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: “acquisition unit,” “generation unit,” and “output unit” in claim 14.
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 § 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 recite(s):
An information output method comprising, by a computer [claim 1];
An information output device comprising: an acquisition unit … a generation unit … an output unit [claim 14];
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information output program for causing a computer to execute processing [claim 15];
acquiring cooking information including cooking content to be evaluated and an instruction level of an instructor;
generating assistance information when the instructor instructs, in cooking, a cook who executes the cooking content based on the cooking information and the instruction level; and
outputting the assistance information.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer” [claim 1], “unit” [claim 14], “computer readable recording medium” [claim 15], nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a professional or grandmother instructing a parent and a child so that the parent can teach how to cook to the child.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer,” “unit,” and “computer readable recording medium.”
The “computer,” “unit,” and “computer readable recording medium” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites the following elements: “acquiring information” and “outputting information”. The examiner respectfully submits that the steps of “acquiring information” and “outputting information” recite an abstract idea of certain organization of human activities as verbal communication can be practically performed between people. In arguendo, if not, the “acquiring information” and “outputting information” are considered additional element. The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-13 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “video” [claim 7], which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) “video” was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the aforementioned additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taoka et al1 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0177970), hereinafter Taoka.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Taoka discloses an information output method/device/medium comprising, by a computer (Abstract):
acquiring cooking information including cooking content to be evaluated (10 in FIG. 1B; ¶364: “the changed cooking process corresponds to a specific age”) and an instruction level of an instructor (¶278 discloses instructors: “a first cook is a person who assists the second cook in cooking, such a person being a parent, teacher, nursery teacher, or the like, for example.”; ¶¶363-364 further discloses that the instruction level can be “first support information” such as “age”);
generating assistance information (¶364: “the changed cooking process corresponds to a specific age”) when the instructor instructs, in cooking, a cook who executes the cooking content based on the cooking information and the instruction level (¶278: “In the seventh to fourteenth embodiments, the second cook is a child”; ); and
outputting the assistance information (FIG. 27; ¶365: “FIG. 27 shows presentation of an age corresponding to support information. In FIG. 27, there is presented a recipe “Yakisoba” that has been changed for a second cook of “3 years old.” In FIG. 27, the changed cooking processes, first support information 62, and second support information 64 are also presented.”).
Regarding claim 2, Taoka further discloses that the cooking information further includes cooking utensil information indicating a cooking utensil used for the cooking (¶324: “preparing required utensils”), and the cooking content includes food material information indicating a food material used for the cooking (¶12: “The cooking element is one of an ingredient for cooking”).
Regarding claim 3, Taoka further discloses that the cooking content includes at least one of an action of cutting the food material, an action of boiling the food material, and an action of grilling the food material (FIG. 3; ¶126: “FIG. 3 shows cooking elements corresponding to cooking processes. As shown in FIG. 3, a recipe “Boiled Spinach with a Katsuobushi and Soy Sauce Dressing” includes three cooking processes. The cooking processes correspond to the respective cooking elements, that is, a cooking element “Green vegetables x Cutting,” a cooking element “Green vegetables x Washing & Water-absorbing,” and a cooking element “Green vegetables x Boiling.””).
Regarding claim 4, Taoka further discloses that the instruction level is determined based on at least one of execution experience of the instructor in the cooking content, and a comprehension level of the instructor about instruction content when instructing the cook in the cooking (¶¶363-364 further discloses comprehension level of the instructor such as an age of the first cook).
Regarding claim 5, Taoka further discloses that when the instructor does not have the execution experience of the cooking content, the generated assistance information includes the cooking content and the instruction content when instructing the cook in the cooking (the “when” clauses are contingent limitations in a process claim and, therefore, not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II).).
Regarding claim 6, Taoka further discloses acquiring a comprehension level of instruction content by the cook when the instructor has execution experience of the cooking content, wherein when the comprehension level is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the generated assistance information includes the instruction content, and when the comprehension level is greater than the predetermined value, the assistance information is not generated (the “when” clauses are contingent limitations in a process claim and, therefore, not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Nonetheless, please see FIG. 27 and ¶¶364-365 regarding how the generated assistance information is conditionally changed based on ages).
Regarding claim 7, Taoka further discloses acquiring execution information including a video photographed while the cook executes the cooking; generating evaluation assistance information including the execution information based on the instruction level; and outputting the evaluation assistance information (FIG. 30; ¶403: “In order for the first or second cook to easily image at least one cooking element, controller 16 causes a photograph or illustration expressing the cooking element to be presented in a column “illustration/photograph.””; ¶399: “Next, regarding the designated cooking element, the first cook inputs whether or not the second cook implemented it successfully.”).
Regarding claim 8, Taoka further discloses acquiring experience information indicating whether the instructor has execution experience of the cooking content (limitation “experience information indicating whether the instructor has execution experience of the cooking content” is considered non-functional descriptive material and therefore no patentable weight is given because “where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” MPEP 2111.05(I)(B)), wherein in generation of the evaluation assistance information, when the experience information indicates that the instructor does not have the execution experience, the generated evaluation assistance information includes the cooking content, the instruction content of the cooking by the instructor, and the execution information (the “when” clauses are contingent limitations in a process claim and, therefore, not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II).).
Regarding claim 9, Taoka further discloses acquiring a comprehension level of the instruction content by the instructor when the experience information indicates that the instructor has the execution experience, wherein when the comprehension level is equal to or less than a predetermined value, the generated evaluation assistance information includes the instruction content and the execution information (the “when” clauses are contingent limitations in a process claim and, therefore, not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II).).
Regarding claim 10, Taoka further discloses that outputting the assistance information includes outputting the assistance information while the cook executes the cooking content (FIG. 27), and outputting the evaluation assistance information includes outputting the evaluation assistance information after the cook executes the cooking content (FIG. 30).
Regarding claim 11, Taoka further discloses acquiring an evaluation result of the cook by the instructor based on the evaluation assistance information; and storing the evaluation result in a memory in association with the cooking content (¶399: “Next, regarding the designated cooking element, the first cook inputs whether or not the second cook implemented it successfully. For example, when the second cook was able to implement the cooking element “Cabbage x Tearing,” the first cook presses the button “Well done,” thereby inputting feedback (unique participation degree-setting command).”).
Regarding claim 12, Taoka further discloses that acquiring the cooking information includes presenting at least one of the cooking content of which the cook does not have execution experience and cooking content of which evaluation by the instructor is an unachieved evaluation (¶394: “information on a specific second cook is registered through the input or the like by a first cook. The recipe-participation degree is calculated based on the unique participation degree for the specific second cook.”), and acquiring cooking information including cooking content selected based on the cooking content presented (¶394: “This allows the first cook to easily understand the meaning of the recipe-participation degree, resulting in easy selection of a recipe to be implemented next.”).
Regarding claim 13, Taoka further discloses acquiring a cooking level of the cook, wherein generating the assistance information includes generating the assistance information based on the cooking information, the instruction level, and the cooking level (¶364: “The first support information or the second support information, or the changed cooking process corresponds to a specific age.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6PM.
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 co-supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 It is acknowledged that Applicant of the Taoka reference is “Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd,” located in Osaka (JP), which is different from Applicant of the instant application, “PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,” located in Torrance, California.