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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins et al. (US 2016/0051078).
As to claim 1, Jenkins teaches a computer-implemented method 400, comprising: receiving a user request 405 for a recipe (cooking instruction/episode) ([0066] routine 400 begins at block 405, where instructions are received. The routine then continues to block 410 to determine whether the instructions received in block 405 indicate to determine one or more automated control recipes to use based on user input. If so, the routine continues to block 415 to obtain information about available automated control recipes,); accessing inventory data Fig.2, 20 from a storage database; selecting/determining a recipe 415 (a particular cooking episode/routine) based on at least the inventory data (0047…As one example, the ACC system 190 may select appropriate pieces of cooking-related equipment to use for a particular cooking episode); causing a first device (computing device 200 comprising the ACC system 190/240) to send command data related to the recipe to a second device (Fig.1, 120-180) resulting in the second device performing a first action related to the recipe corresponding to the command data (and may select and execute an automated control recipe for the cooking episode that includes sending automated instructions to particular control equipment); and causing the first device to output/display status information (Pars.32, 39; Figs.20-22) corresponding to a second action related to the recipe to be performed (Pars.32-34, 47, 65-70, 95, 136).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Jenkins teaches wherein the first device 200 includes the (recipe) storage unit (Figs.2, 221-229).
As to claim 4, Jenkins teaches wherein the second device comprises smart oven (Fig.1, 120-140, Figs.6-11).
As to claim 5 Jenkins teaches wherein the command data related to the recipe that is sent to the smart oven includes a command to preheat the smart oven, resulting in preheating of the smart oven (Pars.32, 61, 74)
As to claim 7, Jenkins teaches wherein the first device190 comprises a smartphone (Fig.1, 110a-110e).
As to claim 8, Jenkins teaches wherein the first device comprises a cooktop Fig.1).
As to claim 9, Jenkins teaches wherein the first device comprises one or more cameras (Pars.122, 136; Fig.6, 698).
As to claim 10, Jenkins teaches wherein the user request for a recipe is an utterance (Pars.63, 98).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-15 and 17-20, the corresponding system comprising the steps similar to the claims addressed above are analogous therefore rejected as being anticipated by Jenkin et al. for the foregoing reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 2016/0051078), as applied above and in view of Causey et al. (2014/0006131).
As to claims 3, 6, 13 and 16, while Jenkins teaches where the recipe data comprising cooking instructions is stored in the inventory, he doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the inventory storage comprises a fridge storing data about amounts of stored ingredients potentially needed for a recipe.
However, Causey teaches a home inventory system Fig.1, comprising a home a storage device comprising an inventory logic 104, a mobile device 130 and a central inventory server 152, for determining required ingredients for a particular recipe based on the inventory amount of ingredients in the storage device wherein the storage device comprises a refrigerator (210, 310, Par.0025..The server can search recipes, comparing the ingredients of each recipe to the inventory. When a recipe contains ingredients present in the inventory, the user is alerted of the recipe as an option.) (Pars.25, 34, 38, 44-46, 65; Figs.1-13).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification and the combination of the analogous arts would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of successfully executing the cooking episode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 are of U.S. Patent No. 10,720,159. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application define an invention that is merely an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the patent for the following reasons. Comparing the subject matters of the two documents, it is found that all the elements of the application claims are found in the patent claims. In that regard claim 1 is anticipated by the combination of claims 1 and 6 of the patent. Similarly claim 11 is anticipated by the combination of claims 11 and 16 of the patent.
The dependent claims of the present invention do not introduce any limitation of element that is not anticipated by the patent claims.
18797600
10720159
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a user request for a recipe; accessing inventory data for a storage unit from a storage database; selecting a recipe based on at least the inventory data; causing a first device to send command data related to the recipe to a second device resulting in the second device performing a first action related to the recipe corresponding to the command data; and causing the first device to output information corresponding to a second action related to the recipe to be performed.
1.A method, comprising: receiving, from a first device associated with a user account, audio data representing a user input; determining the user input corresponds to a task; determining first data corresponding to a list of instructions associated with the task, the list of instructions to be performed in a particular order; determining the list of instructions comprises a first instruction; determining the user account is associated with a second device configured to perform functionality associated with the first instruction; and causing the second device to perform the functionality.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the first data comprises metadata indicating an item associated with the task; determining the user account is associated with a third device configured to store items; determining an item database associated with the user account, the item database comprising inventory data indicating at least one item stored by the third device; determining an absence of the item within the item database; and sending, to the first device, second data indicating the absence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights