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 .
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 10-12, 14-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sigrist [EP 2466212A2].
Sigrist teaches a cooking appliance control system (title) by providing a packaged food product with ingredients (Figure 1, #11), scanning/reading a QR code on the food package (Figure 1-2, #9-11), the camera/scanner/reader located in the cooking appliance or in a user device (Figure 1-2, #9), obtaining and providing a notification on a display to a user of an indication of food sensitivity exposure such as the presence of allergens in the food product (Figure 1-2, #2, 4, 17; page 3, final paragraph; page 4, 3rd paragraph), and proceeding with cooking wherein parameters such as time and temperature are controlled based upon the scanned code (page 3, two final paragraphs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigrist as applied above, and further in view of Armstrong et al [US 2017/0017248A1].
Sigrist teaches the abovementioned concepts. Sigrist does not explicitly recite a remote server (claim 13). Armstrong et al teach a system for preparing food (title) comprising a cooking device (Figure 4, #10), user device (Figure 4, #230), and remote server (Figure 4, #210) linked in a network (Figure 4, #220); wherein the remote server stores the cooking profiles and other information (Figure 5, #310). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed remote server into the invention of Sigrist, in view of Armstrong et al, since both are directed to cooking systems, since Sigrist already included obtaining and providing a notification on a display to a user of an indication of food sensitivity exposure such as the presence of allergens in the food product (Figure 1-2, #2, 4, 17; page 3, final paragraph; page 4, 3rd paragraph) and proceeding with cooking wherein parameters such as time and temperature are controlled based upon the scanned code (page 3, two final paragraphs); since cooking systems commonly included a cooking device (Figure 4, #10), user device (Figure 4, #230), and remote server (Figure 4, #210) linked in a network (Figure 4, #220); wherein the remote server stores the cooking profiles and other information (Figure 5, #310) as shown by Armstrong et al; since a central remote server could be more easily updated and linked to a plurality of cooking devices and user devices in the system of Sigrist, and since storing food and cooking information on a remote server would have allowed the cooking device to be manufactured without a robust memory source and thus be more economical for the consumer of Sigrist, in view of Armstrong et al.
Claims 1, 3-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigrist as applied above, and further in view of Forster [US 2020/0005110A1].
Sigrist teaches the above mentioned concepts. Sigrist does not explicitly recite determining if a user provided acknowledgment of the notification (claim 1), receiving a signal of acknowledgement of the notification by the user, and permitting the cooking (claim 16). Forster teaches a RFID tag used for controlling a cooking process (title) comprising an RFID tag reader (Figure 9, #902, 900), an oven controller (Figure 9, #908), an external database (Figure 9, #904), the RFID tag including allergen information of the food product (paragraph 0028), the system notifying the user of potential allergen danger with an alarm (paragraph 0033, 0035), a manual override feature wherein the user is informed of the allergen content and signals the system to continue the cooking procedure (paragraph 0030, 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed user acknowledgement, user signal, and continued cooking into the invention of Sigrist, in view of Forster, since both are directed to methods of cooking foods, since Sigrist already included scanning/reading a QR code on a food package (Figure 1-2, #9-11) and obtaining and providing a notification on a display to a user of an indication of food sensitivity exposure such as the presence of allergens in the food product (Figure 1-2, #2, 4, 17; page 3, final paragraph; page 4, 3rd paragraph); since cooking systems commonly included the RFID tag including allergen information of the food product (paragraph 0028), the system notifying the user of potential allergen danger with an alarm (paragraph 0033, 0035), a manual override feature wherein the user is informed of the allergen content and signals the system to continue the cooking procedure (paragraph 0030, 0035) as shown by Forster; since a manual override feature would have been useful in instances where an ingredient list in the database was clearly incorrect, since a user could also substitute a different ingredient for the ingredient containing allergens and then proceed with the cooking profile recipe, and since in less dangerous instance, such as a food sensitivity simply being a user’s taste preferences for ingredients, it could be ignored (or the user could choose a smaller amount of the ingredient) and permit cooking to proceed in the system of Sigrist, in view of Forster.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigrist, in view of Forster, as applied above, and further in view of Armstrong et al.
Sigrist and Forster teach the above mentioned concepts. Sigrist does not explicitly recite a remote server (claim 2). Armstrong et al teach a system for preparing food (title) comprising a cooking device (Figure 4, #10), user device (Figure 4, #230), and remote server (Figure 4, #210) linked in a network (Figure 4, #220); wherein the remote server stores the cooking profiles and other information (Figure 5, #310). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed remote server into the invention of Sigrist, in view of Armstrong et al, since both are directed to cooking systems, since Sigrist already included obtaining and providing a notification on a display to a user of an indication of food sensitivity exposure such as the presence of allergens in the food product (Figure 1-2, #2, 4, 17; page 3, final paragraph; page 4, 3rd paragraph) and proceeding with cooking wherein parameters such as time and temperature are controlled based upon the scanned code (page 3, two final paragraphs); since cooking systems commonly included a cooking device (Figure 4, #10), user device (Figure 4, #230), and remote server (Figure 4, #210) linked in a network (Figure 4, #220); wherein the remote server stores the cooking profiles and other information (Figure 5, #310) as shown by Armstrong et al; since a remote server could be more easily updated and linked to a plurality of cooking devices and user devices in the system of Sigrist, and since storing the cooking profiles on a remote server would have enabled the cooking device to be manaufactured without a robust memory source and thus be more economical for the consumer.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigrist, in view of Forster, as applied above, and further in view of Armstrong et al and Park [US 2023/0419175A1].
Sigrist and Forster teach the above mentioned concepts. Sigrist does not explicitly recite updated information from the remote server (claim 7), receiving updated food sensitivity and cook parameters from the remote server (claim 8), an indication that communication with the remote server failed (claim 9). Armstrong et al teach a system for preparing food (title) comprising a cooking device (Figure 4, #10), user device (Figure 4, #230), and remote server (Figure 4, #210) linked in a network (Figure 4, #220); wherein the remote server stores the cooking profiles and other information (Figure 5, #310). Park teaches a method for controlling a cooking appliance by use of a remote server which is periodically updated (paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed remote server update features into the invention of Sigrist, in view of Armstrong et al, Park, and Forster; since all are directed to methods of making/processing food, since Sigrist already included saved food information and cooking information, since cooking systems commonly used remote servers for storing food ingredient features and cooking profiles as shown by Armstrong et al and Park, since cooking systems commonly provided updated information to and from servers as shown by Park, since updated allergen information for users would have further ensured that an acceptable recipe was chosen and prepared for the selected users of Sigrist, and since user notification of a failed communication and/or failure to update information could potentially prevent a consumer from accidentally ingesting a food containing allergens in the combined invention of Sigrist, in view of Armstrong et al, Park, and Forster.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ochiai discloses prompts for allergen substitutions in a recipe (Figure 18), Furlong discloses scanning a label to control a microwave oven, Carpenter discloses scanning a food package or cook book to control a microwave oven, Hannah discloses a cooking system with repeated prompts and recognition of user responses (Figure 4), Park discloses a cooing system using RFID tags for control, Hanson discloses an automated meal delivery system which accounts for the allergens in a user’s diet and has an oven with a scanner of the meals (Figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, 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 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights