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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, claims state that a transceiver receives data from the smart appliance in a first communication state and receives data from the smart appliance in a second communication state. It is unclear as to why the reception of data is stated twice in the claim and what factors distinguish the two. Clarification is needed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. “Manual input output means” in claims 9, 11, and 14 (support in paragraph 70 of spec) and “linking means” (support in fig. 3, [0042, 0082, 0084, 0100]), in claim 11.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durian (US 2013/0265159).
Regarding claim 1, 20, Durian discloses A mobile device configured to communicate with a smart appliance and a sensing element configured to detect a current value of an operational feature of the smart appliance, the mobile device comprising ([0026-0029]):
a memory with a table of data comprising a stored value of the operational feature of the smart appliance ([0034-0035], fig. 17 The cooking profile, which contains temperatures for cooking which represent values of the operational feature, is entered into the phone initially. The cooking profile contains various instructions and temperatures for cooking. Multiple cooking profiles can be stored and complex profiles containing multiple cooking temperatures are stored);
a transceiver configured to selectively receive data from the smart appliance in a first communication state (fig. 13(B and D) The phone receives feedback loop data from grill temperature and meat temperature probes and these temperatures are shown on the GUI on the phone), and receive data from (fig. 19(D-F ) plurality of meat temperature alerts are received from the grill and shown on the phone GUI) and transmit data to the smart appliance in a second communication state (fig. 19(G) [0034]) the user can modify and send meat alert activation temperature settings to the grill) and
a processor arranged in communication with the sensing element, the memory, and the transceiver, the processor configured to: receive the current value from the sensing element ([0028-0029, 0035-0036]); determine whether the current value of the operational feature matches the stored value of the operational feature; and generate instruction for the smart appliance to execute in order to adjust the current value to match the stored value when the current value does not match the stored value, wherein the transceiver is further configured to communicate the instruction to the smart appliance when the transceiver is in the second communication state ([0028-0029, 0031-0033, 0035-0036] The system monitors the temperature and adjusts the grill function to reach that temperature).
Regarding claim 2, Durian discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether successive current values match successive stored values ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Durian discloses wherein the operational feature comprises at least one feature selected from the group consisting of: an operating mode of the smart appliance, including an operating temperature of the smart appliance, a temperature setting of the smart appliance, smart appliance setting, and a food preparation duration ([0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Durian discloses wherein the stored value comprises at least one value selected from the group consisting of: a smart appliance operation mode, a safe temperature operating level of the smart appliance, and a safe duration of operation of the smart appliance([0031, 0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Durian discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the current value exceeds the safe temperature operating level of the smart appliance and/or the safe duration of operation of the smart appliance; and the instruction comprises smart appliance instructions to lower the current value when the current value exceeds the safe temperature operating level of the smart appliance and/or the safe duration of operation of the smart appliance; and wherein the instructions are automatically communicated to the smart appliance when it is determined that the current value exceeds the safe temperature operating level of the smart appliance and/or the safe duration of operation of the smart appliance ([0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Durian discloses comprising a user interface arranged in communication with the processor, the user interface comprising: manual input output means configured to receive manual instruction, and a display configured to graphically display information ([0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Durian discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether a manual instruction was received at the manual input output means; when it is determined that the manual instruction was received, determine whether the manual instruction increases or decreases the current value; and automatically communicate the manual instruction to the smart appliance when the manual instruction does not increase the current value, and automatically not communicate the manual instruction when the manual instruction does increase the current value ([0027, 0031, 0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Durian discloses wherein the user interface is further configured to generate a graphical image on the display, the graphical image comprising at least one image selected from the group consisting of: a sliding scale configured to enable manual input of information into the manual input output means; a menu configured to enable manual input of information regarding function selection, the menu comprising linking means for bringing up further menus related to food recipes, social feeds, smart appliance controls, and smart appliance manuals; and a duration of an ongoing cooking operation ([0028-0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Durian discloses wherein the graphical image comprises the duration of the ongoing cooking operation comprises at least two separate durations of separate ongoing cooking operations ([0032, 0034, 0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Durian discloses wherein graphical image comprises the duration of the ongoing cooking operation, which comprises a bar graph with increasing illumination in proportion to lapsed duration ([0032, 0034, 0036]).
Regarding claim 14, Durian discloses wherein the graphical image and/or manual input output means is/are configured to operate upon detection of at least two fingers simultaneously engaging the user interface ([0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Durian discloses wherein the mobile device is configured to communicate with the smart appliance and another smart appliance simultaneously (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Durian discloses wherein the stored value of the operational feature of the smart appliance relates to a food, a safe operation of the operational feature, or a food pairing ([0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Durian discloses wherein the processor is configured to: convert a first cooking method to a second cooking method that is different from the first cooking method, and
operate a display to display a cooking time and/or temperature of the second cooking method ([0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durian (US 2013/0265159) in view of Joseph (US 2013/0277353).
Regarding claim 6, Durian discloses the smart appliance is an oven appliance including a cooking cavity and a hob ([0025]);
Durian does not specifically disclose the sensing element comprises a camera configured to generate an image of the cooking cavity and/or hob when the cooking cavity and/or hob is/are within the field of view of the camera.
However, Joseph discloses the sensing element comprises a camera configured to generate an image of the cooking cavity and/or hob when the cooking cavity and/or hob is/are within the field of view of the camera ([0079]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the image of Joseph into the system of Durian so that a viewer could remotely see how their food looks during cooking.
Regarding claim 7, Joseph discloses wherein: the processor is further configured to receive the image and determine from the image whether food is present and a type and/or amount of the food when it is determined that the food is present; and the operational feature further comprises an indication of the type and/or amount of the food ([0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Joseph discloses wherein the image is a video image ([0079]).
Regarding claim 16, Joseph discloses wherein the sensing element is a camera of the smart appliance ([0079]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durian (US 2013/0265159) in view of Jones (US 10,127,585).
Regarding claim 19, Durian does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive a selection of a first dish and a food pairing function, and generate a list of one or more second dishes from a database of dishes to pair with the first dish.
However, Jones discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive a selection of a first dish and a food pairing function, and generate a list of one or more second dishes from a database of dishes to pair with the first dish (fig. 9, fig. 5). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the food pairing list of Jones into the system of Durian in order to allow viewers to be given food pairing options for their item.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426