DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on 09/30/2024, in which claims 1-10 are pending.
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
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 as representative:
Step 1: The claim recites a device, therefore, is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: The invention as claimed comprises:
A device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes including a plurality of devices for accessing the device and a warehouse storing ingredients, the device comprising: an interface unit configured for communicating and receiving data from the users, a processing unit communicating with the interface unit for processing data; a database communicating with the processing unit for storing data; the processing unit including an object module configured for creating a primary digital object and a secondary digital object for optimizing recipe details received from the first user and the second user; and storing said objects in a memory; a profile module being configured to edit the user profiles; a controller configured to process the data received from the interface unit and the processing unit and storing processed data into a database unit; the database unit includes a recipe repository for receiving recipe data; and a primary object cycle for generating the primary object, the second user entering the recipe data for generating the primary object through the object module, and a second object cycle for generating the secondary object providing authenticity to the first users; the second user.
Claim as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites ordering ingredients and managing recipe approval and delivery that covers a commercial activity (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and could be treated as an abstract idea implemented with standard computing modules/units/parts (see underlined elements), thus it falls within the certain method of organizing human activity groupings of abstract idea. One could also, receive the recipe via a paper from chef/culinary expert, and edit the recipe based on their preference using paper and pen, thus falling under the grouping of mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites additional element of “device, interface unit, processing unit, modules, memory, database unit, and digital object.” All the hardware elements (with exception of digital object) are merely components of standard computer, and digital object is simply recipe in electronic form.
The above-mentioned additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer). The digital object is no more than storing data on the computer/database. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Performing the communication over the network between users and devices is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here, the technical environment being computer networking.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 2-7, further narrow the recited abstract idea above, and are rejected under same rational as claim 1. Claim 5 recites additional element of memory, which is treated in same manner as device/processor in claim 1 above.
Claims 2-10 further narrow the claimed abstract idea. In additions, claims 2-10 recite additional elements such as login module, an authentication module, registration module, admin modules, order module, tracker module, training module, display, posting module, and a preference module.
The above-mentioned additional modules are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Note here, these modules are recited at very high level, without any technical detail, thus being used as generic modules that performed the recited abstract idea using the generic computer.
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:
An interface unit…object module… in claim 1; login module, an authentication module, a registration module… in claim 2; admin module… in claim 3; Order module… in claim 4; a tracker module… in claim 5; a subscriber module ... in claim 6; a training module … in claim 7; the interface unit in claim 1, 8; a posting module... in claim 9; and a preference module… in claim 10.
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 Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “ wherein, the interface unit includes a display displaying recipe details on respective users; it should be corrected to states “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 limitation “an interface unit…object module… in claim 1; login module, an authentication module, a registration module… in claim 2; admin module… in claim 3; Order module… in claim 4; a tracker module… in claim 5; a subscriber module ... in claim 6; a training module … in claim 7; the interface unit in claim 1, 8; a posting module... in claim 9; and a preference module… in claim 10” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states “[0024] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the device 100 is described hereinafter. The device 100 includes an interface unit 205, a processing unit 210 and a database unit 215. The processing unit 210 bidirectionally communicates with the interface unit 205 and the database 215. The interface unit 205 includes a login module 220, a profile module 225, a subscribe module 230, an admin module 235, a delivery module 240 and a display feed module 245. In accordance with the present invention, the interface unit 205 includes a first user interface 500, a second user interface (not seen) and a third user interface (not seen).” Also, see Fig. 2.There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform claimed functions being performed by the claimed units/modules. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, these modules can be interpreted in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. The specification recites these elements at many locations; however, the recitation is substantially same as claimed language. Even, if one assumes that these units/modules are incorporated in a generic device (Fig. 2), the specification is devoid of any algorithm that teaches how the claimed functions are being performed that makes the generic device a special purpose computer. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “… and a second object cycle for generating the secondary object providing authenticity to the first user; the second user.” Here, “the second user” is separated by “;”, so it not clear what this limitation refers to. If, one assume, “;” is added by typo, then it is not clear what “the secondary object providing authenticity to the first user, the second user” means in the context of claimed invention. Is this intended result of second object cycle generating the secondary object? The specification does not shed any light either, as para 0048 recites “authenticity of ingredients”, and no mention how generating a second object achieves this. Para 0062 states “in accordance with the present invention, the primary object cycle and a secondary object cycle authenticate the primary object 249 and the secondary object 249a with the device 100.” This seems the objects are being authenticated with device, rather than object providing authenticity to users. Furthermore, the objects are recipes, so it is not clear how the recipes authenticate themselves with the device. For compact prosecution, the examiner have interpreted that users authenticate with device, thus generated objects by the users are authentic, providing authenticity.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein, the device includes a tracker module 280 for tracking the order.” It is not clear, what order the term “the order” is referring to. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, which related to the ordering device, however there is no order being placed in claim 1. Claim 4, recites device including an order module to receive order data; however, order data could be different than order, thus the issue is not merely of wrong dependency, rather than the clarity.
Claim 9 recites “wherein, a posting module receives receiving recipe details from the second user. It is not clear what this claim limitation claims in the context of claim language. Note, claim 1 recites “recipe details received from the first user and the second user.” It is not clear, if the “receive details received from the second user”, are same as the received detail in claim 1 from second user. For compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as posting module receiving the recipe details from the second user. Basically, the received recipe detail from the second user in claim 1, is received via a posting module.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected based on rejected base claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OLEYNIK (US 20200030971 A1)
With respect to claims 1:
OLEYNIK teaches:
A device (instant spec, Pg. 5, states device is platform) for ordering customized ingredients (see, at least para 0426) and recipes (see, at least para 0426) including a plurality of devices for accessing the device (see, Fig. 7F), and a warehouse storing ingredients (See, Fig. 7F, para 0428), characterized in that said the device comprising:
an interface unit configured for communicating and receiving data from the users (See, Fig. 7F, see para 0479, for user searching recipes based on user preferences etc..; See, para 0477 for chef designing/editing the recipe),
a processing unit communicating with the interface unit for processing data (See, at least Fig. 7F);
a database communicating with the processing unit for storing data (See, at least Fig. 7F, item 398c for recipes storage, 398b for user profile, 398a for library, etc...);
the processing unit including an object module configured for creating a primary digital object (See para 00477, “[0477] FIG. 59 depicts the recipe design and scripting process 1542. As a first step 1544, the chef selects a particular recipe, for which he then enters or edits the recipe data in step 1546, including, but not limited to, the name and other metadata (background, techniques, etc.)….The concluding step 1554 then allows the system to create a recipe ID that will be useful for later database storage and retrieval.”) and a secondary digital object for optimizing recipe details received from the first user and the second user (see para, “[0478] FIG. 60 depicts the process 1556 of how a user might select a recipe. The first step 1558 entails the user purchasing a recipe or subscribing to a recipe-purchase plan from an online marketplace store by way of a computer or mobile application, thereby enabling a download of a recipe script capable of being replicated. In step 1560, the user searches the online database and selects a particular recipe from those purchased or available as part of a subscription, based on personal preference settings and on-site ingredient availability. As a last step 1562, the user enters the time and date when he/she would like the dish to be ready for serving.”; also see para 0289 “…the chances are very high that the system will have to modify and adapt the actual recipe itself and its execution, via a recipe script modification module 204, to suit the available tools/appliances 192 which differ from those in the chef studio 44 or the measured deviations from the recipe script (meat cooking too slowly, hot-spots in pot burning the roux, etc.”).;
and storing said objects in a memory (para 0478 teaches downloading the recipe);
a profile module being configured to edit the user profiles (see para 0425, “.. A selected personalized recipe may exclude a recipe with allergic ingredients in which a user can indicate allergic ingredients that the user may refrain from in a personal user profile, which can be defined by a user or from another source…”); see para 0479, “[0479] FIG. 61A depicts the process 1570 for the recipe search and purchase and/or subscription process of an online service portal, or so termed recipe commerce platform. As a first step a new user has to register with the system in step 1572 (selecting age, gender, dining preferences, etc., followed by an overall preferred cooking or kitchen style) before a user can search and browse recipes by downloading them via an app on a handheld device or using a TV and/or robotic kitchen module….”);
a controller configured to process the data received from the interface unit and the processing unit and storing processed data into a database unit (See, at least Fig. 7F);
the database unit includes a recipe repository for receiving recipe data (See, at least Fig. 7F);
and a primary object cycle for generating the primary object (See para 00477, “[0477] FIG. 59 depicts the recipe design and scripting process 1542. As a first step 1544, the chef selects a particular recipe, for which he then enters or edits the recipe data in step 1546, including, but not limited to, the name and other metadata (background, techniques, etc.)….The concluding step 1554 then allows the system to create a recipe ID that will be useful for later database storage and retrieval.”), the second user entering the recipe data for generating the primary object through the object module ((See para 00477, “[0477] FIG. 59 depicts the recipe design and scripting process 1542. As a first step 1544, the chef selects a particular recipe, for which he then enters or edits the recipe data in step 1546, including, but not limited to, the name and other metadata (background, techniques, etc.)….The concluding step 1554 then allows the system to create a recipe ID that will be useful for later database storage and retrieval.” Here secondary user being the chef, and first user being the subscribing user (see, Fog. 7F, input from user, and input from chef)),
and a second object cycle for generating the secondary object providing authenticity to the first users; the second user (see para, “[0478] FIG. 60 depicts the process 1556 of how a user might select a recipe. The first step 1558 entails the user purchasing a recipe or subscribing to a recipe-purchase plan from an online marketplace store by way of a computer or mobile application, thereby enabling a download of a recipe script capable of being replicated. In step 1560, the user searches the online database and selects a particular recipe from those purchased or available as part of a subscription, based on personal preference settings and on-site ingredient availability. As a last step 1562, the user enters the time and date when he/she would like the dish to be ready for serving.”; also see para 0289 “…the chances are very high that the system will have to modify and adapt the actual recipe itself and its execution, via a recipe script modification module 204, to suit the available tools/appliances 192 which differ from those in the chef studio 44 or the measured deviations from the recipe script (meat cooking too slowly, hot-spots in pot burning the roux, etc.”; here it is not clear if providing authenticity is intended result of generating secondary object (which is being disclosed by user optimizing/personalizing the recipe based on user needs) or the applicant is stating that authenticity is provided to first user and second user by authenticating as a separate limitation (para 0427 teaches user logging in and verifying the identity (providing authenticity to users))
With respect to claim 2:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the device includes:
a login module, an authentication module and a registration module configured for registering and authenticating a new user with the device (See at least para 0427, “In FIG. 37H, a user is able to connect to other users and vendors through the platform's social professional network by logging into the user account 1140. The identity of the network user is verified, possibly through the credit card and the address details….”
Also, see para 0479, “FIG. 61A depicts the process 1570 for the recipe search and purchase and/or subscription process of an online service portal, or so termed recipe commerce platform. As a first step a new user has to register with the system in step 1572 (selecting age, gender, dining preferences, etc., followed by an overall preferred cooking or kitchen style) before a user can search and browse recipes by downloading….”)
With respect to claim 4:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the device includes an order module receiving order data from the first user (See, at least para 0482, “….The user is then able to view the associated cost of all items on the ingredient and equipment list including all associated line-item costs (shipping, tax, etc.) in step 1660. Should the user or buyer want to view alternatives to the proposed shopping list items in step 1662, a step 1664 is executed to offer the user or buyer links to alternate sources to allow them to connect and view alternative buying and ordering options. If the user or buyer accepts the proposed shopping list, the system not only saves these selections as personalized choices for future purchases at step 1666 and updates the current shopping list at step 1668, but then also moves to step 1670, where it selects the alternatives from the shopping list based on additional criteria such as local/closest providers, item availability based on season and maturation-stage, or even pricing for equipment from different suppliers which has effectively the same performance but differs substantially in delivered cost to the user or buyer.”)
With respect to claim 6:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the device includes a subscribe module configured to display recipes as per the users preference (See at least para 0482, “[0482] FIG. 63 depicts the process 1628 of purchasing a particular recipe or subscribing to a recipe delivery plan. As a first step 1630, the user searches for a particular recipe to order. The user may choose to browse by keyword at step 1632 with results able to be narrowed down using preference filters at step 1634, browse using other predefined criteria at step 1636 or even browse based on promotional, newly-released or pre-order basis recipes and even live chef cooking events (step 1638). The search results for recipes are displayed to the user in step 1640. The user may then browse these recipe results and preview each recipe in an audio- or short video-clip as part of step 1642….”)
With respect to claim 7:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the device includes a training module configured for displaying training data (See at least para 0444, “…The virtual touchscreen allows for access to all control and monitoring functions for all aspects of the equipment within the standardized robotic kitchen 50, retrieval and storage of recipes, reviewing stored videos of complete or partial recipe execution steps by a human chef, as well as listening to audible playback of the human chef voicing descriptions and instructions related to a particular step or operation in a particular recipe.”)
With respect to claim 8:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the interface unit includes a display displaying recipe details on respective users (See at least para 0431, “….The computer display may contain a photo/media, title, description, ratings and price information of the recipe, with an optional tab of the “read more” button that brings up a complete recipe page for browsing further information about the recipe.”)
With respect to claim 9:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, a posting module receives recipe details from the second user (See at least para 0427, “…The account portal also serves as a trading platform for users to share or sell their recipes, as well as advertising to other users. The user can manage his account finance and equipment through the account portal as well.”)
With respect to claim 10:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, a preference module is configured for receiving dietary preferences from the first user (See at least para 0425, “…A selected personalized recipe may exclude a recipe with allergic ingredients in which a user can indicate allergic ingredients that the user may refrain from in a personal user profile, which can be defined by a user or from another source….”)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OLEYNIK in view of Palmer (US 20060277141 A1)
With respect to claim 3:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1, However, OLEYNIK does not explicitly teach wherein, the admin module is configured to provide highest level of access control of the device.
Palmer teaches wherein, the admin module is configured to provide highest level of access control of the device (See at least para 0053, “…For fast and easy customization of the present invention, one embodiment may include an administrative system with up to four or more tiers, such as the super administrator level 160, the manager level 170, the customer administrator level 180, and the accounting module (not shown). The super administrator 160 may have the highest level of access to the system and the information therein, may administer the creation of all customer accounts, and may have complete administrative control over all aspects of the system and users thereof, for example. ..”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement access rights as taught by Palmer into OLEYNIK.
One would be motivated to do so to provide complete control over all aspects of the system. (See para 0053, “…., may administer the creation of all customer accounts, and may have complete administrative control over all aspects of the system…”)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OLEYNIK in view of Zinger et al. (US 20220000309 A1)
With respect to claim 5:
OLEYNIK further teaches:
The device for ordering customized ingredients and recipes as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, the device includes a tracker module for tracking the order.
Zinger teaches wherein, the device includes a tracker module for tracking the order (See at least para 0026, “…the cloud server may additionally function as a monitoring station and keep track of the orders received and the supplied number of orders with respect to the recipes based on the user demand as well as provides a visual dashboard that may visualize the order flow and the appropriate supply chain. It may also function in tracking the usage of alternative ingredients in the recipe towards modifying it, based on available ingredients and determining the use of best alternative for an ingredient.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement order tracking as taught by Zinger into OLEYNIK.
One would be motivated to do so to track the user demand for recipe. (See at least para 0026, “…the cloud server may additionally function as a monitoring station and keep track of the orders received and the supplied number of orders with respect to the recipes based on the user demand”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200250724 A1: “An interactive and customizable food delivery system with a high degree of personalization. The system provides for the personalization of a product and product label thereby delivering a client-specified food product based upon their recipe input through a computer device interface. Through use of a computer interface, such as a mobile computing device or “smart phone,” personal computer, or even through a unique computerized kiosk located at a fixed location, the user can input recipes or order products from existing recipes. The product is prepared either locally or remotely and is then delivered or shipped to the user with a customized label indicating ingredients and other information.”
US 20200151835 A1 : “[0021] A community of users may share and distribute their recipes. For a specific beverage, a manufacturer may define a baseline or starting recipe, but users may update, change, and improve the recipe. The changed recipes may be made available through an online community to be shared with other users.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASEEM ASHRAF whose telephone number is (571)270-3948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 09:30 A.M-06:00 P.M.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5250. 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.
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621