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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2024 and 10/24/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a series of steps instructing how to record a voice comment that is associated with sensor data which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generally recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or processor.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations store and retrieve information in memory, that is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura (JP2006329455) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Tamura teaches an information processing apparatus comprising
a processor (2) that records, in cooking data, a voice comment made by a recording user during cooking ([0075] cooking operator inputs, and records the voice message (step S58)),
the voice comment being associated with sensor data measured at a time of making the voice comment ([0075] S59 control circuit 2 receives a voice message; the elapsed time (0:32) from the start of cooking is recorded (step S59), and the detection date obtained from the respective sensors 10e to 13e and the camera 14 at that time and the necessity degree set at that time are recorded (step S60)).
Regarding claim 2, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor (2) presents information regarding the voice comment to a reproducing user reproducing the cooking data ([0084] user downloads the recipe data, being a reproducing user; the control circuit 2 displays the procedure of the recipe on the left side of the display unit 3 for each cooking operation block as shown in FIG. 18),
the information being presented at a timing of detecting a cooking situation same as at the time of the voice comment by the recording user ([0084]the information on the cooking operation of the cooking operation block is sequentially displayed on the right portion of the display unit 3, the user can proceed with the cooking by sequentially pressing the cooking operation blocks).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, the processor detects a switching timing of a cooking step based on a voice comment providing notification of a switching of the cooking step by the recording user ([0092] cooking worker ends the operation of stir-frying using' Refry' and starts the operation of mixing using' Soup', and inputs by voice "Add bouillon, salt and pepper, and put on high heat," elapsed time from start of cooking is recorded; where it is understood that the time the voice comment is recorded, being the time the cooking step is switched from stir frying to mixing, is recorded as elapsed time),
and records, in the cooking data, information regarding the switching timing of the cooking step detected, the information being associated with sensor data measured at a time of notification ([0092]control circuit 2 records the operation pattern of the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17 of' Refry' and the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17 of' Soup').
Regarding claim 5, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, the processor detects a timing at which the recording user says a predetermined keyword as the switching timing of the cooking step ([0092] cooking worker ends the operation of stir-frying using' Refry' and starts the operation of mixing using' Soup', and inputs by voice "Add bouillon, salt and pepper, and put on high heat," where it is understood that "Add bouillon..." is the keyword or phrase).
Regarding claim 7, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, the voice comment includes subjective information sensed by the recording user ([0092] "Add bouillon, salt and pepper, and put on high heat," mix, stir-fry, understood to have subjective information), and
the processor (2) records, in the cooking data, the sensor data quantitatively indicating the subjective information ([0035] sensors 10e to 13e function as detection means for detecting the cooking state of the to-be-cooked object, and include at least one of general sensors such as temperature sensors, viscosity sensors, water level sensors, and weight sensors, microphones for detecting the sound of stir-fried food, cameras for photographing the cooking state, and the like; [0092] operation pattern of the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17; where subjective information is understood to be sound of stir fried food, the cooking state, or operation pattern of the acceleration sensor) the sensor data being associated with the voice comment ([0092] input by voice, records the operation pattern of the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17).
Regarding claim 9, Tamura teaches
an information processing method executed by a computer (1, [0010]),
the method comprising recording, in cooking data, a voice comment made by a recording user during cooking ([0075] cooking operator inputs, and records the voice message (step S58)),
the voice comment being associated with sensor data measured at a time of making the voice comment ([0075] S59 control circuit 2 receives a voice message; the elapsed time (0:32) from the start of cooking is recorded (step S59), and the detection date obtained from the respective sensors 10e to 13e and the camera 14 at that time and the necessity degree set at that time are recorded (step S60)).
Regarding claim 10, Tamura teaches a program causing a computer (1, [0010]) to implement recording, in cooking data, a voice comment made by a recording user during cooking ([0075] cooking operator inputs, and records the voice message (step S58)),
the voice comment being associated with sensor data measured at a time of making the voice comment ([0075] S59 control circuit 2 receives a voice message; the elapsed time (0:32) from the start of cooking is recorded (step S59), and the detection date obtained from the respective sensors 10e to 13e and the camera 14 at that time and the necessity degree set at that time are recorded (step S60)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2006329455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanemura (US11922690B2).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor (2) identifies an object that is a target of the voice comment by the recording user ([0035] camera 14, sensors 10e to 13e function as detection means for detecting the cooking state of the to-be-cooked object, taken to be the equivalent of identifying an object, [0075] voice message and detection by obtained from the respective sensors 10e to 13e and the camera 14), but is silent on the processor identifies an object based on a line-of-sight of the recording user.
Kanemura teaches the processor (10) identifies an object (Col. 3 lines 25-45 first material) based on a line-of-sight of the recording user (Col. 3 lines 25-45 user's gaze).
Tamura and Kanemura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information processing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kanemura to incorporate the teachings of Li to identify objects based on a line of sight of the user in order to allow a user to be able to follow a recipe without use of their hands, reducing the risk of unhygienic behavior in the cooking process (Kanemura Col. 2 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein
the processor (2) estimates the sensor data indicating the subjective information ([0087] analyze the operation signal from the acceleration sensor 17 and recognize an operation pattern corresponding to the operation signal; where the operating pattern is taken to be subjective information) "and records the sensor data estimated in the cooking data ([0086-0087, 0092] detection data recorded), the sensor data being associated with the voice comment ([0092]inputs by voice "Add bouillon, salt and pepper, and put on high heat" as actions, and operates the heating power setting of the IH cooking heater 12 to heating power 17, the control circuit 2 records the operation pattern of the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17 of' Refry' and the operation signal transmitted from the acceleration sensor 17 of' Soup'), but is silent on using an analysis model that has learned senses of the recording user.
Kanemura teaches using an analysis model (Col. 10 lines 35-55 machine learning, neural network, understood to be the equivalent of an analysis model) that has learned senses of the recording user (Col. 9 lines 1-50 user's gaze, user's movement; Col. 10 lines 35-55 steps S1-S5 based on user's gaze captured by first camera module 11 being the equivalent of a learned sense).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kanemura to use an analysis model based on learned senses of the user in order to be able to accurately guide a user to process the cooked food item without the necessity of the user's hands, reducing the risk of unhygienic behavior in the cooking process (Kanemura Col. 2 lines 1-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2006329455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US11102851B2).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor (2) corrects the sensor data indicating the switching timing of the cooking step in the cooking data ([0082] cooking operator can perform correction such as deletion, change, and addition of the recorded content; any of which are understood to be sensor data indicating a switching timing) based on a voice comment related to correction of the switching timing of the cooking step ([0082] recorded contents can be added by voice input), but is silent on the voice comment being made by the reproducing user during reproduction of the cooking data.
Li teaches the voice comment being made by the reproducing user during reproduction of the cooking data (Col. 3 lines 1-2 controlling the operation of the microwave oven according to a parameter corresponding to the parameter changing instruction, and updating, according to the parameter changing instruction, the default recipe parameter corresponding to the voice instruction.) .
Tamura and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information processing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the reproducing user provide a voice comment so that a user may change a portion of the recipe that had been previously set in order to be in align with their desired preferences, so the reproducing user does not have to set the parameter every time they cook the same recipe (Li Col. 1 lines 50-57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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 (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights