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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10-11, 14-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chalmers GB 2589671 (hereinafter “Chalmers”).
As to claim 1, Chalmers teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a presentation control unit that controls a presentation apparatus including a first delivery unit that delivers an aroma of a dish toward a nose and a second delivery unit that delivers the aroma of the dish toward a throat and presents the aroma of the dish to a user, using the aroma through the nose and the aroma through the throat (paragraph 0006- first delivery means comprising means for providing smells; 0014- deliver smell cause (both othornasal and retronasal); and 0022- smell capsules with the tubes 33 and further smell capsules in delivery tubes 33, to deliver smell to the nose 34. The number of capsules used is related to how many key smells are associated with target product and its blends. To deliver smell and taste, a small amount of the appropriate percentage of each taste component…user's nose 34 from a tube 33. It is necessary to
include both smell delivery systems to ensure both orthonasal ("sniffed in") and retronasal ("from the food in the mouth") smells and FIG. 2).
As to claim 2, Chalmers teaches further comprising an acquisition unit that acquires contents selected by the user regarding an ingredient and a cooking method using the ingredient, wherein the presentation control unit presents the aroma of the dish obtained by cooking the ingredient by the cooking method (paragraph 0028 “choose their preferred multisensory flavour components of a "base product flavour" by changing the taste, smell, colour, etc on the system through a user interface” and 0014).
As to claim 7, Chalmers teaches wherein the presentation apparatus further includes a taste presentation unit that presents a taste of the dish, and the presentation control unit presents the taste of the dish to the user together with the aroma of the dish (paragraph 0019-0022).
As to claim 10, Chalmers teaches further comprising an inference unit that infers the aroma and the taste of the dish obtained by cooking the ingredient by the cooking method (paragraph 0018-0030).
As to claim 11, Chalmers teaches wherein the inference unit uses a first inference model whose input is information on the ingredient and information on the cooking method and whose output is a measurement value of the aroma and a measurement value of the taste of the dish obtained by cooking the ingredient by the cooking method, to perform inference of the measurement value of the aroma and the measurement value of the taste of the dish (paragraph 0035-0040 and FIG. 5).
As to claim 14, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 15, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 18, Chalmers teaches further comprising a taste presentation unit that presents a taste of the dish (paragraph 0019-0028).
As to claim 19, Chalmers teaches wherein the taste presentation unit changes the taste of the dish with a passage of time (paragraph 0019-0030).
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 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) 3-6, 8-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers GB 2589671 (hereinafter “Chalmers”) in view of Jain et al WO2021040616A1 (hereinafter “Jain”).
As to claims 3 and 17, Chalmers teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chalmers does not explicitly wherein the presentation control unit changes the aroma of the dish with a passage of time.
Jain teaches wherein the presentation control unit changes the aroma of the dish with a passage of time (page 1 lines 5-25 and page 2 line 3-page 4 line 5).
Chalmers and Jain are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to flavor adding dish apparatus.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above flavor adding dish apparatus, as taught by Chalmers, and incorporating aroma of the dish with a passage of time, as taught by Jain.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a multi-stimulation system in which at least one of the above-described problems has been overcome or ameliorated, or at least to provide a useful alternative to systems of the art., as suggested by Jain (page 1).
As to claim 4, Chalmers and Jain teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jain further teaches wherein the presentation control unit changes at least one of a type and strength of the aroma of the dish (page 2 line 3-page 4 line 30).
As to claim 5, Chalmers and Jain teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chalmers further teaches wherein the presentation control unit controls each of a timing at which the first delivery unit is caused to deliver the aroma of the dish and a timing at which the second delivery unit is caused to deliver the aroma of the dish (paragraph 0014-0015 and 0017).
As to claim 6, Chalmers and Jain teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chalmers further teaches wherein the presentation control unit causes the first delivery unit to deliver the aroma of the dish and then causes the second delivery unit to deliver the aroma of the dish (paragraph 0013-0018).
As to claim 8, Chalmers teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chalmers does not explicitly wherein the presentation control unit changes the taste of the dish with a passage of time.
However, Jain teaches wherein the presentation control unit changes the taste of the dish with a passage of time (page 1 lines 5-25 and page 2 line 3-page 4 line 5).
As to claim 9, Chalmers and Jain teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Jain further teaches wherein the presentation control unit changes at least one of a type and strength of the taste of the dish (page 1 lines 5-25 and page 2 line 3-page 4 line 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adoni et al. USPGPUB 20170011145 A1 teaches a method, computer program product, and system for generating flavor profile models are provided. An alpha flavor model is determined. An electrode signal is transmitted to a taste simulator based on the alpha flavor model. User feedback is received. A variance between the alpha flavor model and the user feedback is determined. The variance is compared to a predetermined threshold. In response to determining that the variance is greater than the predetermined threshold, a beta flavor model is generated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119