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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Temperature sensing module in claim 1. The examiner determined definitions with use of the specifications defined as; “the temperature sensing module 10 may be a contact temperature sensor, such as a thermocouple sensor.” [Page 4, line 11] And “In another embodiment, the temperature sensing module 10 may be a contactless temperature sensor, such as a thermal imaging camera.” [Page 4, line 18]
Image recognizing module in claim 1. The examiner determined definitions with use of the specifications defined as; “the image recognizing module 20 can further include a camera lens set 21, an image processor 22, and a comparison feature database 23.” [Page 5, line 4]
Odor detecting module in claim 1 is not defined. The examiner determined definitions with use of the specifications defined as; “the odor detecting module 30 may be a resistive electronic nose, a piezoelectric electronic nose, a field effect electronic nose, or an optical electronic nose.” [Page 7, line 18]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wok body" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The wok body has not been previously cited, for purposes of examination the examiner has interpreted “the wok body” to be an additional element of the cooker. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant is reciting the cooker or adding an additional limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of both a product and process within the same claim. The claim refers to the product “chef robot device”, while also reciting the process of training of the robotic arm module. Therefore, it appears to be both an apparatus and method are disclosed within the same claim. The applicant is advised to change phrasing of the claim; “to configure” or “to be trained” therefore there is no positively cited method steps required in this method claim. Please refer to MPEP Section 2173.05(p) for more information.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik, US patent Application Publication No. 20160059412 in view of Ping, CN Application Publication No. 201710071450A.
Claim 1. A chef robot device, comprising (Oleynik, Abstract): a temperature sensing module (Fig. 5A, Fig. 72, [0089], temperature sensor),
sensing a real time temperature in a cooker to output a temperature sensing signal; ([0011] “A robotic cooking engine comprises detection, recording, and chef emulation cooking movements, controlling significant parameters, such as temperature and time, and processing the execution with designated appliances, equipment, and tools, thereby reproducing a gourmet dish that tastes identical to the same dish prepared by a chef and served at a specific and convenient time.”)
an image recognizing module (Fig. 5A, [0349] “The multimodal sensor-unit(s) 302, comprising, but not limited to, video cameras 304, IR cameras and rangefinders 306, stereo (or even trinocular) camera(s) 308 and multi-dimensional scanning lasers 310 …”),
capturing a real time image inside the cooker to recognize the real time image for determining a food color depth of a food in the cooker ([0464] “The multi-modal sensor system video-sensing element is able to implement process 982, which uses color-detection and spectral analysis to detect discoloration indicating possible spoilage.”),
and outputting a food color depth signal according to the food color depth; ([0165] “software-based computer program(s) capable of using geometric data and edge-information as well as other sensory data (color, shape, texture, etc.) to allow for identification of three-dimensionality of one or more objects”)
an odor detecting module (Fig. 31, Fig. 47, [0296] “Optionally, the robot may have an electronic nose (not shown) to detect odor or flavor and surrounding temperature.”),
detecting an environmental odor around the cooker to recognize a specific odor ([0329] “The quality check module 96 can also be configured to conduct quality testing of an object based on senses, such as the smell of the food, the color of the food, the taste of the food, and the image or appearance of the food…”),
a central processing unit (CPU) ([0757] “The example computer system 3624 includes a processor 3626 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)”)
electrically connected to the temperature sensing module, the image recognizing module, and the odor detecting module for receiving the temperature sensing signal, the food color depth signal, and the odor concentration signal;kitchen 50… In this embodiment, each of the twenty-seven programmable storage locations includes four types of sensors: a pressure sensor 1370, a humidity sensor 1372, a temperature sensor 1374, and a smell (olfactory) sensor 1376… The computer 16 can also monitor each programmable storage location for the proper temperature, proper humidity, proper pressure, and proper smell profiles to ensure optimal storage conditions for particular food items or ingredients are monitored and maintained.”)
wherein the CPU further stores a trajectory planning model (and outputs multiple motion instructions according to the trajectory planning model; ([0323] “the computer 16 identifies the non-standard object with three-dimensional modeling sensors 66 to capture shape, dimensions, orientation and position information and robotic hands 72 make a real-time adjustment to perform the appropriate food preparation tasks”)
a robotic arm module ([0760] “two robotic arms with actuators and force sensors;”),
electrically connected to the CPU for receiving the multiple motion instructions ([0760] “communicatively coupled to the mechanical robotic structure and the electronic library database, configured for combining a plurality of minimanipulations to achieve one or more domain-specific applications”),
and performing multiple motions according to the multiple motion instructions; ([0760] “configured for executing the minimanipulation steps by the robotic platform to accomplish a functional result associated with the minimanipulation steps.”)
wherein when the real time temperature is greater than or equal to a start cooking temperature, (Figure 72, [0135] “FIG. 72 is a graphical diagram illustrating the recorded temperature and humidity curves from the sensory cookware in the chef studio for transmission to an operating control unit in accordance with the present disclosure.”
The CPU controls the robotic arm module to add foods into the cooker and to flip the wok body or stir-fry the foods; (Oleynik [0425] “For example, the standardized kitchen handle 580 is attached to the custom spatula head 760e for use to stir-fry the ingredients in a pan.”
wherein when the real time temperature is greater than or equal to a finish cooking temperature, (Figure 72, [0135])
when the food color depth is greater than or equal to a finish cooking color depth, ([0165], [0135])
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to take out the foods from the cooker. ([0454] “the robot food preparation engine 56 is configured to instruct the robotic apparatus 75 to move the completed dish to the designated serving dishes and placing the same on the counter.”
Although Oleynik does not explicitly recite outputting an odor concentration signal according to a specific odor concentration; Oleynik discloses a smell detecting sensor and a method to compare data collected throughout the cooking process, as evidenced by the following passage. ([0329], [0454] “compare the results of cooking against the controlled data (such as temperature, weight, loss, etc.) and the media data (such as color, appearance, smell, portion-size, etc.”). Additionally, Oleynik does not explicitly recite when the specific odor concentration is greater than or equal to an odor detection threshold, but Oleynik discloses a method of comparing sensor values throughout the cooking process, as evidenced by the following passages ([0329], [0454]).
However, Ping teaches outputting an odor concentration signal according to a specific odor concentration ([Page 7, Paragraph 8], “the signal processing module 2 may compare the processed odor signal with an odor threshold, that is, compare the detected gas concentration with an odor threshold”), when the specific odor concentration is greater than or equal to an odor detection threshold, ([Page 7, Paragraph 9], “step S25 within the scope of the particular space, such as are detecting in the case that the gas concentration arrived is more than odor threshold.”).
Oleynik and Ping are analogous art for being both within the realm of utilizing specialized sensors for cooking and home appliance related applications. Thus, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or combine the odor concentration sensor disclosed by Ping with Oleynik’s disclosed invention in order to achieve predictable results of a robot chef device capable of making decisions based off of gas concentration thresholds. See MPEP 2143.01.
Claim 2. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, Oleynik further teaches wherein when the real time temperature is greater than or equal to the start cooking temperature (Fig 70,71,72,73,74, [0135] “FIG. 72 is a graphical diagram illustrating the recorded temperature and humidity curves from the sensory cookware in the chef studio for transmission to an operating control unit in accordance with the present disclosure.”),
the CPU periodically determines whether the real time temperature is greater than a temperature setting value every preset time period; ([0135], [0536] “Data from each sensor represented as data-1 1708, data-2 1710 all the way to data-N 1712. Streams of raw data are forwarded and processed to and by an electronic (or computer) operating control unit…”)
And wherein when the real time temperature is lower than the temperature setting value, (Fig. 72, [0535] “corresponding to the temperature in each of the three zones at the bottom of a particular area of a cookware unit. The measurement units for time are reflected as cooking time in minutes from start to finish” [0536] “depicts a multiple set of sensory curves 1730 with recorded temperature 1732 and humidity 1734 profiles, with the data from each sensor… with process setup for real-time temperature control… The goal is to achieve and replicate the desired temperature curves over time”)
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to raise a heating power of the cooker. (Fig. 73, [0537] “, which in turn directs the power source 1750 to independently control the separate zone-heating control units” Since Oleynik teaches measuring temperatures through the use of sensory curves to match desired temperature goals this corresponds to adjusting the real time temperature of the cooker accordingly).
Claim 3. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the real time temperature is greater than or equal to the start cooking temperature, ([0535-0537], Since Oleynik teaches measuring temperatures through the use of sensory curves to match desired temperature goals this corresponds to adjusting the real time temperature of the cooker accordingly)
the CPU periodically determines whether the real time temperature is greater than a temperature setting value every preset time period; ([0535-0537] cited above, Since Oleynik teaches measuring temperatures through the use of sensory curves to match desired temperature goals this corresponds to adjusting the real time temperature of the cooker accordingly)
And wherein when the real time temperature is greater than the temperature setting value, the CPU controls the robotic arm module to lower a heating power of the cooker. ([0535-0537] cited above, Since Oleynik teaches measuring temperatures through the use of sensory curves to match desired temperature goals this corresponds to adjusting the real time temperature of the cooker accordingly)
Claim 4. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the real time temperature is lower than the start cooking temperature, ([0535-0537], Since Oleynik teaches measuring temperatures through the use of sensory curves to match desired temperature goals this corresponds to adjusting the real time temperature of the cooker accordingly)
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to heat the cooker. ([0543] “Each of the modules within the counter level contains sensor units 1892 providing data to one or more control units 1894, either directly or by way of one or more central or distributed control computers, to allow for computer-controlled operations.”
Claim 5. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1. Oleynik further discloses (Fig 31, Fig 17, [0465] “Additional sensors in the robotic sensor head 20 are used in the audible domain to listen and smell during significant parts of the cooking process.”, [0329] “The quality check module 96 can also be configured to conduct quality testing of an object based on senses, such as the smell of the food, the color of the food, the taste of the food, and the image or appearance of the food…”)
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to lower the heating power of the cooker ([0543], [0013] “Abstraction motion-commands (e.g. “crack an egg into the pan”, “sear to a golden color on both sides”, etc.) can be generated from the raw data, refined, and optimized through a multitude of iterative learning processes”).
Oleynik does not teach, but Ping teaches wherein when specific odor concentration is greater than or equal to an odor concentration upper threshold([Page 7, Paragraph 9]). Motivation the same as claim 1.
Claim 6. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1.
Oleynik teaches when the food color depth of the foods in the cooker is greater than a preset color depth, ([0465], [0329], [0013], [0454])
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to take out the foods from the cooker. ([0454] “At step 832, the robot food preparation engine 56 is configured to instruct the robotic apparatus 75 to move the completed dish to the designated serving dishes and placing the same on the counter.”).
Oleynik does not teach, however Ping teaches wherein when the specific odor concentration is greater than or equal to an odor concentration upper threshold ([Page 7, Paragraph 9]). Motivation the same as claim 1.
Claim 7. Oleynik in view of Ping the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the image recognizing module comprises a camera lens set, an image processor, and a comparison feature database; ([0349], [250-251], [0297])
wherein the camera lens set captures the real time image inside the cooker, ([0011], [0464])
the image processor is electrically connected to the camera lens set and the comparison feature database, and the comparison feature database stores multiple comparison features; ([0349], [250-251], [0297]. Refer to above)
wherein when the image recognizing module recognizes the real time image, the image processor extracts the comparison features of the real time 20 image, ([0011], [0464], [0338] “A data process-mapping algorithm 220 uses the simpler (typically single-unit) variables to determine where the process action is taking place (cooktop and/or oven, fridge, etc.) and assigns a usage tag to any item/appliance/equipment being used whether intermittently or continuously. It associates a cooking step (baking, grilling, ingredient-addition, etc.) to a specific time-period and tracks when, where, which, and how much of what ingredient was added. This (time-stamped) information dataset is then made available for the data-melding process during the recipe-script generation process 222.”)
and compares the image features of the real time image with the comparison features stored in the comparison feature data base to determine the food color depth of the foods. (([0165], [0250-0251], [0297], Fig 5C, [0337] “two-dimensional and three-dimensional data collected by multi-spectrum sensory equipment (including cameras, lasers, structured light systems, etc.), to be input and filtered by the central computer system and also time-stamped by a main process 218.”
Claim 9. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the robotic arm module is trained (Fig 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 7A/B/C/D, 8A/B/C, 117C, [0417]),
smart gloves are worn on a left hand and a right hand of a professional human chef ([0417] “The chef recording devices 550 include, but are not limited to, one or more robot gloves”);
And wherein a recording device records three-dimensional motion tracks of the smart gloves in a three-dimensional space ([0417] “The robot gloves 26 save the position and pressure of the arms and fingers of the chef 18 in a three-dimensional coordinate frame over a time duration from the start time to the end time in preparing a particular food dish. When the chef 49 wears the robotic gloves 26, all of the movements, the position of the hands, the grasping motions, and the amount of pressure exerted, in preparing a food dish in the chef studio system 44, are precisely recorded at a periodic time interval, such as every t seconds.”),
and inputs the three-dimensional motion tracks into the trajectory planning model. ([0417])
Claim 10. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the real time temperature is lower than the finish cooking temperature, ([0454] “one or more robotic arms 70 and hands 72 compare the results of cooking against the controlled data (such as temperature, weight, loss, etc.) and the media data (such as color, appearance, smell, portion-size, etc.), as illustrated in step 828.”)
when the food color depth is lower than the finish cooking color depth, ([0465], [0329], [0013])
or when the specific odor concentration is lower than the odor detection threshold, ([0465], [0329])
the CPU controls the robotic arm module to perform the motions for increasing the heating power of the cooker. ([0454], [0543], [0013])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleynik, US patent Application Publication No. 20160059412 and Ping, CN Application Publication No. 201710071450A, and further in view of Zhang US Patent Application Publication No. US 20040172380 A1.
Claim 8. Oleynik in view of Ping teaches the chef robot device as claimed in claim 1. Oleynik teaches stopping heating the cooker ([0551] “Subsequently the robotic cooking engine sends a termination request 1986 to the computer-control system to terminate the entire cooking process”).
Although Oleynik does not explicitly teach wherein before the robotic arm module takes out the food from the cooker, the CPU further controls the robotic arm module to perform the motions for adding at least one seasoning into the cooker.
Zhang teaches wherein before the robotic arm module takes out the food from the cooker ([0052] “The computer sends control signals through a third interface 26 (such as A/D circuit board) to drivers 27. The drivers 27 will control the movement of the manipulators through the motors of each joint 20 to accomplish cooking tasks.” Removing food after cooking is complete is the end cooking task.)
Zhang teaches the CPU further controls the robotic arm module to perform the motions for adding at least one seasoning into the cooker (see Fig. 2, [0037] “The automatic cooking system comprises multiple, such as three, seasoning material containers 17, the output of which are controlled by a computer program and program controlled funnels 18 placed underneath that can add the seasoning materials for the dish according to operation commends of the program.”)
Oleynik, Ping and Zhang are analogous art for utilizing specialized sensors and robotic systems for cooking and home appliance related applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a mechanism to add seasoning to the cooker and remove the cooked food as disclosed by Zhang, into the control loop of the robotic manipulation methods and systems as described by the modified cooking robot of Oleynik and Ping. Because this allows for achieving a seasoned dish closely imitating a professional chef cooking process and producing exceptional dishes as intended by the system mentioned by Zhang (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nashida US Patent Application Publication No. US 20220279975 A1 teaches a cooking arm with use of an aroma measurement module to modify dish based off of measurements.
Fujita US Patent Application Publication No. US 20220097239 A1 teaches an odor sensor with adjustable heating operations through use of a temperature sensor, image analysis and a color measurement unit.
Goldberg US Patent Application Publication No. US 20200238534 A1 teaches a system of feedback loops from multiple sensors in order to adjust temperatures.
Sinnet US Patent Application Publication No. US 20180345485 A1 teaches a “kitchen assistant” that inspects food preparation using IR and image sensor data, utilizing a neural network to analyze said image data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T BLENKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm; Fri 7:30am-4pm; First Fri Off.
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 W 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.
/A.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights