DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to papers submitted on 8 April 2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are made. The claim language is for an information processing device for a cooking profile or process. The title should reflect the intended invention more so than a common generic element of the claim language.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 10 is stated as “the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the processor associates a plurality of pieces of information included in the reproduction data with a pitch, a volume, and a rhythm, and expresses a deviation between the reproduction data and the reference data as a deviation in the pitch, the volume, and the rhythm.” Yet the pieces of information included in the reproduction data with a pitch, a volume, and a rhythm express[ing] a deviation in the these three elements is not properly described or explained in the instant disclosure. The iterations of these elements is a mere restatement of the language as presented verbatim in the claim. It is further unclear how these elements correlate and/or correspond with the cooking environment and profile of the intended invention. One of ordinary skill would not be able to reproduce this aspect of the instant invention without undue experimentation. Appropriate action is required.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. US 2016/0219655 A1 to Hirukawa et al..
The reference of prior art to Hirukawa et al. (herein after “Hirukawa”) teaches of a cooking assistance device for providing information that assists cooking using a cooking appliance based on a measurement result of power consumption of the cooking appliance. In doing so, the reference teaches/fairly suggests the limitations of the instant invention as follows.
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing device comprising a processor that presents reproduction data indicating a cooking profile of a dish during cooking to a cook in real time in a format that can be compared with reference data. In paragraph [0097], Hirukawa teaches the use of a processor “for processing information which is input from the outside, and an output information generating section 913B for generating information …”.
Regarding claim 2, the information processing device according to claim 1, states wherein the processor performs real-time determination of a cooking step performed by the cook and compares the reproduction data with the reference data for each cooking step. Hirukawa teaches of this step in paragraph [0117] as “additional information which indicates a given evaluation with respect to content of the current cooking” which is commensurate with the reproduction data. The reference data is taught in paragraph [0124] as “the recipe information includes data common to the recipe (common data), and data of each of the plurality of procedures (procedure 1, procedure 2, procedure 3, . . .) which are included in the recipe (menu).”
As per claim 3, the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor determines the cooking step in progress by using sensor data and recipe information stated. In paragraph [0136], the presence of a sensor is taught by Hirukawa as “linking the sensor unit 500 and the cooking appliance.”
In claim 4 the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor aligns start times of corresponding cooking steps so as to compare the reproduction data with the reference data is recited. The alignment of the start times of the cooking steps is explained in paragraph [0129] by Hirukawa as “information which specifies elapsed time after the cooking is started based on the recipe information which is exemplified in FIG. 10.”
Claim 7 is steered to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents the reproduction data and the reference data as visualized data that can be visually compared by the cook. Hirukawa teaches this in paragraphs [0083] and [0107] as the tablet terminal. In paragraph [0083] the hardware configuration is described, then in paragraph [0107] a description of the display on the tablet terminal is given.
Regarding claim 8 the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the processor expresses a deviation between the reproduction data and the reference data by a time series graph, a histogram, or a heat map is stated. In paragraphs [0113] – [0114] in relation to Fig. 9, Hirukawa teaches the display of a graph where “the time from the start up of display of the explanation of the first procedure to the current display target procedure in the current cooking. The display column 1142 indicates the power consumption from the start up of display of the explanation of the first procedure to the current display target procedure.”
As per claim 9, the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents the reproduction data and the reference data as sound data that can be auditorily compared by the cook. The use of sound or speech recognition is taught by Hirukawa in paragraph [0156] as “[a] known speech recognition means is mounted in the tablet terminal 100. Thereby, the CPU 110 is able to determine whether the speech which is input via the mic 180 includes a specific message. In step S40, in a case where determination is realized by detecting whether specific speech is input or not, the CPU 110 utilizes the speech recognition means.”
In claim 11 an information processing method to be executed by a computer, the method comprising presenting reproduction data indicating a cooking profile of a dish during cooking to a cook in real time in a format that can be compared with reference data is recited. Hirukawa teaches this aspect of the instant invention in paragraphs [0165] – [0166] wherein the procedures for the cooking menu is detailed.
Claim 12 is directed to a program that causes a computer to implement processes comprising presenting reproduction data indicating a cooking profile of a dish during cooking to a cook in real time in a format that can be compared with reference data.
The use of software algorithms to indicating a cooking profile is taught by Hirukawa in paragraph [0056] where the use of a program is stated.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2016/0219655 A1 to Hirukawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2023/0252103 A1 to Lin et al..
Claim 5 states the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the reference data includes a cooking video showing a cooking process, and the processor extracts a video at the end of the cooking step from the cooking video as a reference image to the cook. Hirukawa teaches the display of images as explained in paragraph [0138], the reference of prior art falls short of teaching a video showing a cooking process. For this reason, the prior art of Lin et al. (here in after “Lin”) is introduced. In paragraph [0099] where it is stated that video demonstrations and cooking steps are included. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Hirukawa with the video aspect of Lin so that a more visual cooking assistance may be provided for better progress and performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2016/0219655 A1 to Hirukawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. US 12,389,498 B2 to Kikuchi.
Claim 6 is directed to the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the reproduction data includes time series information regarding a heating temperature, a heating time, and a weight of a cooking object. Although, the prior art of Hirukawa teaches the use of time information as stated in paragraph [0129], the reference does not mention heating temperature or weight of a cooking object. The prior art of Kikuchi is used to address these elements. In column 24 line 64 to column 25 line 26, Kikuchi teaches the control of the heating unit and in column 5 at lines 26-45 teaches the use of a weight sensor. Overall, the art of Kikuchi teaches of a cooking system with a temperature detection unit and a weight detection unit so as to be able to collect data regarding temperature, time and weight to be used with the reproduction and reference data of Hirukawa as per claim 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Hirukawa with Kikuchi so as to collect data in all the realms as claimed for proper tabulations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2016/0219655 A1 to Hirukawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2021/0385917 A1 to Kuchler et al..
Regarding claim 10 the information processing device according to claim 9, recites wherein the processor associates a plurality of pieces of information included in the reproduction data with a pitch, a volume, and a rhythm, and expresses a deviation between the reproduction data and the reference data as a deviation in the pitch, the volume, and the rhythm. Having given the best reasonable interpretation in view of the aforementioned rejection of this claim, Hirukawa does not address the inclusion of data with regard to a deviation in pitch, volume or rhythm as claimed. Although Hirukawa teaches of a sound/speech recognition means as taught in paragraph [0156], the deviation aspect is not disclosed. Hence, the prior art of Kuchler et al. (herein after “Kuchler”) is presented. In published claim 28, the aspect of a deviation between two values is calculated. Thus, teaching the deviation aspect of the instant invention of two different data types. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Hirukawa with Kuchler so that the cook is able to modify time used in the steps of cooking for faster processing.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. US 2017/0017248 A1 Armstrong et al.
Relates to systems and methods which utilize previously determined cooking profiles for preparing such food items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been 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. It should be noted that 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 any questions arise regarding 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.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 September 2, 2026
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights