DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of March 4, 2025, and claims priority as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of application # 18/776,059 (filed on July 17, 2024).
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: --blade-- should be inserted subsequent “receive one or more digital images of a knife”. Examiner believes this omission is a typo, as recitation of “receive one or more digital images of a knife blade” would maintain
consistency of terminology with the other Independent claims, and would ensure there is sufficient anteceded basis for subsequent references to “the knife blade”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-16 is/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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 2-15 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 16 is/are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-16 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 2 and 16) recites/describes the following steps;
receive one or more…images of a knife;
determine, based on the one or more…images, a wear condition of the knife blade;
generate, based on the wear condition of the knife blade, a maintenance recommendation, wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one maintenance action and at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process of assessing a wear condition of a knife blade and provisioning of a maintenance recommendation (including a recommended tool, which may comprise an advertisement for the tool) based on the assessed wear condition, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations); or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 2 and 16 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“a system for providing a maintenance recommendation, comprising: a processing circuitry; a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to” (claim 1)
“computer-implemented” (claim 2)
“a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising” (claim 16)
“one or more digital images…the one or more digital images” (claims 1, 2, and 16)
“using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16)
“the one or more digital images” (claims 3-5, 12, and 15)
“a second digital …the second digital image… the second digital image…” (claim 13)
“from a third party computing device” (claims 9, 15, and 16)
“to the a third party computing device” (claims 12, 14, and 16)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system for providing a maintenance recommendation, comprising: a processing circuitry; a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to” (claim 1) and/or “computer-implemented” (claim 2) and/or “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising” (claim 16) and/or “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0076]-[0085] & [0127]-[0135]). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The “digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the digital image processing algorithm functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcomes of “determine, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade” (claims 1, 2, 13, and 16) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, a wear severity value of the knife blade” (claim 3) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade” (claim 4) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, an identity of a knife blade” (claim 5) and do not include any details about how these functions are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “one or more digital images…the one or more digital images” (claims 1, 2, and 16) and/or “the one or more digital images” (claims 3-5, 12, and 15) and/or “a second digital …the second digital image… the second digital image…” (claim 13) and/or “from a third party computing device” (claims 9, 15, and 16) and/or “to the a third party computing device” (claims 12, 14, and 16) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recitation of “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) limits the identified judicial exceptions to perform the functions of “determine, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade” (claims 1, 2, 13, and 16) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, a wear severity value of the knife blade” (claim 3) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade” (claim 4) and “determining, based on the one or more digital images, an identity of a knife blade” (claim 5) to use of “a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16), this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (digital image processing algorithms) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “receive one or more digital images of a knife” (claims 1, 2, and 16) and/or “receiving, from a third-party computing device, at least one of: a material type for the knife blade; a use for the knife blade; a dimension value of the knife blade; and an identity of the knife blade” (claim 9) and/or “receive a second digital image of a knife blade” (claim 13), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process of assessing a wear condition of a knife blade and provisioning of a maintenance recommendation because identifying knife wear/condition can be challenging for the average person and because doing so can help this person effectively maintain their knives by providing them with quick/easy recommendations and pertinent information based on the current condition of their knives (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0003]-[0008] & [0056]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for assessing a wear condition of a knife blade and provisioning of related maintenance recommendations).
Dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 11 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 11 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 6 recites “wherein the wear condition of the knife blade includes at least one of: a dullness of the knife blade; chips on the knife blade; rust on the knife blade; and deformation of the knife blade”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 6. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system for providing a maintenance recommendation, comprising: a processing circuitry; a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to” (claim 1) and/or “computer-implemented” (claim 2) and/or “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process, the process comprising” (claim 16) and/or “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recitation of “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “one or more digital images…the one or more digital images” (claims 1, 2, and 16) and/or “the one or more digital images” (claims 3-5, 12, and 15) and/or “a second digital …the second digital image… the second digital image…” (claim 13) and/or “from a third party computing device” (claims 9, 15, and 16) and/or “to the a third party computing device” (claims 12, 14, and 16) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recitation of “using a digital image processing algorithm” (claims 1-5, 13 and 16) also serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “receive one or more digital images of a knife” (claims 1, 2, and 16) and/or “receiving, from a third-party computing device, at least one of: a material type for the knife blade; a use for the knife blade; a dimension value of the knife blade; and an identity of the knife blade” (claim 9) and/or “receive a second digital image of a knife blade” (claim 13), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of knife analysis/recommendations. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 11 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 11 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 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.
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.
v Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2009/0259688, October 15, 2009 - hereinafter "Do”) in view of Dovel (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0084113, March 21, 2019 - hereinafter "Dovel”)
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Do teaches a system for providing a maintenance recommendation, and a computer-implemented method for providing a maintenance recommendation; comprising:
a processing circuitry; (claim 1) ([0031] “Information handling system 100 includes one or more processors 110 which are coupled to processor interface bus 112”, [0035] “an information handling system may take the form of a desktop, server, portable, laptop, notebook, or other form factor computer or data processing system…or other devices that include a processor and memory”, [0037])
a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to: (claim 1) ([0031] “one or more processors…connected to system memory 120 and provides a means for processor(s) 110 to access the system memory”, [0035] “an information handling system may take the form of a desktop, server, portable, laptop, notebook, or other form factor computer or data processing system…or other devices that include a processor and memory”, [0037]
receive one or more digital images of a knife; ([0038]-[0039] “…sense various items 390…items may include various implements (e.g., knives…Video input devices 335 can capture images of items 390 that are in proximity of the interactive cooking preparation device….identified based on the items shape or appearance using one or more video input devices…” - therefore the system receives one or more digital images of one or more implements (e.g., a knife), [0110] & [0122] “the instructions and requests to the user are presented to the user according to the user's communication preference (e.g., visually, audibly, etc.)…the user retrieves the selected implement (e.g., from a drawer, cupboard, etc.) and places the implement on the surface of the interactive cooking preparation device in the highlighted area. At step 588, the interactive cooking preparation device uses sensors to identify the item (the implement) that the user placed in the highlighted area…”…“If video input devices are installed in the interactive cooking preparation device…attempt is made to match an image of the item taken with the video input devices with known images of items retrieved from item images data store 733. A determination is made as to whether a matching item was found in item images data store 733 (decision 730)…”, [0130]-[0132] “steps taken to analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…a selected implement 771 is scanned by one or more sensors 772, such as video input devices. At step 774, the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended…” – digital images of the knife received and analyzed, [0133] “identifying a carving knife”)
determine, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – the system analyzes the digital images of the knife and algorithmically compares detected sharpness level to various sharpness thresholds to determine a sharpness/dullness level of the knife (i.e., determines, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm) to determine whether to generate a maintenance recommendation)
generate, based on the wear condition of the knife blade, a maintenance recommendation, wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one maintenance action ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore upon determining that the knife is unacceptably dull (i.e., based on the wear condition of the knife blade) the system generates a recommendation to sharpen the knife blade along with an instructional video on how to sharpen the knife blade (i.e., generates a maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action), [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
Do does not appear to disclose,
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action
However, Dovel discloses a method and system for assisting in knife sharpening and providing maintenance recommendations, including wherein the user uses a smartphone having an app installed thereon to provide the user with such recommendations ([0153]-[0155] “Additional configurations for the indicator mechanism can include but are not limited to the use of a graphical display 664 that provides a visual indication to the user…Any number of graphical displays can be used…a separate software application (app) may be downloadable for execution on a smart phone, tablet or other network accessible device…The app could be configured to provide user controls…set various sharpening parameters, input the type or style of tool to the sharpened, etc….the app could in turn provide user instructions similar to those described above for the integrated display to the user during the sharpening sequence…”, & [0162]), wherein knife sharpness is detected using one or more optical sensors ([0106]-[0108]). Dovel further discloses
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action ([0162] “use of an indicator mechanism as variously described herein advantageously enables…to direct the user to a new sharpening combination of abrasive surface and guide surface at an appropriate time…” - therefore the maintenance recommendation can include information instructing the user on how to sharpen the knife including directing the user to use a specific abrasive surface to use for a particular stage of the sharpening process (i.e., at least one tool required for the maintenance action), [0135]-[0140] “three (3) abrasive discs 618A, 618B and 618C. Each disc…has a different abrasiveness level so that, for example, the disc 618A has a relatively coarse abrasiveness level, the disc 618B has a relatively medium abrasiveness level, and the disc 618C has a relatively fine abrasiveness level …allow the user to progress from coarse, to medium, to fine sharpening in each of three successive sharpening stages…indicator mechanism…signal to the user an appropriate time to move to a new sharpening position…convey information to the user regarding the status of a given sharpening operation….detecting or estimating a sharpness level as the user proceeds through a first sharpening operation. The indicator mechanism can…directing the user to move to a new location and commence with a second sharpening operation…direct the user to the new sharpening location.” – therefore the maintenance recommendation can include information instructing the user on how to sharpen the knife including directing the user to use a specific abrasive surface to use for a particular stage of the sharpening process (i.e., at least one tool required for the maintenance action), see also [0120]-[0124]
Dovel suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action, because doing so can provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness ([0121] & [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Do to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action, as taught by Dovel, because doing so can provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness.
Furthermore, as in Dovel, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Do to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action. Furthermore, as in Dovel, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness, as is needed in Do.
With respect to claim 16, Do teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process ([0031] “Information handling system 100 includes one or more processors 110 which are coupled to processor interface bus 112”, [0035] “an information handling system may take the form of a desktop, server, portable, laptop, notebook, or other form factor computer or data processing system…or other devices that include a processor and memory”, [0037]), the process comprising;
receiving one or more digital images of a knife blade from a third-party computing device; ([0038]-[0039] “…sense various items 390…items may include various implements (e.g., knives…Video input devices 335 can capture images of items 390 that are in proximity of the interactive cooking preparation device….identified based on the items shape or appearance using one or more video input devices…” - therefore the system receives one or more digital images of one or more implements (e.g., a knife), [0110] & [0122] “the instructions and requests to the user are presented to the user according to the user's communication preference (e.g., visually, audibly, etc.)…the user retrieves the selected implement (e.g., from a drawer, cupboard, etc.) and places the implement on the surface of the interactive cooking preparation device in the highlighted area. At step 588, the interactive cooking preparation device uses sensors to identify the item (the implement) that the user placed in the highlighted area…”…“If video input devices are installed in the interactive cooking preparation device…attempt is made to match an image of the item taken with the video input devices with known images of items retrieved from item images data store 733. A determination is made as to whether a matching item was found in item images data store 733 (decision 730)…”, [0130]-[0132] “steps taken to analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…a selected implement 771 is scanned by one or more sensors 772, such as video input devices. At step 774, the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended…” – digital images of the knife received and analyzed, [0133] “identifying a carving knife”, Fig 1 and Fig 2 and [0030]-[0037] – the system may utilize a distributed networking configuration using multiple discrete devices such as a server connected via a network to a mobile phone/PDA which may comprise a camera (Fig 1 tag 150) and therefore the server may receive the images from the mobile phone/PDA (i.e., third-party computing device consistent with Applicant’s disclosure), another embodiment comprises use of third party camera connected via USB per [0033] )
determining, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – the system analyzes the digital images of the knife and algorithmically compares detected sharpness level to various sharpness thresholds to determine a sharpness/dullness level of the knife (i.e., determines, based on the one or more digital images, a wear condition of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm) to determine whether to generate a maintenance recommendation)
generating, based on the wear condition of the knife blade, a maintenance recommendation, wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one maintenance action; ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore upon determining that the knife is unacceptably dull (i.e., based on the wear condition of the knife blade) the system generates a recommendation to sharpen the knife blade along with an instructional video on how to sharpen the knife blade (i.e., generates a maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action), [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
transmitting the maintenance recommendation to the third-party computing device ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action is transmitted for display to the user, Fig 1 and Fig 2 and [0030]-[0037] – the system may utilize a distributed networking configuration using multiple discrete devices such as a server connected via a network to a mobile phone/PDA (i.e., third-party computing device consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) and therefore the server may perform the analysis and receive information from the mobile device/PDA and transmit information for display to the user via the mobile phone/PDA such as the video or other recommendation information)
Do does not appear to disclose,
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action
However, Dovel discloses a method and system for assisting in knife sharpening and providing maintenance recommendations, including wherein the user uses a smartphone having an app installed thereon (i.e., third party computing device) to provide the user with such recommendations ([0153]-[0155] “Additional configurations for the indicator mechanism can include but are not limited to the use of a graphical display 664 that provides a visual indication to the user…Any number of graphical displays can be used…a separate software application (app) may be downloadable for execution on a smart phone, tablet or other network accessible device…The app could be configured to provide user controls…set various sharpening parameters, input the type or style of tool to the sharpened, etc….the app could in turn provide user instructions similar to those described above for the integrated display to the user during the sharpening sequence…”, & [0162]), wherein knife sharpness is detected using one or more optical sensors ([0106]-[0108]). Dovel further discloses
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action ([0162] “use of an indicator mechanism as variously described herein advantageously enables…to direct the user to a new sharpening combination of abrasive surface and guide surface at an appropriate time…” - therefore the maintenance recommendation can include information instructing the user on how to sharpen the knife including directing the user to use a specific abrasive surface to use for a particular stage of the sharpening process (i.e., at least one tool required for the maintenance action), [0135]-[0140] “three (3) abrasive discs 618A, 618B and 618C. Each disc…has a different abrasiveness level so that, for example, the disc 618A has a relatively coarse abrasiveness level, the disc 618B has a relatively medium abrasiveness level, and the disc 618C has a relatively fine abrasiveness level …allow the user to progress from coarse, to medium, to fine sharpening in each of three successive sharpening stages…indicator mechanism…signal to the user an appropriate time to move to a new sharpening position…convey information to the user regarding the status of a given sharpening operation….detecting or estimating a sharpness level as the user proceeds through a first sharpening operation. The indicator mechanism can…directing the user to move to a new location and commence with a second sharpening operation…direct the user to the new sharpening location.” – therefore the maintenance recommendation can include information instructing the user on how to sharpen the knife including directing the user to use a specific abrasive surface to use for a particular stage of the sharpening process (i.e., at least one tool required for the maintenance action), see also [0120]-[0124]
Dovel suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action, because doing so can provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness ([0121] & [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Do to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action, as taught by Dovel, because doing so can provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness.
Furthermore, as in Dovel, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the medium of Do to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes at least one tool required for the at least one maintenance action. Furthermore, as in Dovel, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would provide additional information to assist the user in maintaining (e.g., sharpening) their knife in a user-friendly, repeatable, and effective manner, particularly by helping the user know which tool (e.g., sharpening tool having a certain abrasion level) to use for their knives detected condition/sharpness, as is needed in Do.
With respect to claim 3, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: determining, based on the one or more digital images, a wear severity value of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the wear severity value of the knife blade ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the system analyzes the images of the knife and determines a sharpness/dullness value (i.e., severity value of the sharpness/dullness) so that this value may be compared against various threshold values so that the system can determine whether the knife is unacceptably dull and responsively generate a recommendation to sharpen the knife blade along with an instructional video on how to sharpen the knife blade (i.e., generates a maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action based on the severity value (consistent with Applicant’s disclosure at [0038] “severity values may include…dullness of the knife blade”), [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
With respect to claim 5, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: determining, based on the one or more digital images, an identity of a knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the identity of the knife blade ([0038]-[0039] “…sense various items 390…items may include various implements (e.g., knives…Video input devices 335 can capture images of items 390 that are in proximity of the interactive cooking preparation device….identified based on the items shape or appearance using one or more video input devices…” - therefore the system receives one or more digital images of one or more implements (e.g., a knife) and analyses the knife based on the image by comparing its shape against known shapes (i.e., using a digital image processing algorithm), [0133]-[0134 “identifying a carving knife…with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife” – therefore the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade (as discussed above with respect to claim 2) and the identity of the knife blade)
With respect to claim 6, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
wherein the wear condition of the knife blade includes at least one of: a dullness of the knife blade; chips on the knife blade; rust on the knife blade; and deformation of the knife blade ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the wear condition of the knife blade includes at least a dullness of the knife blade so that this value may be compared against various threshold values so that the system can determine whether the knife is unacceptably dull and responsively generate a recommendation to sharpen the knife blade along with an instructional video on how to sharpen the knife blade (i.e., generates a maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action based on the severity value (consistent with Applicant’s disclosure at [0038] “severity values may include…dullness of the knife blade”), [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
With respect to claim 7, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: determining if the wear condition of the knife blade matches a known wear condition in a database of known wear conditions, the known wear condition having an associated maintenance action; when the wear condition of the knife blade matches the known wear condition: the maintenance recommendation includes the associated maintenance action ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the system determines if the detected dullness/sharpness value of the knife blade (i.e., the wear condition of the knife blade) matches one or more pre-stored known wear condition threshold ranges (i.e., known wear conditions in a database of known wear conditions) that are each associated with a respective maintenance action (e.g., user is informed that maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended, the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened), no maintenance required (i.e., an action of do nothing)) and the system generates the maintenance recommendation includes the associated maintenance action accordingly, [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
With respect to claim 9, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: receiving, from a third-party computing device, at least one of: a material type for the knife blade; a use for the knife blade; a dimension value of the knife blade; and an identity of the knife blade; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and on the at least one of the material type for the knife blade, the use for the knife blade, the dimension value of the knife blade, and the identity of the knife blade ([0038]-[0039] “…sense various items 390…items may include various implements (e.g., knives…Video input devices 335 can capture images of items 390 that are in proximity of the interactive cooking preparation device….identified based on the items shape or appearance using one or more video input devices…” - therefore the system determines an identity of the knife blade), see also [0071] “implements data store 380 includes…name—unique name (identifier) assigned to the implement” and per [0037] & [0040] & [0110] this information may be retrieved from a nonvolatile storage device that is on another computer/server (i.e., a third party computing device) during the analysis, [0133]-[0134 “identifying a carving knife…with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife” – therefore the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade (as discussed above with respect to claim 2) and the identity of the knife blade)
With respect to claim 11, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes an instructional video on how to perform the at least one maintenance action; or the maintenance recommendation includes a uniform resource locator that specifies the location of the instructional video ([0130]-[0131] “If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the maintenance recommendation includes an instructional video on how to perform the at least one maintenance action, [0134] “with the carving knife, the maintenance instructions might include how to properly sharpen the knife”)
With respect to claim 12, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: transmitting instructions on how to capture the one or more digital images to the third-party computing device; or transmitting a uniform resource locater that specifies the location of the instructions to the third-party computing device [0110] & [0122] “the area is highlighted visually by displaying a highlight icon, such as an image of the selected implement in the area where the implement is to be placed…the user is requested to place the selected implement on the highlighted surface area. In one embodiment, the instructions and requests to the user are presented to the user according to the user's communication preference (e.g., visually, audibly, etc.)… the user retrieves the selected implement (e.g., from a drawer, cupboard, etc.) and places the implement on the surface of the interactive cooking preparation device in the highlighted area. At step 588, the interactive cooking preparation device uses sensors to identify the item (the implement) that the user placed in the highlighted area…”…“If video input devices are installed in the interactive cooking preparation device…attempt is made to match an image of the item taken with the video input devices with known images of items retrieved from item images data store 733. A determination is made as to whether a matching item was found in item images data store 733 (decision 730)…” – therefore the system transmits instructions on how to capture the one or more digital images to the third-party computing device (e.g., instructing them to place the knife in a particular area/location before using the camera to capture the digital images of the implement for identification)
With respect to claim 13, Do and Dovel teach the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: receive a second digital image of a knife blade, the second digital image taken after the knife blade has been maintained according to the maintenance recommendation; determine, based on the second digital image, a second wear condition of the knife blade using the digital image processing algorithm; generate, based on the second wear condition of the knife blade and the maintenance recommendation, a second maintenance recommendation, wherein the second maintenance recommendation includes at least one second maintenance action and at least one second tool required for the at least one second maintenance action (This limitation amounts to a requirement to perform the exact method of claim 2 for a second time (i.e., at some subsequent point in time) and Do infers that the method may be performed multiple times (e.g., abstract & [0004]-[0007] & [0038]) and therefore the combination of Do in view of Dovel similarly teaches doing the method a second time (see the same claim feature mappings and motivation to above recited above in claim 2) – Examiner also notes that Dovel discloses iterative sharpness/dullness detection after each sharpening pass/stage and progressing the user through multiple stages of sharpening recommendations using the most recent analysis in view of the previous maintenance recommendation)
With respect to claim 14, Do teaches the method of claim 2;
further comprising steps of: transmitting the maintenance recommendation to a third-party computing device ([0130]-[0131] “analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended. A determination is made as to whether the selected implement meets the minimum condition thresholds set for the implement (decision 776). If the implement fails to meet minimal condition thresholds established for the implement, then decision 776 branches to "no" branch 777 whereupon, at step 778, the user is informed that the implement falls below the minimum thresholds and maintenance or replacement of the implement is highly recommended. At step 783, maintenance procedures (e.g., video content on how to sharpen a knife, etc.) are retrieved from procedures data store 360 and displayed to the user….the user is informed that maintenance of the implement should be performed (e.g., the knife should be sharpened) in order to keep the implement in good working condition.” – therefore the maintenance recommendation including at least one maintenance action is transmitted for display to the user, Fig 1 and Fig 2 and [0030]-[0037] – the system may utilize a distributed networking configuration using multiple discrete devices such as a server connected via a network to a mobile phone/PDA (i.e., third-party computing device consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) and therefore the server may perform the analysis and receive information from the mobile device/PDA and transmit information for display to the user via the mobile phone/PDA such as the video or other recommendation information)
Examiner notes Dovel also discloses wherein the user uses a smartphone having an app installed thereon (i.e., third party computing device) to provide the user with such recommendations ([0153]-[0155] “Additional configurations for the indicator mechanism can include but are not limited to the use of a graphical display 664 that provides a visual indication to the user…Any number of graphical displays can be used…a separate software application (app) may be downloadable for execution on a smart phone, tablet or other network accessible device…The app could be configured to provide user controls…set various sharpening parameters, input the type or style of tool to the sharpened, etc….the app could in turn provide user instructions similar to those described above for the integrated display to the user during the sharpening sequence…”, & [0162]))
With respect to claim 15, Do teaches the method of claim 14;
wherein the one or more digital images are received from the third-party computing device (Fig 1 and Fig 2 and [0030]-[0037] – the system may utilize a distributed networking configuration using multiple discrete devices such as a server connected via a network to a mobile phone/PDA which may comprise a camera (Fig 1 tag 150) and therefore the server may receive the images from the mobile phone/PDA (i.e., third-party computing device consistent with Applicant’s disclosure), another embodiment comprises use of third party camera connected via USB per [0033]; [0038]-[0039] “…sense various items 390…items may include various implements (e.g., knives…Video input devices 335 can capture images of items 390 that are in proximity of the interactive cooking preparation device….identified based on the items shape or appearance using one or more video input devices…” - therefore the system receives one or more digital images of one or more implements (e.g., a knife), [0110] & [0122] “the instructions and requests to the user are presented to the user according to the user's communication preference (e.g., visually, audibly, etc.)…the user retrieves the selected implement (e.g., from a drawer, cupboard, etc.) and places the implement on the surface of the interactive cooking preparation device in the highlighted area. At step 588, the interactive cooking preparation device uses sensors to identify the item (the implement) that the user placed in the highlighted area…”…“If video input devices are installed in the interactive cooking preparation device…attempt is made to match an image of the item taken with the video input devices with known images of items retrieved from item images data store 733. A determination is made as to whether a matching item was found in item images data store 733 (decision 730)…”, [0130]-[0132] “steps taken to analyze the condition of an implement used by a user…a selected implement 771 is scanned by one or more sensors 772, such as video input devices. At step 774, the actual condition of the selected implement is captured (e.g., video images). At step 775, minimum condition thresholds are retrieved from implements data store 380. An example of a minimum condition threshold would be the minimum sharpness of a knife before sharpening of the knife is recommended…” – digital images of the knife received and analyzed, [0133] “identifying a carving knife”)
v Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Dovel, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rosenblatt (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0366499 , December 5, 2019- hereinafter "Rosenblatt”)
With respect to claim 4, Do and Dovel teach the method of claim 2. Do does not appear to disclose,
determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the dimension value of the knife blade
However, Rosenblatt discloses
determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the dimension value of the knife blade ([0020] “vision system…camera 80 may also be configured to use machine vision and shape recognition algorithms to detect sizes and shapes of the one or more knives 42 placed on board 16”, [0038]-[0039] “Camera 80 in cooperation with controller 24 may use machine vision algorithms to identify a number (i.e. how many knives), shapes, sizes, and/or types of knives 42 on board 16…display an image of each knife, type of knife…knives to sharpen…knife image area…knife type identification area…9” bread knife, 12” chef knife…price…” & [0047] “sharpening knife…manipulator…along an entre length of cutting edge to reproduce the profile of cutting edge” – therefore the system generated for display on the GUI sharpening information that is based on the dimension value of knife blade (i..e, the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the dimension value of the knife blade) and also shows that the sharping procedure is based on blade length, As discussed above in claim 2 Do already discloses that the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade)
Rosenblatt suggests it is advantageous to include determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the dimension value of the knife blade, because doing so can provide more knife-specific information to the user when providing the maintenance recommendation ([0020] & [0038]-[0039] & [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Do in view of Dovel to include determining, based on the one or more digital images, a dimension value of the knife blade using a digital image processing algorithm; wherein the maintenance recommendation is generated based on the wear condition of the knife blade and the dimension value of the knife blade, as taught by Rosenblatt, because doing so can provide more knife-specific information to the user when providing the maintenance recommendation.
v Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Dovel, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Aldridge et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2020/0254617 August 13, 2020- hereinafter "Aldridge”)
With respect to claim 8, Do and Dovel teach the method of claim 2. Do does not appear to disclose,
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes an option to purchase the at least one tool or a uniform resource locator that specifies the location of where to purchase the at least one tool
However, Aldridge a system that captures images of knives using a camera and analyzes the images using computer vision to determine various data associated with the knife (Fig 15 & [0072] & [0120]). Aldridge further discloses
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes an option to purchase the at least one tool or a uniform resource locator that specifies the location of where to purchase the at least one tool ([0174] “EOL for any specific knife can be shown. Because the system is tracking the knives' lifetime, the system can order knives from a supplier as knives are due to expire. If users prefer to order knives themselves, the system could send an alert such as an email or text message to notify the purchasing staff of the type of knife to order”)
Aldridge suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes an option to purchase the at least one tool or a uniform resource locator that specifies the location of where to purchase the at least one tool, because doing so can encourage a user to determine to purchase a knife-related item they will need. ([0174] & [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Do in view of Dovel to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes a predicted lifespan for the knife blade, as taught by Aldridge, because doing so can encourage a user to determine to purchase a knife-related item they will need.
With respect to claim 10, Do and Dovel teach the method of claim 2. Do does not appear to disclose,
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes a predicted lifespan for the knife blade
However, Aldridge a system that captures images of knives using a camera and analyzes the images using computer vision to determine various data associated with the knife (Fig 15 & [0072] & [0120]). Aldridge further discloses
wherein the maintenance recommendation includes a predicted lifespan for the knife blade ([0188] “manager interaction…A manager can see how many times a knife has been sharpened, the estimated life left of the knife, and its overall dimensions”, [0174] “the machine may have the data in the database as to how long users use a knife before it reaches the end of life (EOL). The tracking analytics can display any particular user's average EOL, a particular shift's average EOL, a facility's average EOL, or a whole company's average EOL. The data can also be separated out into specific knife types average EOL. For example, each type of knife that is tracked by the machine may have a different average EOL and tracking user's, shift's, facility's, and company's EOL for any specific knife can be shown. Because the system is tracking the knives' lifetime, the system can order knives from a supplier as knives are due to expire. If users prefer to order knives themselves, the system could send an alert such as an email or text message to notify the purchasing staff of the type of knife to order”)
Aldridge suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes a predicted lifespan for the knife blade, because doing so enable a user to determine whether it may be time to purchase a new knife instead of and/or in addition to sharpening the current knife ([0174] & [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Do in view of Dovel to include wherein the maintenance recommendation includes a predicted lifespan for the knife blade, as taught by Aldridge, because doing so enable a user to determine whether it may be time to purchase a new knife instead of and/or in addition to sharpening the current knife.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
v Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending US Patent No. 12,243,024 (reference application, corresponding to US Application No. 18/776,059).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the instant claims is anticipated by at least one claim of US Patent No. 12,243,024. The only difference between the claims is the change from “using a machine-learning model” to “using a digital image processing algorithm”. However, a machine-learning model (e.g., neural network classifier) trained to detect various pieces of information from digital images is a type of digital image processing algorithm. As such, those claims anticipate the instant claims. The exact limitations of each of these claims are not being reproduced here for clarity and brevity, as the Examiner believes the anticipation would be self-evident to a PHOSITA.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Tsukanov et al. 2022/0274221 et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. September, 1 2022) teaches a system where a camera and image processing algorithms analyze knife blades to determine sharpness values and provide associated maintenance recommendations via a display.
Hessler et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2019/0358763, November 28, 2019) teaches a system where a user has a smartphone with associated app where knife sharpening messages are displayed. A camera is used to analyze knife sharpness. Sharpening stage is recommended based on the detected sharpness.
Heimendinger (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0402626, December 30, 2021) teaches an electronic knife and smartphone with associated app where knife sharpening messages are displayed. Sharpening instructions and feedback are displayed via the mobile app based on various knife attributes.
Kolchin (U.S. Patent No. 8,915,766, December 23, 2014) teaches using a smartphone camera to capture images of knife blades, determine knife profile, blade sharpening angle, sharpness, degree of wear, and determine abrader type to use to sharpen the knife based on these attributes.
Velikin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,190,493, January 7, 2025) teaches using a smartphone camera to capture images of knife blades, determine sharpness, and provide feedback to the user to help them sharpen their knives.
Kelly et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0244216, August 12, 2021) teaches a smart knife block with a camera that detects knife blade sharpness and displays recommendations to sharpen knives on a display
“Identify Blade Sharpness using AI” (published at https://www.nyckel.com/pretrained-classifiers/blade-sharpness/ on December 13, 2024 and retrieved by Examiner using Internet Archive Wayback Machine on January 26, 2026) teaches a system where users can upload pictures of their knives and a digital image processing algorithm at a server determines a sharpness level of the knife.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621