Chun Pong Yuan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021001445 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/321,919 11/22/2011 Chun Pong Yuan 2009P01115WOUS 1083 161401 7590 03/11/2022 Schott, P.C. 610 Old York Road, Suite 400 Jenkintown, PA 19046 EXAMINER NAZAR, AHAMED I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patents@schottpc.com philips@clairvolex.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHUN PONG YUAN, MIRJAM SUZANNE WOUTERS, PAUL NEERVOORT, MAYUR PRABHAKAR KARNIK, and EUN-HYE JEE ________________ Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 12-15. 1 Claims 2, 8, and 11 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to navigating a smart cooker that helps a user cook by prompting the user, step by step, to carry out preparation steps at the correct time. Spec. 1:10-19. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A cooking apparatus adapted to automate cooking of a variety of dishes comprising at least one cooking operation, said cooking apparatus comprising: a. a provider device adapted to provide a menu of dishes to a user; b. a receiver device adapted to receive, from the user, a selection of one of the dishes provided in the menu of dishes; c. a presenter device configured to: present to the user: information, including ingredients, to be provided for the selected dish; at least one preparation step associated with a cooking operation associated with the selected dish; and step-by-step instructions for a presented one of the at least one preparation steps, wherein the step-by-step instructions are required to be performed by the user; d. a detector device configured to: detect when the user has performed each of the step- by-step instructions of the presented one of said at least one preparation steps; and d.1 present an indication of completion of the presented one of said at least one preparation step as performed by the user; and e. a performer device configured to: Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 3 perform, in response to the detection of the completion of the step-by-step instructions, a cooking operation, wherein the cooking operation is based on the presented one of said at least one preparation step; provide an indication of a completion of the cooking operation performed; determine whether a last cooking operation associated with said selected dish has been performed; determine, when the last cooking operation has not been performed, a next preparation step associated with a next cooking operation associated with the selected dish; present to the user said next preparation step; perform said steps c-e until the last cooking operation has been completed; and provide an indication to the user of completion of the selected dish. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McCoy (US 8,477,007 B2; July 2, 2013) and Do (US 2009/0259689 A1; Oct. 15, 2009). Final Act. 2-10. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McCoy, Do, and Liu (US 8,334,004 B2; Dec. 18, 2012). Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 4 conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine McCoy and Do as proposed by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 12-19; Reply Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellant argues McCoy teaches a system that minimizes interaction with the user, who is not involved in and does not require knowledge of steps performed by the appliance to complete a desired operation. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues McCoy teaches away from providing step-by-step instructions to the user to minimize interaction with the user. Id. at 14, 16. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient rationale to incorporate Do’s presentation of instructions to a user with McCoy’s food preparation appliance that limits interaction with the user. Id. at 18. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellant’s argument that McCoy teaches away because McCoy teaches minimizing interaction with the user is unpersuasive because it is not supported by the reference. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, McCoy teaches numerous examples of the cooking appliance interacting with the user. Specifically, McCoy teaches appliance performance is affected drastically by the steps the user takes to adequately prepare the article, such as food, for the appliance before, during, and after appliance operation. McCoy 47:47-48:26. Examples of operations the user should perform prior to appliance operation include “applying ingredients like spices, oils, or condiments to food, shaking a liquid additive like a turkey baste solution, boiling a pot of water, removing a food item from a package and placing it in a micro-wave sleeve, Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 5 [and] mixing an egg with the contents of a box.” Id. at 47:62-66. McCoy also provides extensive lists of examples for steps a user may perform during and after appliance operation. Id. at 48:5-18. Thus, McCoy explicitly teaches that user should interact with the appliance’s ingredients before, during, and after appliance operation. Further, Appellant has not identified, nor have we found, any instance of McCoy criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging providing the user with instructions for these various operations. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided sufficient rationale for the proposed combination is also unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 3-6) that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Do’s advanced interactive graphical user interface for food preparing steps with McCoy’s cooking appliance to arrive at the claimed apparatus and method. As the Examiner finds, the proposed combination would allow Do’s user interface to provide the user instructions for the preparation steps and Do’s sensors to provide further information about the tools and ingredients needed for those steps. See id. at 6. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 10, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 9-19. We also sustain the rejection of claims 3-7, 9, and 12-15, which Appellant do not separately argue, for the same reasons. See id. Appeal 2021-001445 Application 13/321,919 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 10, 12-15 103 McCoy, Do 1, 3-7, 10, 12-15 9 103 McCoy, Do, Liu 9 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED