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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 7/2/2026 are entered.
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(s) 1, 2-6, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat (US 20230075208 A1) in view of Morris (US 20230134081 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haghighat teaches a cooking device (FIG. 1, smart oven 100), comprising: a display (FIG. 1, user interface 120), a cooking chamber (FIG. 1, cavity 104); a heating part (FIG. 1, heating system 122) configured to heat the cooking chamber; a camera (FIG. 1, camera 116) configured to capture an image of food located inside the cooking chamber; and a processor (FIG. 2, processor 206) configured to: input the image into an image generation model that generates a changed image (FIG. 6, step 604) by manipulating a numerical value of an image attribute (digital images are made up of a number of color values, and any manipulation of a digital image is done by changing various numerical values associated with that image), generate a plurality of expected images representing cooking progress stages of the food based on an output of the image generation model (FIG. 6, step 604), display the plurality of expected images on the display (FIG. 6, step 606), receive a selection for a selected expected image among the plurality of expected images (FIG. 6, step 608), and control the heating part to cook the food based on cooking information matched to the selected expected image (FIG. 6, steps 610-620).
Haghighat fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: in response to a first type of food and a second type of food being in the cooking chamber, generate a first expected image set including a plurality of first images corresponding to the first type of food and a second expected image set including a plurality of second images corresponding to the second type of food, and display the first expected image set and the second expected image set, wherein the first type of food is different than the second type of food.
However, Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: in response to a first type of food and a second type of food (paragraph 57, the camera may take images of multiple (i.e., different) food items) being in the cooking chamber, generate a first expected image set including a plurality of first images corresponding to the first type of food and a second expected image set including a plurality of second images corresponding to the second type of food (paragraph 57, the camera takes an image that is split into multiple parts (i.e., multiple images), which the system independently analyzes), and display the first expected image set and the second expected image set (in the combination below the multiple sets of images of Morris are displayed, as in Haglighat), wherein the first type of food is different than the second type of food (paragraph 57, the camera may take images of multiple (i.e., different) food items).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by making it so the system can analyze multiple different food items at a time, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Morris with the motivation of giving a user the ability to analyze multiple food items at once.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the cooking information includes at least one of a cooking temperature, a cooking time period, and a degree of cooking the food (FIG. 6, step 618, the level of doneness is computed).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the cooking progress stages are classified based on one or more of a cooking time period, a degree of cooking of the food (FIG. 6, the steps shown may be performed for different kinds of food), and a degree of change in a shape of the food.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: display a plurality of manipulation images guiding a manipulation button (a click selected image) to be manipulated so that the food is cooked in a manner corresponding to each of the plurality of expected images (FIG. 4, the image is selected via touch screen (i.e., a button)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: display cooking information corresponding to each of the plurality of expected images (FIG. 4, the darkness of each image constitutes displayed cooking information).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: display sub-expected images based on subdividing a cooking step of the selected expected image (FIG. 3, the system may display cooking stages with high granularity (e.g., between medium and medium well)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: capture a subsequent cooking image of the food during cooking, compare the subsequent cooking image with the selected expected image to generate a comparison result, and in response to the comparison result indicating that a similarity between the subsequent cooking image and the selected expected image is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, output a notification indicating that cooking is complete (FIG. 6, at steps 614-618 the system compares a subsequent image doneness level with a doneness level of the selected image, then displays a notification (paragraph 56)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the comparison result is based on a first attribute score quantifying a specific attribute of the selected expected image and a second attribute score quantifying the specific attribute of the subsequent cooked image (FIG. 6, the doneness levels are based on numerical attributes assigned to each image).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: capture a subsequent image of the food during cooking, compare the subsequent image with the selected expected image to generate a comparison result, and in response to an expected cooing time corresponding to the selected expected image changing based on the comparison result, display a changed expected cooking time and a changed expected image (paragraph 57, the system may update cooking times and display images).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: in response to cooking being performed for an expected cooking time corresponding to the selected expected imge, compare the selected expected image with a cooked image of the food corresponding to a cooking completion state, and in response to the selected expected image being different than the cooked image, determine that the cooking has failed (FIG. 6, steps 614-620, the system cross-references images and, if the images differ, determines a failure and keeps cooking to fix the food).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: display a notification indicating that an error has occurred between the expected image and the cooked image or that the cooking has failed.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: acquire an additional cooking time, and display a new expected image bsed on the additional cooking time (FIG. 6, the system may update cooking time and images).
Regarding claim 19, Haghighat teaches that the image generation model manipulates the image so that a plurality of attributes are reflected according to a conversion request of each of the plurality of attributes (abstract, the generative system changes a number of defined attribute of each image).
Regarding claim 20, Haghighat teaches a method (FIG. 6) of controlling a cooking device (FIG. 1, smart oven 100), the method comprising: capturing, via a camera (FIG. 1, camera 116) in the cooking device, an image of food located inside a cooking chamber of the cooking device (FIG. 6, step 602); inputting, via a processor (FIG. 2, processor 206) in the cooking device, the image into an image generation model that generates a changed image by manipulating a numerical value of an image attribute (FIG. 6, step 604, digital images are made up of a number of color values, and any manipulation of a digital image is done by changing various numerical values associated with that image); generating, via the processor, a plurality of expected images representing cooking progress stages of the food based on an output of the image generation model (FIG. 6, step 604); displaying, via a display (FIG. 1, user interface 120) of the cooking device, the plurality of expected imaged (FIG. 6, step 606); receiving a selection for a selected expected image among the plurality of expected images (FIG. 6, step 608); and cooking the food based on cooking information corresponding to the selected expected images (FIG. 6, steps 612-620).
Haghighat fails to teach that in response to a first type of food and a second type of food being in the cooking chamber, the generating comprises generating a first expected image set including a plurality of first images corresponding to the first type of food and a second expected image set including a plurality of second images corresponding to the second type of food; and wherein the displaying comprises displaying the first expected image set and the second expected image set, and wherein the first type of food is different than the second type of food.
However, Morris teaches that that in response to a first type of food and a second type of food being in the cooking chamber, the generating comprises generating a first expected image set including a plurality of first images corresponding to the first type of food and a second expected image set including a plurality of second images corresponding to the second type of food (paragraph 57, the camera may take images of multiple (i.e., different) food items. The camera takes an image that is split into multiple parts (i.e., multiple images), which the system independently analyzes); and wherein the displaying comprises displaying the first expected image set and the second expected image set, and wherein the first type of food is different than the second type of food (paragraph 57, the camera may take images of multiple (i.e., different) food items).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by making it so the system can analyze multiple different food items at a time, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Morris with the motivation of giving a user the ability to analyze multiple food items at once.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat and Morris as applied to claims 1, 2-6, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Santana (US 20230392797 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haghighat and Morris fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: display a cooking degree bar quantifying an amount of cooking corresponding to each of the plurality of expected images.
However, Santana teaches that the processor is further configured to: display a cooking degree bar quantifying an amount of cooking corresponding to each of the plurality of expected images (paragraph 60, the system may display a progress bar).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by putting a cooking progress bar by each image, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Santana with the motivation of giving a user an idea of how long each level of doneness will take.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Haghighat and Morris teaches that the processor is further configured to: display the selected expected image, a cooking image corresponding to a current cooking step (FIG. 4, the system displays the selected image, which is also representative of a late stage status of the cooking process).
Haghighat fails to teach a cooking status bar indicating a cooking progress stage.
However, Santana teaches a cooking status bar indicating a cooking progress stage (paragraph 60, the system may display a progress bar).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by putting a cooking progress bar by each image, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Santana with the motivation of giving a user an idea of how long each level of doneness will take.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat and Morris as applied to claims 1, 2-6, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 20190285483 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Haghighat and Morris fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: display a recommended expected image corresponding to a recommended cooking step based on a past cooking history of a user.
However, Cheng teaches that the processor is further configured to: display a recommended expected image corresponding to a recommended cooking step based on a past cooking history of a user (paragraph 44, a particular recipe and process may be recommended based on history).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by recommending a process based on user history, as taught by Santana, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Santana with the motivation of streamlining the process.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat and Morris as applied to claims 1, 2-6, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Taniguchi (US 20230276547 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Haghighat and Morris fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: display a notification indicating that an error has occurred between the expected image and the cooked image or that the cooking has failed.
However, Taniguchi teaches that the processor is further configured to: display a notification indicating that an error has occurred between the expected image and the cooked image or that the cooking has failed (paragraph 46, the system may display an error message if a cooking operation fails).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by displaying a food failure error message, as taught by Taniguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Taniguchi with the motivation of letting the user know the status of the cooking operation.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Haghighat and Morris fails to teach that the processor is further configured to: display cooking failure information including a cause of cooking failure of the food.
However, Taniguchi teaches that the processor is further configured to: display cooking failure information including a cause of cooking failure of the food (paragraph 46, the system displays an error message indicating why the cooking operation failed).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by displaying a food failure error message, as taught by Taniguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Taniguchi with the motivation of letting the user know the status of the cooking operation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat and Morris as applied to claims 1, 2-6, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Narayanan (US 20220392014 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Haghihat and Morris fails to teach that the image generation model comprises an attribute quantifier that provides the numerical value as a standardized value representing a degree of the image attribute, and a navigator that generates the changed image by moving a quantity vector within a latent space of the image generation model based on the degree determined by the attribute quantifier.
However, Narayanan teaches that the image generation model comprises an attribute quantifier that provides the numerical value as a standardized value representing a degree of the image attribute, and a navigator that generates the changed image by moving a quantity vector within a latent space of the image generation model based on the degree determined by the attribute quantifier (Paragraph 39, the system creates a rectified image by inputting an original image into an encoder/quantifier, which then employs a vector to manipulate a number of image attributes to produce a new image).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Haghighat by adjusting the image using an encoder/quantifier model, as taught by Narayanan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haghighat with these aforementioned teachings of Narayanan with the motivation of employing a common and easily modifiable method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2-8, and 10-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights