DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims is acknowledged. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation and fails distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
A recipe requires tools
(e.g., fry potatoes in a deep fryer) A user has tools
(e.g., user owns a pan, but not a deep fryer) The user does not have the tools to practice the recipe; the recipe is adapted
(e.g., change the recipe to use a pan instead of a deep fryer) Use a computer to perform the recipe adaptation and display it
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites acquiring and processing information about a recipe. These are each steps or processes which could be performed in the mind. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional features of the claim are recited at a very high level of generality. As such, this amounts to only applying the abstract idea using a generic apparatus and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the claim limitations of “by a computer” and “display[ing]” do not require any specific programming, structure, or methodology for performance of the abstract idea. The use of a computer to compute and display a recipe is well known.
Step 2B: As stated in reference to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a very high level of generality and are routine and conventional. Specifically, as stated above, the use of a computer to display and compute a recipe is well known.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (NPL 2015).
In reference to claim 1, Muller discloses “a block-oriented cooking workflow” (Fig 1 and description thereof) and demonstrates that the workflow can be decomposed into meaningful sub-components and explains that:“The basic idea for compositional adaptation is, to adapt a workflow by using the
workflow streams of other workflows that produce the same data item in a different
manner, e.g., with other tasks or data. In the sandwich domain, for example, toppings,
sauces, or preparation steps can be replaced. However, only workflow streams are substitutable if they produce the same data and consume identical data nodes. This ensures that replacing an arbitrary stream does not violate the semantic correctness of the workflow.” (Pg. 225) and demonstrates an “Example of a workflow adaptation operator… The example adaptation operator in Fig. 5 describes that mayonnaise can be replaced by tomatoes.” (Pg. 226) Muller does not explicitly demonstrate the replacement of a tool in the recipe, but further explains that in the workflow “In general, cooking steps are adapted, if particular changed ingredients may require a different preparation of the particular dish.” (Pg 229); and, concludes that “Future work will also comprise the retrieval of adaptable
cases [19], i.e., we will investigate the adaptability of the workflows within the case
base as the workflow that best matches the given query is not necessarily the workflow
that can be at best adapted to the resources and requirements given”.
The indication that future work will allow the recipe workflow to adapt to “resources” anticipates the claim because a person of skill in the art would consider the term “resources” to include tools in the context of a cooking environment. Furthermore, even if “resources” did not include tools, a person of skill in the art would have found it obvious to adapt the workflow to adapt to insufficient resource allocation to perform the recipe because Muller teaches the reader that certain recipes require particular tools and they may not be able to perform the recipe without the right tools (e.g., “The definition of preparation steps is useful as certain tools might not be available or their usage is desired (e.g. oven).” [Pg. 224])
Therefore, it would be obvious to use a computer to modify a recipe that uses a first tool (e.g., a deep flyer) to use a different tool that the user has available (e.g., a pan) and then display that recipe.
In reference to claim 2-3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See “The definition of preparation steps is useful as certain tools might not be available or their usage is desired (e.g. oven).” (Pg. 224)
In reference to claim 4-6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. It would be obvious to use a computer to limit or optimize cooking times, steps, and/or labor required in a recipe.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited by applied prior art for further background. As a whole these references and appropriate secondary and tertiary references are believed sufficient to provide the skilled reader with the opportunity to learn about the technical background requisite to appreciate the body of knowledge needed to understand and communicate regarding the technology at issue.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights