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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 8-14 and 19-21 are rejected due to the phrase 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 following a recipe and preparation of ingredients as taught by Buehler (par. 0439).
With respect to step 1, Independent claims 1 and 12 recite “a cooking device to cook the ingredients” thus satisfying Step 1 of the Patent Office’s eligibility guidance test.
However the process does not satisfy Step 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance since a general purpose programed computer, in the instant case “a machine-readable component storing recipe information” is not sufficient “to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application”. (Current standard). The claims solely require a manner of following a recipe as is known with paper cook books which is routine and conventional.
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ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp.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 machine-readable component storing recipe information of claim 8, 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 Appellants claims fail the eligibility test of Step 2A, Prong 1. The claim recites the field of use as to control based on recipe information but in this case imposes no limits on the process of mixing, i.e. type, time, outcome or cooking type, apparatus, time or temperature. The process and mixing of ingredients and cooking is used in their conventional way follow recipe information as is known with paper cook books. The claims merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information to obtain recipe options and/or a machine-readable component storing recipe information using categories to organize, store and display information such as is known with paper cook books. 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 machine-readable component storing recipe information as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In addition, the mere nominal recitation of a machine-readable component storing recipe information 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 inserting an ingredient container into a cooking device, the ingredient container containing a first ingredient, a user actuating the cooking device to, a user obtaining the recipe information from a paper cook book, a user mix a first amount of the first ingredient with a second amount of a second ingredient to produce an ingredient mixture, the first amount and the second amount based on the recipe information provided by the paper cook book and recipe and a user cook the ingredient mixture at a temperature for a cook time, the temperature and the cook time based on the recipe information obtained from the paper cook book by the user which are steps 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.
More specifically with respect to Independent claim 8, but for “a machine-readable component storing recipe information”, the claims require mere data gathering steps to identify a variable and do not add any meaningful limits and merely encompasses the user manually combining and mixing ingredients and controlling cooking based on cooking times 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 machine-readable component storing recipe information is used in their conventional way of storing information as taught by Buehler by accessing a recipe 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 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 “mix a first amount of the first ingredient with a second amount of a second ingredient to produce an ingredient mixture” and/or “cook the ingredient mixture at a temperature for a cook time, the temperature and the cook time based on the recipe information.” However 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. 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.
With respect to step 2B, the element is conventional, well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field as taught by Buehler where applicants recitation of “actuating the cooking device to cause a recipe module of the cooking device to receive the recipe information from the machine-readable component, mix a first amount of the first ingredient with a second amount of a second ingredient to produce an ingredient mixture, the first amount and the second amount based on the recipe information and cook the ingredient mixture at a temperature for a cook time, the temperature and the cook time based on the recipe information.” fails to provide sufficient specificity to be integrated 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).
For example, when evaluating the claim reciting an abstract idea and a series of data gathering steps the claims recite the abstract ideas of obtaining stored information. The combination of steps gather in a conventional manner as Buehler 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. Since several different types of cooking appliances perform different cooking types or outcomes. Leading one to determine that Appellant’s 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 machine and is merely a machine on which the method operates. Being silent to such, where different cooking apparatuses perform vastly different operations with different methods and outcomes. Application of the same “cooking device” shows that the cooking device is merely a machine on which the control method operates, failing to provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
The examiner evaluates whether the claims provide additional element(s) or combination of elements including “actuating the control device to” amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer according to recipe ingredients and cooking time as known in the art as evident by Buehler 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 Buehler. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field. The steps provide recipe information options and do not add any meaningful limits on cooking a food.
In addition, the claims automate the mental process of comparing recipes for cooking devices and merely encompass the abstract ideas of comparing new and stored information and using a paper cook book to identify options and/or using categories to organize, store and display information as is known with paper cook boods.
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 “a method” 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected due to the phrase “the expiration output” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis as claim 8 is silent to such. For examination purposes it is noted claim 19 is taken to be dependent from claim 11 which claims the expiration output.
The phrase “solid ingredient” in claim 20 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “solid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “solid”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “solid” but soft and/or form maintaining. It is unclear if the phrase is with respect to merely compared to liquid, if the phrase encompasses solids within liquids, if the phrase is with respect to a defined hardness, i.e. solid, if the phrase is with respect to maintaining form despite soft to touch such as meat, if the phrase encompasses flour, though not solid as a whole, comprises solid granules or with respect to something different altogether
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 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.
Claims 8-9, 13 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buehler (20050193901).
Buehler teaches a method, comprising:
inserting an ingredient container into a cooking device (par. 0359), the ingredient container containing a first ingredient (par. 0359 batter), the ingredient container associated with a machine-readable component (par. 0453, 0439) storing recipe information (par. 0359) associated with the first ingredient (par. 0357; specific food) and
actuating the cooking device to (par. 0139 last 2 lines; all tasks commanded by control system; par. 0359 FPS)
cause a recipe module (par. 0439) of the cooking device to receive the recipe information from the machine-readable component (par. 0453)
mix a first amount of the first ingredient (par. 0359; dry ingredients) with a second amount of a second ingredient (par. 0359 wet ingredients) to produce an ingredient mixture (par. 0359 batter), the first amount and the second amount based on the recipe information (par. 0359; specific food) and
cook the ingredient mixture at a temperature (par. 0359 baked) for a cook time (par. 0359 last line), the temperature and the cook time based on the recipe information (par. 0359 muffins).
Alternatively, where the cooking device is taken with respect to the system as a single monolithic element that contains the cooking area and the storage systems/cooking area vs preparation/storage areas (par. 0150).
inserting an ingredient container (par. 0361 cooking receptacle) into a cooking device (par. 0361), the ingredient container containing a first ingredient (par. 0361 vegetables, meat, liquid), the ingredient container associated with a machine-readable component (par. 0453, 0439) storing recipe information (par. 0361) associated with the first ingredient (par. 0361; specific food) and
actuating the cooking device to (par. 0139 last 2 lines; all tasks commanded by control system; par. 0361 FPS)
cause a recipe module (par. 0439) of the cooking device to receive the recipe information (par. 0361 food specific) from the machine-readable component (par. 0453)
mix (par. 0361 while being stirred) a first amount of the first ingredient (par. 0361; vegetable, meat) with a second amount of a second ingredient (par. 0361 sauce or premixed liquid ingredients) to produce an ingredient mixture (par. 0361), the first amount and the second amount based on the recipe information (par. 0361; specific food) and
cook the ingredient mixture at a temperature (par. 0361 fry the dish) for a cook time (par. 0361), the temperature and the cook time based on the recipe information (par. 0361 stir fry).
Claim 9, the cooking device mixes the first amount and the second amount and cooks the ingredient mixture (par. 0361) without any further user input (par. 0139 last 2 lines; all tasks commanded by control system; par. 0361 FPS).
Claim 13, wherein the machine-readable component is any one of a wirelessly machine-readable component (par. 0453), a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (par. 0319)
Claim 20, wherein the ingredient container is a rigid container (par. 0359; baking pan) and the first ingredient is a solid ingredient (par. 0359 muffin batter vs liquid).
Claim 21, the cooking device includes a mixing assembly having a motor (par. 0226) and a mixing member (par. 0361) and
the actuating the cooking device further causes the motor to drive the mixing member at a mixing speed (par. 0361 stirring, any speed vs without) and for a mixing duration (par. 0361 stirring, with vs without), the mixing speed and mixing duration based on the recipe information (par. 0361 food type/stir fry).
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 10-12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehler (20050193901).
Claim 10, the cooking device includes a metering assembly (par. 0320 flow control mechanism; par. 0329 dispensing tool) having a linear actuator (par. 0321 last 2 lines; par. 0330 internal piston) and a valve (par. 0320; par. 0337 pushed aside to allow dispensing)
and the actuating the cooking device further causes the linear actuator to move a plunger within the ingredient container to convey the first amount of the first ingredient (par. 0330) and the valve to regulate a flow of the second amount of the second ingredient (par. 0320, 0337).
Buehler teaches mixing batter with dry ingredients and wet ingredients in a receptacle prior to transferring for cooking (par. 0359). Buehler teaches the wet ingredients and/or viscous ingredients dispensed by metering assemblies (par. 0320 flow control mechanism; par. 0329 dispensing tool) including a linear actuator (par. 0321 last 2 lines; par. 0330 internal piston) and a valve (par. 0320; par. 0337 pushed aside to allow dispensing).
Though silent to explicitly teaching the origin or storage container type. 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 first ingredient and second ingredient, stored in different containers, such as the viscous storage for batter and the liquid storage for wet ingredients, into a mixing bowl as taught by Buehler (par. 0359) thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing both ingredient type and amounts specific to a type of food product to a receptacle for mixing as taught Buehler prior to transferring for cooking as further taught (par. 0359).
Claim 11, the recipe information includes an expiration date of the ingredients (par. 0463) and the actuating the cooking device further causes the cooking device to produce an expiration output (par. 0463).
Buehler teaches providing the user with notification of ingredients which are most likely to go bad soon (par. 0463). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an expiration output, such as “flagged” as taught, when the expiration date has passed of the first ingredient thus providing a same “flagged” ingredient determined by the approach or in the instant case the expiration date having passed and achieving the benefit of providing the user with a same option of a list of dishes as determined by ingredient expiration date for selection (par. 0463).
Claim 12, Buehler teaches the system determines an amount of ingredient in different storage container based on a total weight (par. 0319 last 4 lines) and volume (par. 0334 volume) sensing where the system gives a user unlimited menu choices from which to choose, limited only by the ingredients on hand (par. 0017).
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 same recipe information includes a maximum serving number associated with the ingredient container thus providing the user with menu choices specific to the ingredients on hand or for determining the amount of each ingredient which has been used to determine which ingredients need to be restocked as taught by Buehler (par. 0472).
Buehler teaches increment an actual serving number associated with the ingredient container (par. 0319, 0334) such that the system can store the amount of each ingredient used. Though silent to converting to a serving number, since the serving number is dependent on a same amount required and available, since Buehler teaches compare the available amount with a maximum amount available, i.e. (par. 0319, 0334) and not providing the option of recipes which are not available (par. 0463).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute ingredient amounts determined for providing a recipe for selection with serving numbers relative a storage container, i.e. defined amount and providing a lockout module, i.e. control system determined ingredients available and disable the cooking device when the actual serving number is greater than the maximum serving number, i.e. total container size/volue for its art recognized purpose of preventing the option of recipes which ingredients need restocked and providing a cooking device which gives a user unlimited menu choices from which to choose, limited only by the ingredients on hand (par. 0017).
Claim 14, the machine-readable component is a machine-writable component (par. 0463, 0453, 0451) and the actuating the cooking device further causes the recipe module of the cooking device to increment the amount and write the incremented amount to the machine-writable component (par. 0463 ingredient available vs unavailable; par. 0742)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute ingredient amounts determined for providing a recipe for selection with serving numbers relative a storage container, i.e. defined amount and increment the actual serving number from total container size/volume for its art recognized purpose of preventing the option of recipes which ingredients need restocked and providing a cooking device which gives a user unlimited menu choices from which to choose, limited only by the ingredients on hand (par. 0017).
Claim 19, the expiration output is at least one of a light output, a sound output, text output displayed on a screen of the cooking device (par. 0463), or a wireless signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20160150915, 20150114236, 20130171304 and 20100303972 directed to automated recipe creation and execution steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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) 270-3475. 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