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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 5, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Lee et al (Korean Pub. No. KR 2020000363 A), which discloses acquiring sound information that is collected by a microphone in the English translation at p. 23. Lee further discloses estimating a remaining amount of the food based on a size of the food management tag (e.g., “guide card 50” embodied as a “sticker”) recognized in the English translation at: p. 6, pp. 8-9, pp. 15-16 (“The remaining amount of the contents of the food container may be calculated based on the size or ratio of the recognized area of the recognized marker and the reference marker 55 of the recognized guide card 50.”) However, Lee does not disclose acquiring sound information that is collected by a microphone and is related to the remaining amount of the food, wherein in the outputting of the remaining amount information, information that is based on the sound information acquired and is related to the remaining amount of the food is included in the remaining amount information.
With regards to claim 6, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Lee et al (Korean Pub. No. KR 2020000363 A), which discloses acquiring an image captured by imaging, using an imaging element (e.g., camera), a food or a storage container (e.g., “food container 10”) to which a food management tag (e.g., “guide card 50” embodied as a “sticker”) including an identifier associated with the food is attached, the storage container storing the food in the English translation at: p. 6, pp. 14-15 (“The reference marker of the guide card according to an embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the form of a sticker, and the reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 implemented in the form of a sticker is attached to one side of the transparent food container 10… [T]he reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 may be attached to both sides of a transparent food container according to an embodiment of the present invention.”) However, Lee does not disclose the imaging using the imaging element is performed at a timing at which a user puts the food or the storage container into a storage space or at a timing at which the user removes the food or the storage container from the storage space.
With regards to claim 12, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Lee et al (Korean Pub. No. KR 2020000363 A), which discloses acquiring an image captured by imaging, using an imaging element (e.g., camera), a food or a storage container (e.g., “food container 10”) to which a food management tag (e.g., “guide card 50” embodied as a “sticker”) including an identifier associated with the food is attached, the storage container storing the food in the English translation at: p. 6, pp. 14-15 (“The reference marker of the guide card according to an embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the form of a sticker, and the reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 implemented in the form of a sticker is attached to one side of the transparent food container 10… [T]he reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 may be attached to both sides of a transparent food container according to an embodiment of the present invention.”) However, Lee does not disclose the food management tag is a transparent ink.
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: “acquirer”, “recognizer”, “estimator” and “outputter” in claim 9.
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.
The “acquirer”, “recognizer”, “estimator” and “outputter” cited above are found to correspond to a computer programmed to perform the functions ascribed to each term. Specification-as-filed at ¶¶ [0115]-[0116].
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 1-4, 8-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (Korean Pub. No. KR 2020000363 A)
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses acquiring an image captured by imaging, using an imaging element (e.g., camera), a food or a storage container (e.g., “food container 10”) to which a food management tag (e.g., “guide card 50” embodied as a “sticker”) including an identifier associated with the food is attached, the storage container storing the food in the English translation at: p. 6, pp. 14-15 (“The reference marker of the guide card according to an embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the form of a sticker, and the reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 implemented in the form of a sticker is attached to one side of the transparent food container 10… [T]he reference marker 55 of the guide card 50 may be attached to both sides of a transparent food container according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
Lee discloses recognizing, based on the image acquired, the food or the storage container to which the food management tag is attached in the English translation at p. 17; to wit: “The food recognition method for estimating food information of the present invention includes computer vision technology. The food container of the present invention can have certain identifying structures and / or visual characteristics that can be provided as a reference when processing an image of a food container having a food item disposed therein... By including food containers on a model basis, food image processing can be simplified to provide more accurate identification of food types. A computer vision technology method comprising a food container may include a food identification step based on the known structure and / or visual characteristics of a model food container segmented with an image commutation image.”
Lee discloses estimating a remaining amount of the food based on a size of the food management tag (e.g., “guide card 50” embodied as a “sticker”) recognized in the English translation at: p. 6, pp. 8-9, pp. 15-16 (“The remaining amount of the contents of the food container may be calculated based on the size or ratio of the recognized area of the recognized marker and the reference marker 55 of the recognized guide card 50.”)
Lee discloses outputting remaining amount information related to the remaining amount of the food that has been estimated in the English translation at: p. 15 (“The graphic image or sound output on the screen may be changed according to the content remaining amount of and the content remaining amount of another partition area of the tray.”); see, also: p. 14 (“When the control unit 110 calculates the content residual amount, a graphic image or sound effect having different shapes may be output according to the content residual amount.”)
With regards to claim 2, Lee discloses the remaining amount of the food is estimated by comparing the size of the food management tag recognized with a size of the food or the storage container recognized at: p. 6, pp. 8-9, pp. 15-16 (“The remaining amount of the contents of the food container may be calculated based on the size or ratio of the recognized area of the recognized marker and the reference marker 55 of the recognized guide card 50.”)
With regards to claim 3, Lee discloses recognizing a type of the food based on the image acquired in the English translation at p. 17; to wit: “The food recognition method for estimating food information of the present invention includes computer vision technology. The food container of the present invention can have certain identifying structures and / or visual characteristics that can be provided as a reference when processing an image of a food container having a food item disposed therein... By including food containers on a model basis, food image processing can be simplified to provide more accurate identification of food types. A computer vision technology method comprising a food container may include a food identification step based on the known structure and / or visual characteristics of a model food container segmented with an image commutation image.” See, also, pp. 20-21 (“Images captured by the imaging device may be analyzed by a food information estimation system to identify the type of food held by one or more partitions”); p. 25
With regards to claim 4, Lee discloses the food management tag includes a variable part (e.g., “exposed area of the reference marker 55”), a size of which is variable according to the remaining amount of the food, and the remaining amount of the food is estimated based on the size of the variable part of the food management tag recognized at pp. 15-16 (“[T]he remaining amount of contents in the partition area can be calculated based on the proportion of the exposed portion of the reference marker 55 of the guide card 50”)
With regards to claim 8, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the steps of its process at pp. 16-17. Lee further disclose the food management method according to claim 1, for the same reasons as were provided above.
With regards to claim 9, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are anticipated by Lee for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 10, Lee discloses a food management tag that is attached to food or a storage container for storing the food and includes an identifier associated with the food, the food management tag comprising a variable part, a size of which is variable according to a remaining amount of the food at
With regards to claim 11, Lee discloses the variable part is removable by the user according to the remaining amount of the food by a user at: p. 6, pp. 8-9, pp. 15-16 (“The remaining amount of the contents of the food container may be calculated based on the size or ratio of the recognized area of the recognized marker and the reference marker 55 of the recognized guide card 50.”)
With regards to claim 13, Lee discloses the remaining amount information is further associated with a storage location (“compartment”) of the food at pp. 13-14 (“If the food container 10 is a tray having a plurality of compartments divided into sections, the controller 110 recognizes each of the plurality of compartments separately and separately provides augmented reality data, so that each compartment is displayed on the display unit 121. Contents of different contents can be output for each.”)
(Continued on next page)
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (Korean Pub. No. KR 2020000363 A) in view of Yi Jung Lee (Taiwan Pub. No. TW M458308 U).
With regards to claim 7, Lee discloses the food management tag (sticker) includes a material a specific wavelength (color) at p. 5. Lee does not specify the food management tag (sticker) reflects light of a specific wavelength. However, this limitation was known in the art:
Yi Jung Lee discloses a sticker comprising a material that reflects light of a specific wavelength at pp. 2-3 of the English translation. At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a material that reflects light of a specific wavelength, as taught by Yi Jung Lee, as sticker material when using a food management tag (sticker) according to the method taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so comes from Yi Jung Lee, which discloses, “In this way, the visibility of the sticker is improved ,and the overall aesthetics and novel visual effects of the sticker and the processed part are increased.” (p. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yi Jung Lee with Lee to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights