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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea of displaying options to a user terminal apparatus.
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “an electronic apparatus” thus satisfying Step 1 of the Patent Office’s eligibility guidance test.
However Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 do not satisfy Step 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance since a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case a processor, is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The claims solely require a manner of receiving and transmitting signals and memory storing information. The claims merely require transmitting information to a user terminal device. The claims do not require an actual cooking step or transformation and merely provides information.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
With respect to Step 2A of the eligibility test whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception (Prong 1) and whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (Prong 2). The examiner notes that judicial exception may comprise mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). It is noted the recitation of generic computer components, in the instant case a processor and memory, in a claim does not preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. In the instant case, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind.
In the instant case applicants claims fail the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim recites the field of use as information associated with a list of cooking device but in this case imposes no limits on the process of cooking or an actual cooking step. The claims do require an actual cooking device. The claims merely encompass providing computer with a memory, receiving a user input, i.e. use of a computer and providing the user with information associated with a second cooking device. Importantly, the claims are silent to an actual cooking step or even a cooking device. The claims require mere data gathering steps, i.e. receive a signal, to determine a result i.e. “identifying” based on a plurality of known recipes and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The “electronic apparatus” is used in their conventional way for receiving and transmitting “a signal”. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a processor to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books, i.e. “determining the required cooking parameters” from cook books that detail under what conditions a food item is cooked as taught by Lue (WO2017178346; pg. 25 lines 8-11) and cooking evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping since the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In addition, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually determining a first cooking operation relative a cooking device and manually determining that if user owns a first cooking device and providing options, such as in the instant case the mental process of identifying which of the unclaimed cooking device the user “has”, which of the unclaimed cooking devices the user does not have and the mental step of determining alternatives which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update and/or manually determining which cooking device a user is currently using, i.e. not available to a user and determining a second cooking device which is not being used, i.e. available which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
More specifically, but for an “electronic apparatus” comprising “a processor”, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable, i.e. alternative cooking devices. The alternative cooking device is not limited by a function or type of cooking or even a desirable outcome specific to the cooking device, i.e. compatibility of the second cooking device relative the first and thus do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually determining cooking known resources, such as in the instant case the mental process of determining a second cooking device, which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
The processor is used in their conventional way of gathering data and comparing, i.e. determining available cooking devices which can be performed mentally or as taught by Lue by merely accessing a paper cook book (pg. 25 lines 8-11), which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cookbook of known cooking devices per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
In addition with respect to step 2A, the examiner notes that in addition to mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, the judicial exception further may comprise mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas, equations and calculations. Applicants claims recite “identifying” a second cooking operation which replaces the first cooking option. However imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere comparison to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits. As such, Applicant’s claims further fail the eligibility test of step 2A, prong 1.
With regard to Prong 2A, the Guidance states that a judicial exception in conjunction with an improvements to the functioning of a computer is eligible. However mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
In addition with respect to Step 2B, the Examiner evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept. While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue in determining claim eligibility, it is not a transformative test. See MPEP 2106.05(b). In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court held that “a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” Parker v. Flook, 427 U.S. 584, 595, n18 (1978). The MPEP sets forth some relevant factors in determining whether a machine-implemented method satisfies subject matter eligibility: the particularity of the machine, whether the machine implements the steps of the method, and whether the involvement of the machine is extra-solution activity or a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
With respect to step 2B, the elements are conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated into a practical application, thereby failing the eligibility test of Step 2, Prong 2.
For example, when evaluating the claim reciting an abstract idea and a series of data gathering steps the claims recite the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The combination of steps gather and display information in a conventional manner and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With regard to the particularity of the machine, applicants claims are silent to any type of associated cooking device which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicants Specification is silent to defining the cooking devices and merely provide such as “for example”. Leading one to determine that applicants recitation of a “cooking device” is insufficient to provide particularity to the claimed machine.
While use of a machine to accomplish a claimed method may provide an inventive concept, applicants claims are silent to any specific cooking device and is merely a device on which the electronic apparatus operates. In addition, the claims are silent to any food perfecting, i.e. cooking or actually use of the obtained information that directs the operation of the appliance and is merely “capable of” replacing. Being silent to such, where different cooking apparatuses perform vastly different operations with different cooking types and outcomes. Application of the same “capable of replacing” shows that the cooking apparatuses is merely a machine on which the control operates, failing to provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
It is further noted with regard to the particularity of the machine, applicants claims encompass any electronic apparatus, which is not limited and more importantly not limited by a cooking device and broadly encompass a computer comprising a user terminal which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
The examiner evaluates whether the claims provide additional element(s) or combination of elements including a memory and a communication interface amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer as known in the art as evident by Logan (20180253459) and post‐solution activity, i.e. user choose that could be attached to any cooking device using known pre-stored data.
In addition the additional claim element of claims 8 and 17, providing a food cooking image to the user terminal amount(s) to no more than: mere selection of options to implement the idea on a computer as known in the art as evident by Homme et al. (20100199854; par. 0042) and post‐solution activity, i.e. user choose that could be attached to any cooking device using known pre-stored data.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the claims are mere instructions and choices of known cooking recipes as taught by Logan and Homme. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps merely display options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food or use of cooking device
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of comparing recipes for cooking devices by a generic user interface, i.e. display and merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a display to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information.
Claims drawn to judicial exceptions are not made patent eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192, n14 (1981). Applicant’s recitation of a patent ineligible abstract idea of “configured to perform communication connection with an external device” is an attempt to limit the use of an abstract idea to a particular field of use, rendering the claims ineligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Following the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance from the Office, Applicant’s invention is unpatentable under § 101.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (20160374501).
With respect to Independent claim 1, Logan teaches an electronic apparatus (par. 0030) comprising:
a communication interface (par. 0031) configured to perform a communication connection with an external device (par. 0030);
memory (par. 0079) storing at least one instruction (par. 0079 recipe par. 0065 parameters); and
at least one processor (par. 0079) operatively connected to the (par. 0076 carryout cooking function),
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic apparatus to:
receive a signal (par. 0056 par. 0087) requesting a first cooking operation (par. 0056, 0087, 0069) of a first cooking device (par.0056, 0087) for cooking food from a user terminal device (par. 0056, 0080 phone)
based on receiving the signal requesting the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063; fry), identify whether a user has the first cooking device (par. 0056; par. 0063; air fryer vs oil fryer) based on cooking devices that are available to be used by the user (par. 0056 has oven; par. 0063; par. 0048 last 7 lines device id retained),
based on identifying that the first cooking device is not included in the available cooking devices (par. 0056 oven busy; par. 0087) or desired/needed cooking devices (par. 0061, 0063), obtain information associated with a second cooking device capable of performing a second cooking operation which replaces the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063, 0087) based on information associated with the first cooking device and information associated with the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0061, 0063, 0087) and
based on obtaining the information associate with the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063, 0087), transmit, to the user terminal device, the information associated with the second cooking device (par. 0070, 0087)
Though silent to explicitly teaching determining if a cooking device is available to be used by a user based on a list of cooking devices. Logan does teach the recipes and programs provided to the user terminal device depending on the cooking devices status, i.e. busy and thus not available (par. 0056), cooking devices a user owns and “the cooking times and methods may be altered to be used on the specific cooking appliances and cookware” (par. 0081 last 5 lines) in addition to teaching determining a second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device due to availability (par. 0056)and/or function (par. 0061, 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one determining method to define a second cooking device and operation with that determined by a list of user available cooking devices, for its art recognized advantage of achieving a same second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device (par. 0061) and the art recognized advantage of utilizing a recipe for dissimilar cooking appliances without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053).
With respect to Independent claim 10, Logan teaches a controlling method of an electronic apparatus (par. 0030)
With respect to Independent claim 19, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (par. 0079, 0081) configured to store at least one computer instruction configured to be executed by at least one processor of an electronic apparatus for allowing the electronic apparatus to perform an operation (par. 0079, 0081) including
receiving a signal (par. 0056 par. 0087) requesting a first cooking operation (par. 0056, 0087, 0069) of a first cooking device (par.0056, 0087) for cooking food from a user terminal device (par. 0056, 0080 phone)
based on receiving the signal requesting the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063; fry), identify whether a user has the first cooking device (par. 0056; par. 0063; air fryer vs oil fryer) based on cooking devices that are available to be used by the user (par. 0056 has oven; par. 0063; par. 0048 last 7 lines device id retained),
based on identifying that the first cooking device is not included in the available cooking devices (par. 0056 oven busy; par. 0087) or desired/needed cooking devices (par. 0061, 0063), obtain information associated with a second cooking device capable of performing a second cooking operation which replaces the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063, 0087) based on information associated with the first cooking device and information associated with the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0061, 0063, 0087) and
based on obtaining the information associate with the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063, 0087), transmit, to the user terminal device, the information associated with the second cooking device (par. 0070, 0087)
Though silent to explicitly teaching determining if a cooking device is available to be used by a user based on a list of cooking devices. Logan does teach the recipes and programs provided to the user terminal device depending on the cooking devices status, i.e. busy and thus not available (par. 0056), cooking devices a user owns and “the cooking times and methods may be altered to be used on the specific cooking appliances and cookware” (par. 0081 last 5 lines) in addition to teaching determining a second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device due to availability (par. 0056)and/or function (par. 0061, 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one determining method to define a second cooking device and operation with that determined by a list of user available cooking devices, for its art recognized advantage of achieving a same second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device (par. 0061) and the art recognized advantage of utilizing a recipe for dissimilar cooking appliances without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053).
With respect to claims 2 and 11, wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic apparatus to, based on identifying that the first cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices, transmit to the first cooking device a control instruction for controlling the first cooking device (par. 0056 relative oven operation; par. 0087; par. 0084 last 4 lines).
Claims 3 and 12, where the list is taken as above.
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic apparatus to, based on identifying that the first cooking device is not included in the list of cooking devices, transmit to the user terminal device cooking information on a method of cooking food without using the first cooking device (par. 0056, 0063).
Claims 4 and 13, the at least one instruction when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic apparatus to
Based on obtaining the information associate with the second cooking device, identify whether the second cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices (par. 0056, 0063, 0081),
Based on identifying that the second cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices, transmit to the second cooking device a control instruction for controlling the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063).
Claims 5 and 14, based on identifying that the second cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices, receive a user input on whether to control the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063, par. 0081 for selection), and
based receiving the user input to control the second cooking device, transmit to the second cooking device a control instruction for controlling the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0087; par. 0081 for selection).
Claims 6 and 15, transmit information associate with the second cooking device operation to the user terminal device (par. 0081).
Claims 7 and 16, based on identifying that the second cooking device is not included in the list of cooking devices or (ii) failing to obtain the information associate with the second cooking device, transmit to the user terminal device cooking information on a method of cooking food without using the first cooking device (par. 0056, 0063).
With respect to claim 20, the at least one instruction when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic apparatus to
Based on obtaining the information associate with the second cooking device, identify whether the second cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices (par. 0056, 0063, 0081),
Based on identifying that the second cooking device is included in the list of cooking devices, transmit to the second cooking device a control instruction for controlling the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063, 0085).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (20160374501)
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Logan teaches the at least one instruction when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to provide a food cooking image to a video for sharing between user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a video call with respect to the taught smart phone of Logan and video sharing as further taught for its art recognized purpose of providing sharing among various users (par. 0087).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (20160374501) in view of Homme et al. (20100199854).
Logan teaches the user terminal device for providing a visual interface and thus of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of display and control device of cooking appliances as taught by Homme.
More specifically Homme teaches a user interface for images of foods to be selected to be cooking (par. 0033) in a visualized manner in the alternative to text inputs (par. 0042).
Thus since Logan teaches requesting a first cooking operation (par. 0080 user select) for cooking food from a user terminal device (par. 0080 phone) while a visual interface is provided to the user to view and select among the program using a select function (par. 0079) and since Homme teaches the advantage of the alternative to text input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a same information specific to a type of food desired by a user, to a user terminal for selection as a food cooking image as taught by Homme (par. 0033; roast) for its recognized alternative to text input and advantage of providing visualization of different food for selection as an image which is advantageous for operation by untrained users and without reduced quality as taught by Homme (par. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a same information specific to a type of food desired by a user, to a user terminal for selection as a food cooking image as taught by Homme (par. 0033; roast) for its recognized alternative to text input and advantage of providing visualization of different desired degrees of cooking of a singular food for selection as an image which is advantageous for providing visualization of different degrees for selection as desired by a user as further taught by Homme (par. 0040).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the 101 rejection and the mental process grouping.
Importantly, the claims are silent to an actual cooking step or even a cooking device. The claims require mere data gathering steps, i.e. receive a signal, to determine a result i.e. “identifying” based on a plurality of known recipes and do not add any meaningful limits of cooking. The “electronic apparatus” is used in their conventional way for receiving and transmitting “a signal”. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a processor to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books, i.e. “determining the required cooking parameters” from cook books that detail under what conditions a food item is cooked as taught by Lue (WO2017178346; pg. 25 lines 8-11) and cooking evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thus it is still in the mental processes grouping since the claim limitation can be performed in the mind. The data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and merely uses a processor and/or electronic apparatus as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In addition, the mere nominal recitation of the generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process because in this case imposes no limits on a specific parameter, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually determining a first cooking operation relative a cooking device and manually determining that if user owns a first cooking device and providing options, such as in the instant case the mental process of identifying which of the unclaimed cooking device the user “has”, which of the unclaimed cooking devices the user does not have and the mental step of determining alternatives which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update and/or manually determining which cooking device a user is currently using, i.e. not available to a user and determining a second cooking device which is not being used, i.e. available which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
More specifically, but for an “electronic apparatus” comprising “a processor”, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable, i.e. alternative cooking devices. The alternative cooking device is not limited by a function or type of cooking or even a desirable outcome specific to the cooking device, i.e. compatibility of the second cooking device relative the first and thus do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually determining cooking known resources, such as in the instant case the mental process of determining a second cooking device, which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a thermometer and clock per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
The processor is used in their conventional way of gathering data and comparing, i.e. determining available cooking devices which can be performed mentally or as taught by Lue by merely accessing a paper cook book (pg. 25 lines 8-11), which is a step not outside that of a mental process which a person of ordinary skill in the art could perform using a paper cookbook of known cooking devices per the January 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Logan. Logan teaches based on receiving the signal requesting the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063; fry), identify whether a user has the first cooking device (par. 0056; par. 0063; air fryer vs oil fryer) based on cooking devices that are available to be used by the user (par. 0056 has oven; par. 0063; par. 0048 last 7 lines device id retained),
based on identifying that the first cooking device is not included in the available cooking devices (par. 0056 oven busy; par. 0087) or desired/needed cooking devices (par. 0061, 0063), obtain information associated with a second cooking device capable of performing a second cooking operation which replaces the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0063, 0087) based on information associated with the first cooking device and information associated with the first cooking operation (par. 0056; par. 0061, 0063, 0087) and
based on obtaining the information associate with the second cooking device (par. 0056, 0063, 0087), transmit, to the user terminal device, the information associated with the second cooking device (par. 0070, 0087)
Though silent to explicitly teaching determining if a cooking device is available to be used by a user based on a list of cooking devices. Logan does teach the recipes and programs provided to the user terminal device depending on the cooking devices status, i.e. busy and thus not available (par. 0056), cooking devices a user owns and “the cooking times and methods may be altered to be used on the specific cooking appliances and cookware” (par. 0081 last 5 lines) in addition to teaching determining a second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device due to availability (par. 0056)and/or function (par. 0061, 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one determining method to define a second cooking device and operation with that determined by a list of user available cooking devices, for its art recognized advantage of achieving a same second cooking device which may replace a first cooking device based on compatibility and/or common functionality between the cooking device (par. 0061) and the art recognized advantage of utilizing a recipe for dissimilar cooking appliances without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053).
With respect to applicants urging directed to Homme, Homme is relied upon with respect to dependent claims 8 and 17 and the teaching of an image.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights