (par. 0043), estimate a corresponding amount of a set of different sugar types (par. 0057; different sugar types relative source, processed sugar vs fruit vs vegetable);
for a combination of the ingredients, estimate a sugar content and a sweetness index (par. 0057)
determine if there are suitable alternative recipes with reduced total sugar content (par. 0057) and
suggest the determined alternative recipes to a user (par. 0043, 0044, 0055).
Dickson teaches user specific recipes and obtaining ingredient information for directly influencing a final product by determining a food index (par. 0054) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food ingredient specific to a user as defined by individual ingredients of the recipe as taught by Dunn.
Though silent to explicitly teaches determining for a combination of the ingredients, a total sugar content, importantly Dickson does teach obtaining user specific ingredient information specific to adjustable indexes including sweetness (par. 0057). Thus since the recipe sweetness is directly influenced by ingredients as taught by Dickson (par. 0057), since Dickson teaches for a combination of the ingredients, estimate a sugar content and a sweetness index (par. 0057) from a same nutrition database as taught by Dunn (par. 0058) and since Dunn teaches a same recipe including ingredients defined by known nutrition information (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine for a combination of the ingredients, i.e. the recipe as taught by both, a total sugar content as taught by Dunn (par. 0044 last 6 lines) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of adjusting recipes based on sweetness as input by a user and providing the option of exchanging ingredients of different sugar content or sugar type which influence specific end product characteristics of the food product as desired by both.
With respect to Independent claim 11, a recipe suggestion method, comprising:
weighing ingredients added to a receptacle during following of a recipe (par. 0034)
operating a processor (par. 0031; computing device) configured to:
identifying (par. 0053 last 4 line; par. 0043 ingredients, amount; par. 0044 user modify recipe; par. 0050) or receiving identification (par. 0060 camera) of the ingredients (par. 0043 ingredients, amount; par. 0044 user modify recipe; par. 0050; par. 0060 camera)
for each identified ingredient and its added weight (par. 0043), estimating a corresponding amount of different sugar types (par. 0057; different sugar types relative source, processed sugar vs fruit vs vegetable);
for a combination of the ingredients, estimating a sugar content and a sweetness index (par. 0057)
determining if there are suitable alternative recipes with reduced total sugar content (par. 0057) and
suggesting the determined alternative recipes to a user (par. 0043, 0044, 0055).
Dickson teaches user specific recipes and obtaining ingredient information for directly influencing a final product by determining a food index (par. 0054) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food ingredient specific to a user as defined by individual ingredients of the recipe as taught by Dunn.
Though silent to explicitly teaches determining for a combination of the ingredients, a total sugar content, importantly Dickson does teach obtaining user specific ingredient information specific to adjustable indexes including sweetness (par. 0057). Thus since the recipe sweetness is directly influenced by ingredients as taught by Dickson (par. 0057), since Dickson teaches for a combination of the ingredients, estimate a sugar content and a sweetness index (par. 0057) from a same nutrition database as taught by Dunn (par. 0058) and since Dunn teaches a same recipe including ingredients defined by known nutrition information (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine for a combination of the ingredients, i.e. the recipe as taught by both, a total sugar content as taught by Dunn (par. 0044 last 6 lines) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of adjusting recipes based on sweetness as input by a user and providing the option of exchanging ingredients of different sugar content or sugar type which influence specific end product characteristics of the food product as desired by both.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, though silent to explicitly teaching a weighted sum of total amount of the different sugar types in the recipe, importantly Dickson does teach obtaining user specific ingredient information specific to adjustable indexes including sweetness index (par. 0057). Thus since the recipe sweetness is directly influenced by ingredients as taught by Dickson (par. 0057), since Dickson teaches for a combination of the ingredients, estimate a sugar content and a sweetness index (par. 0057) from a same nutrition database as taught by Dunn (par. 0058) and since Dunn teaches a same recipe including ingredients defined by known nutrition information (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine for a combination of the ingredients, i.e. the recipe as taught by both, a weighted sum of total amount of the different sugar types in the recipe as taught by Dunn (par. 0044 last 6 lines) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of adjusting recipes based on sweetness as input by a user and providing the option of exchanging ingredients of different sugar content or sugar type which influence specific end product characteristics of the food product as desired by both.
Claims 3 and 13, the processor arrangement is further configured to determine and determining the alternative recipes with reduced total sugar content as suitable if they have a similar sweetness index (par. 0057; similar with respect to still sweet, any sweetness).
Claims 4 and 14, the processor arrangement is further configured to:
Receive(ing) user feedback (par. 0044; ratings) in respect of their enjoyment of sweetness of the recipe and the alternative recipes that have been followed (par. 0044; particular recipe) and
Though silent to “taking into account user feedback”. Since Dickson teaches user ratings specific to a particular recipe (par. 0044) and since Dickson teaches the sweetness index is variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the alternative recipes with reduced total sugar content as suitable by taking into account the user feedback thus providing a rating system for its art recognized purpose of providing the user with ingredient specific information relative the user provided options as taught by Dickson (par. 0044).
Claim 5, Dickson teaches exchanging ingredients of the recipe relative sweetness and/or lowering processed sugar or other sweetener to the recipe (par. 0057).
Dunn teaches and as is known in the art managing ingredient plans tailored to sugar, such as and including diabetes (par. 0041) and detriment values can be assigned for any property of a meal that makes it undesirable (par. 0049). Thus since both teach substitution of ingredients for a same purpose of adjusting sugar content, since Dickson teaches a sweetness index and adjusting sugar components relative a desired constant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the processor to determine if the total sugar content exceeds a threshold as taught by Dunn, and if the total sugar content is greater than the threshold (par. 0049), identify the alternative recipes as taught by both with a similar sweetness index, in the instant case substituting or reducing sugar as opposed to removing as taught by Dickson. Thus achieving its art recognized advantage of further defining target levels by sugar, such that the target value can be adjusted on the fly to maintain an optimal (par. 0072) as taught by Dunn relative sweetness desired as taught by Dickson.
Claim 6, since both teach substitution of ingredients for a same purpose of adjusting sugar content, since Dickson teaches a sweetness index and adjusting sugar components relative a desired constant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the processor to if the total sugar content is below the threshold, to suggest different alternative recipes with the same total sugar content as taught by Dickson (par. 0057) thus achieving a same art recognized identify the alternative recipes as taught by both with a similar sweetness index, in the instant case substituting ingredients of a sugar content of a defined sweetness as desired. Thus achieving its art recognized advantage of further defining target levels by sugar, such that the target value can be adjusted on the fly to maintain an optimal (par. 0072) as taught by Dunn relative sweetness desired as taught by Dickson.
Claim 7, since Dickson teaches the processor arrangement is further configured to output the suggested different alternative recipes with an indication of their sweetness index since both teach substitution of ingredients for a same purpose of adjusting sugar content, since Dickson teaches a sweetness index and adjusting sugar components relative a desired constant and since Dunn teach outputting total sugar content relative different recipes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further configure the processor to output the suggested different alternative recipes and their achieved reduction in total sugar content compared to the recipe that has been followed thus achieving a same art recognized identifying of the alternative recipes as taught by both with a similar sweetness index, in the instant case substituting ingredients of a sugar content of a defined sweetness as desired. Thus achieving its art recognized advantage of further defining target levels by sugar, such that the target value can be adjusted on the fly to maintain an optimal (par. 0072) as taught by Dunn relative sweetness desired as taught by Dickson.
Claim 8, the processor arrangement is further configured to identify or receive identification of the ingredients by one or more of:
receiving input from the user (par. 0050, 0056)
by camera recognition (par. 0060)
With respect to claim 9, since both teach obtaining nutritional information specific to ingredients (par. 0058), since the type of sugar is ingredient and thus recipe dependent and since both teach the broad control of sugar amounts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the set of the different sugar types comprising sucrose, glucose, fructose, and maltose by obtaining ingredient specific information to determine the sweetness scale and exchanging various ingredients to achieve the desired final sweetness relative a user desired recipe as taught by Dickson.
Claim 10, the system comprising a blender, juicer, or mixer (par. 0028).
Claim 15, a computer program comprises computer program code (par. 0092) which is adapted, when said program is run on a computer, to implement the method (par. 0092).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20090258332, 20130149676, 20150079551 directed to recipe creation by ingredient type
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