Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
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.
2. Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12/141,192. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of claims 1-15 of the current application are covered by the limitations of claims 1-29 of '192. Clearly claims 1-15 of the current application are broader in scope than claims 1-29 of ‘192, and features of claims 1-15 are covered by features of claims 1-29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over HI et al. (KR202108535B1) in view of WOO et al. (KR20170083382A)).
With regard to claim 1, Hi et al. teaches a food-information inputting (see abstract and figs. 1-17) method performed by a food-information input apparatus (reads on the camera 10), the method comprising: operating in a photographing mode where an input guide and an input are displayed on a photographing screen (see abstract and figs. 7-11 and picture of the food and menu is displayed); and receiving at least one piece of food information using the input guide and the input, while operating in the photographing mode (see figs. 7-11). HI does not explicitly teach an input button being displayed. However, WOO, in the same field of endeavor “displaying of food information” teaches that it is well known at the time of the invention to display an input button (reads on the input window which allow user(s) to make a selection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the food information apparatus with a displayed input button (or window) as taught by WOO, in order to allow the user(s) to view properly select the food that can be analyzed form a picture.
With regard to claim 2, Hi et al. further teaches wherein, in the receiving of at least one piece of food information, the food information (e.g. abstract, fused information) is received according to a location of the input by a user on the input guide (see figs. 7-12).
With regard to claim 3, Hi et al. further teaches wherein, in the receiving of at least one piece of food information, at least one piece of food information is selectively received according to a moving direction in which the user moves (reads on abstract, also the “input button” is covered by the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 4, Hi et al. further teaches wherein, in the receiving of at least one piece of food information, at least one piece of food information is selectively received according to a moving distance and the moving direction in which the user moves the input (reads on abstract, also the “input button” is covered by the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 5 , Hi et al. further teaches wherein the at least one piece of food information comprises at least one piece of information selected from among food amount information, food type information, food calorie information, food ratio information, food nutrient information, food menu information, eater information, intake goal information, intake schedule information, intake ratio information, intake time information, intake satisfaction information, food time information suitable for a preset input purpose, food location information suitable for the preset input purpose, food handler information, food-waste disposal information, pre-meal input information, post-meal input information, bookmark information, and information about items stored in a wish list (reads on figs. 7-11 and 17).
With regard to claim 6, Hi et al. further teaches displaying at least one selected from among user allergy effect, skin nutrition, growth nutrition, disease effect, aging effect, diet effect, expected intake calories compared to target calories, salinity, converted value of food, food-cost information, food-environment information, carbon value information, resource value information, carbon emission, operating-cost loss cost, food-ingredient information, a pre-meal input button, a post-meal input button, a bookmark input button, and a wish-list storage button, which are related to the at least one piece of input food information (reads on fig. 9).
With regard to claim 7, Hi et al. further teaches displaying at least one piece of food information corresponding to a location where the input is activated by the user on the input guide (reads on figs. 3-11, also the “input button” is covered by the rejection of claim 1 above).
.
With regard to claim 8, Hi et al. further teaches wherein, in the displaying of at least one piece of food information on the photographing screen, the food information corresponding to the location where the input is activated by the user on the input guide is displayed on the photographing screen in a preset size or more (reads on figs. 7-11, also the “input button” is covered by the rejection of claim 1 above).
.
With regard to claim 9, Hi et al. further teaches recognizing food displayed on the photographing screen, wherein at least one piece of input food information is related to the recognized food (reads on fig. 8, information such as calories).
With regard to claim 10, Hi et al. further teaches wherein, in the receiving of at least one piece of food information, a unit of the food displayed on the input button is changed according to a type of the recognized food, and information about an amount of recognized food is input based on the changed unit of food (reads on figs. 7-9).
With regard to claim 11, Hi et al. further teaches displaying an input limit range for the recognized food (reads on figs. 9-11).
With regard to claim 12, Hi et al. further teaches adjusting a minimum value and a maximum value of the displayed input limit range, wherein the input unit of the food information is varied according to the minimum value and the maximum value of the adjusted input limit range (reads on figs. 8-9).
With regard to claim 13, Hi et al. further teaches calculating and displaying intake-goal information considering the user's characteristics according to the recognized food; receiving intake-schedule information about the recognized food from the user (reads on P[0087-0089] and claims 1-2); and displaying a ratio of the input intake-schedule information to the displayed intake-goal information (reads on figs. 7-10).
With regard to claim 14, Hi et al. further teaches displaying success or failure of the intake goal based on the input intake-schedule information for the displayed intake-goal information, after the user takes the recognized food (reads on claims 1-2, goal such a calories and recommendations)
With regard to claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are covered by the limitation of claim 1 above; and Hi inherently teaches a camera, a display and a memory (see fig. 13).
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YAO (CN109526235A) teaches a diet suggestion system for providing and analyzing device.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571)272-7434. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/Gabriel I Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
August 03, 2026
Prosecution Insights