DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of the independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments
[e.g., in view of applicant’s amendments (e.g., reference the amendments per the claims filed 09/08/2025), an updated search was performed that revealed new prior art that fairly renders the claimed invention(s) obvious when considered with respect to the previously cited prior art reference WO 2017156586A1 (Meij)];
[e.g., US 20130277353 A1 (Joseph) teaches analogous cooking device/oven, wherein said cooking device/oven is configured with respect to a software application that enables a user to monitor a food item being cooked in the cooking device/oven and adjust or generate a cooking setting (e.g., temperature) for the food items being cooked therein, and wherein the cooking/device further includes a self-cleaning functionality, of which is well-known in the art for being with respect to the use of relatively high temperatures to remove food spillage and grime (or droppings) that accumulate(s) over time].
Further note that while the examiner agrees with applicant’s previous argument (reference the arguments/remarks filed 09/08/2025) in that Meij fails to necessarily teach choosing a cooking setting [e.g., a temperature] for the food item via the application on the communication device [e.g., such that the user can adjust the temperature in the cooking device via the application on the communication device], the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion that Meij fails to teach or reasonably suggest choosing settings (whether directly or indirectly) via the application on the communication device, wherein said settings include navigation settings comprising choosing a delivery location of the robotic cooking device and generating a navigation path of the robotic cooking device (see Fig. 10-11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0027]-[0029], [0053], [0116], [0119], [0153]-[0156]) [e.g., choosing where the robotic cooking device is to deliver the particular food item(s) to/from via the online ordering system will result in the generation of a navigation path of the robotic cooking device, especially considering that the robotic cooking device is configured to autonomously navigate to reach the ordering user/customer at a particular destination or delivery location]; [e.g., “the on-board computer is preferably also capable of obtaining or being provided with real-time map or routing information for use in navigation and/or collision avoidance”]; [e.g., the navigation path generated also being generally indicated via the arrows per Fig. 10, and such that the particular navigation path being generated is clearly a function of the delivery location that is input via the application on the user’s communication device (e.g., phone, computer, etc.)]. See detailed rejection below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a means to communicate with a communication device wirelessly via an application (see claim 1); and
a control system to localize the robotic cooking device within an environment (see claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification provides the following as the structure(s) for performing the claimed function(s):
the means to communicate is with respect to a wireless network card that provides wireless connectivity (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) to the internet (see paragraph [0014]); and
the control system to localize is with respect to one or more of cameras, LiDAR, GPS, etc. configured with respect to at least one processor (or on-board computer comprising said at least one processor) (see paragraphs [0010], [0026]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a user” twice. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct user limitations are being established in the claim. Note that the examiner has construed the aforementioned limitations such that the latter recitation of “a user” reads “the user”, since this appears to be applicant’s intent.
The claim recites “the settings”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly mention(s) “settings”].
The claim recites “a food item” twice. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct food item limitations are being established in the claim. Note that the examiner has construed the aforementioned limitations such that the latter recitation of “a food item” reads “the food item”, since this appears to be applicant’s intent.
The claim recites “a destination” and “a delivery location”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what distinguishes the aforementioned limitations from one another [e.g., the limitations appear to be in reference to the same feature, and/or there is no meaningful nor clear distinction between the destination and the delivery location, as both limitations appear to be with respect to where the food item is being delivered to].
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the temperature”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly mention(s) “a temperature”]; [e.g., while “temperature sensors” are clearly established, an actual temperature within the cooking device(s) has not been clearly established].
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the fan speed”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly mention(s) “a fan speed”]; [e.g., claim 10 does not depend from claim 5].
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “a delivery location”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct delivery location limitations are being established in the claims [e.g., claim 1 already provides for “a delivery location”]. Note that the examiner has construed the aforementioned limitation such that the latter recitation of “a delivery location” reads “the delivery location”, since this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the temperature”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly mention(s) “a temperature”].
The claim further recites “a high temperature”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily constitutes a “high” temperature [e.g., the term “high” is a subjective and/or relative term, and as such, without a clear definition or point of reference, it is not exactly clear as to what constitutes a “high” temperature].
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “the high temperature”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., there is/are no preceding claim limitation(s) that clearly mention(s) “a high temperature”]; [e.g., claim 23 depends from claim 1, not claim 22].
Furthermore, the claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what necessarily constitutes a “high” temperature [e.g., the term “high” is a subjective and/or relative term, and as such, without a clear definition or point of reference, it is not exactly clear as to what constitutes a “high” temperature].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2017156586A1 (Meij) in view of US 20130277353 A1 (Joseph).
Regarding claim 1, Meij (Figures 1-11) teaches a robotic cooking device (10) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraph [0053]) comprising:
a chassis (see Fig. 1) [e.g., the base frame of mobile base unit 11];
a set of wheels (see Fig. 1) [e.g., the wheels of mobile base unit 11];
a processor (see paragraph [0006]) [e.g., an on-board computer configured with software];
an actuator (see paragraph [0067]) [e.g., at least one electrical connection assembly that allows the autonomous vehicle to provide operating power to the vehicle mounted device(s) and components thereof];
one or more sensors (see paragraph [0029]) [e.g., one or more detection devices]; [e.g., any type or combination of radar, lidar, GPS, odometry and/or computer-aided vision, virtual reality or augmented reality technology, etc.];
one or more motors (see paragraph [0140]) [e.g., “one or more electric motors to drive the preferred wheels”]; and
one or more cooking devices (13) (see Fig. 8 in conjunction with paragraphs [0032], [0053], [0136], [0157]) [e.g., “The deployable portion into which food is placed for delivery may also be capable of preparing or cooking the food whilst the delivery is in progress”]; [e.g., the reference numeral 13 indicates the deployable portion];
a means to communicate with a communication device [e.g., 26 per Fig. 11]; [e.g., a smart phone, tablet, personal computing device, etc.] wirelessly via an application corresponding to the robotic cooking device executed on the communication device (see Fig. 11 in conjunction with paragraph [0119]);
a control system to localize the robotic cooking device within an environment, to navigate autonomously from a source (17) to a destination (19) and to transmit its location to the application for being presented to a user [e.g., an ordering customer] (14) on a map (see Fig. 10-11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0006], [0027]-[0029], [0116], [0119], [0153]-[0156]) [e.g., using data collected by the one or more sensors of the robotic cooking device, the robotic cooking device is localized with respect to navigating (or within) a dynamic/local environment]; [e.g., using data collected by one or more of radar, lidar, GPS, etc., the on-board computer is capable of obtaining or being provided with real-time map or routing information for use in navigation and/or collision avoidance]; [e.g., “In a particularly preferred form, a software application is provided with embedded functionality allowing the production of a location interface showing the delivery”]; [e.g., “Preferably, the at least one wireless communication module will send second-by-second data as to the location and speed of the vehicle as well as vector data to at least one remote location, normally to a monitoring system to allow the monitoring system to convey this information to the home base (the information can be sent directly to the home base) and/or other interested parties such as for example, the ordering customer”]; [e.g., “an online ordering system in order to allow a customer to receive real-time updates about the location of their order during the delivery process”];
wherein a user requests a delivery of a food item [e.g., via an online ordering and delivery tracking system], and the food item is cooked while being transferred to the user and the application corresponding to the robotic cooking device executed on the communication device is configured to provide an interface to the user to remotely choose the settings of the robotic cooking device, wherein the settings of the robotic cooking device comprise both navigation settings comprising choosing a delivery location of the robotic cooking device and generating a navigation path of the robotic cooking device (see Fig. 10-11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0027]-[0029], [0053], [0116], [0119], [0153]-[0156]) [e.g., “The deployable portion into which food is placed for delivery may also be capable of preparing or cooking the food whilst the delivery is in progress”]; [e.g., choosing where the robotic cooking device is to deliver the particular food item(s) to/from via the online ordering system will result in the generation of a navigation path of the robotic cooking device, especially considering that the robotic cooking device is configured to autonomously navigate to reach the ordering user/customer at a particular destination or delivery location]; [e.g., “the on-board computer is preferably also capable of obtaining or being provided with real-time map or routing information for use in navigation and/or collision avoidance”]; [e.g., the navigation path generated also being generally indicated via the arrows per Fig. 10, and such that the particular navigation path being generated is clearly a function of the delivery location that is input via the application on the user’s communication device (e.g., phone, computer, etc.)].
Meij fails to expressly teach wherein the settings further include adjusting or generating a cooking setting for the food item [e.g., noting that presumably, at least a default cooking setting that is a function of the delivery location/distance and/or the particular food item is generated], wherein the application corresponding to the robotic cooking device executed on the communication device is further configured to display information comprising monitoring a food item within the cooking device of the robotic cooking device [e.g., noting that the monitoring per Meij is with respect to a location of the robotic cooking device, and not specifically with respect to the food item inside the robotic cooking device].
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to adjust or generate a cooking setting for a food item being cooked in the cooking device [e.g., adjusting a temperature, turning the cooking device on/off, etc.], and wherein the software application corresponding to the cooking device executed on the communication device is further configured to display information [e.g., via a camera configured to stream video] comprising monitoring the food item within the cooking device (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0059], [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., “the oven may be controlled and/or accessed by an oven access app on an oven user's mobile phone or tablet computing device. This may be considered remote access of the oven by a computing device (for example, a mobile phone, computer, or tablet) external to the oven”]; [e.g., “The user may also control certain features of the oven via the oven access app, including temperature setting and placing the oven off. In another embodiment, the camera may be IP address accessible so that the camera may be viewed by an Internet browser or other software at any location”]; [e.g., “the cooking control chamber of the Android controlled oven is augmented with a camera. The cooking and controlling app may access the cooking chamber camera so that the oven user can take photos of items while they are cooking. The camera may be used to stream video of the items being cooked to a user of the oven access app”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply the software application and cooking device functionality per Joseph to the invention(s) per Meij as a modification [e.g., augmenting the cooking device(s) per Meij with at least one video camera, and providing additional functionality to the cooking device(s) and/or software application(s) per Meij, including at least remote video streaming and temperature control(s) via the software application(s)], as suggested by Joseph, in order to enable the user to see exactly how the food item(s) is/are being cooked and/or monitor the cooking process(es) in real time, and customize (or optimize) the particular (or desired) degree and/or extent via which the food item(s) is/are cooked (implicit in view of the context per Joseph) (also see paragraphs [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., via giving the user(s) more control over the cooking setting(s) while the food item(s) is/are being cooked, the user(s) is/are able to easily and/or precisely ensure that the food item(s) reach a desired temperature prior to consumption, as opposed to relying on initial/default cooking settings that aren’t configured to be adjusted by the user(s)].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Meij and Joseph are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning cooking devices, software applications associated with cooking devices, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the features/functionality per Joseph to the cooking device(s) and/or software application(s) per Meij to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) per Joseph discussed above, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, the particular location(s) where the food item(s) is/are being cooked, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Regarding claim 3, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the communication device is a dedicated communication device coupled to the robotic cooking device (see Fig. 11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0119]) [e.g., dedicated such that the device (or application) serves a specific purpose (and/or is used to accomplish a specific task)].
Regarding claim 4, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches wherein the communication device is one or more of a mobile phone (26), a laptop, a desktop computer, or a tablet (see Fig. 11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0159], [0161]) [e.g., a mobile or personal computing device encompassing laptops, desktops, and tablets].
Regarding claim 5, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the settings include one or more of a food temperature, a temperature within the one or more cooking devices, a cooking time, a food type, and activating or deactivating the cooking device (or operation schedule) (see paragraph [0053]) [e.g., “the time to cook a pizza at a particular temperature will typically be more or less fixed”, “the autonomous vehicle can be charged with starting the cooking and cooking the food whilst the delivery is underway in order to ensure that the food arrives at the delivery location at substantially the same time that the cooking process ends”].
Meij fails to explicitly tach wherein the user necessarily chooses the aforementioned one or more settings [e.g., even though at least indirectly, via choosing the particular delivery location, the user is at least to some extent affecting the activating and deactivating of the cooking device (or operation schedule)].
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to adjust a cooking setting for a food item being cooked in the cooking device [e.g., adjusting a temperature, turning the cooking device on/off, etc.] (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0059], [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., “The user may also control certain features of the oven via the oven access app, including temperature setting and placing the oven off”]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) one or more temperature sensors for measuring the temperature within the one or more cooking devices (see Fig. 8 in conjunction with paragraphs [0053], [0157]) [e.g., one skilled in the art can reasonably infer that temperature is necessarily being sensed and/or measured within the one or more cooking devices, such that if this were not the case, then the food would not be able to be accurately cooked at a particular temperature and within a given time frame, nor would there be a way to ensure that the food isn’t unintentionally burnt, overheated, overcooled and/or frozen]; [e.g., “the time taken to cook a pizza at a particular temperature will typically be more or less fixed” (if there wasn’t at least one sensor for measuring the temperature within the one or more cooking devices, then achieving a particular (or the required) temperature for a given food item would not be possible)].
Regarding claim 7, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor of the robotic cooking device adjusts temperature within the cooking device or a temperature set using the application executed on the communication device connected to the robotic cooking device [e.g., while at least a default cooking setting/temperature that is a function of the delivery location/distance and/or the particular food item when an online order is placed is suggested, Meij doesn’t explicitly teach wherein via the application on the communication device, said default temperature can be adjusted].
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to adjust a cooking setting for a food item being cooked in the cooking device [e.g., adjusting a temperature, turning the cooking device on/off, etc.] (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0059], [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., “The user may also control certain features of the oven via the oven access app, including temperature setting and placing the oven off”]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the one or more cooking devices comprises one or more active heating and/or cooling devices (see Fig. 8 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036], [0053]) [e.g., the active heating and/or cooling devices encompassing any/all well-known heating and/or cooling devices used with respect to the preparation and/or cooking of food, such as a grill, oven, microwave, freezer, smoker, fryer, stove, hot plate, cooler, etc.].
Regarding claim 9, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to expressly teach wherein the robotic cooking device further comprises a fan.
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), and wherein the cooking device is provided with a fan (120 per Fig. 3).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly implement a fan into the cooking device(s) per Meij, as suggested by Joseph, in order to circulate hot air inside the cooking device(s), and thereby eliminate hot spots to cook food more efficiently and/or more uniformly, and/or to achieve a more consistent final product (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the use of one or more fans inside of a cooking device/oven) (also see paragraphs [0006], [0030]) [e.g., even without the baffles 200 per Fig. 3 of Joseph, the fan 120 is nonetheless the feature that is circulating and/or distributing the air in the cooking chamber and/or is the key component facilitating the disclosed improved cooking efficiency and uniform cooking of food].
Regarding claim 11, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches wherein the processor(s) of the robotic cooking device generate(s) a map of the environment by combining data collected by the one or more sensors of the robotic cooking device (see paragraphs [0027], [0029]) [e.g., “the on-board computer is preferably also capable of obtaining or being provided with real-time map or routing information for use in navigation and/or collision avoidance”, “preferred devices that allow the autonomous delivery vehicle to navigate and identify objects using radar, lidar, location technologies such as GPS, odometry and/or computer-aided vision, virtual reality or augmented reality technology”].
Regarding claim 12, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the processor of the robotic cooking device localizes the robotic cooking device within a phase space using data collected by the one or more sensors of the robotic cooking device (see paragraphs [0006], [0027], [0029]) [e.g., using data collected by the one or more sensors of the robotic cooking device, the robotic cooking device is localized with respect to navigating (or within) a dynamic/local environment]; [e.g., using data collected by one or more of radar, lidar, GPS, etc., the on-board computer is capable of obtaining or being provided with real-time map or routing information for use in navigation and/or collision avoidance].
Regarding claim 13, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches wherein the application executed on the communication device [e.g., 26 per Fig. 11] wirelessly connected to the robotic cooking device is used for ordering the food item to a delivery location (see Fig. 11 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0053], [0119], [0159], [0161]) [e.g., see smart phone 26].
Regarding claim 14, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches wherein the food item is cooked in route to the delivery location (see paragraph [0053]) [e.g., “The deployable portion into which food is placed for delivery may also be capable of preparing or cooking the food whilst the delivery is in progress”].
Regarding claim 15, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches wherein the application executed on the communication device is used for monitoring a current location of the robotic cooking device (see paragraphs [0116], [0119], [0176]) [e.g., the system will provide for real-time tracking of the location and status of the autonomous delivery vehicle and for management thereof]; [e.g., a portion of the information from the system for real-time monitoring of vehicles may be provided to an online ordering system in order to allow a customer to receive real-time updates about the location of their order during the delivery process].
Regarding claim 16, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further suggests (at least implicitly) wherein cooking settings for the food item are chosen and saved using the application executed on the communication device (see paragraphs [0053], [0116]) [e.g., when a customer orders via the online ordering system, at least default cooking settings are chosen and saved with respect to the cooking settings concerning a particular food item and the time it takes to cook the particular food item at a particular temperature within a particular time]; [e.g., if the aforementioned settings were not saved, then the robotic cooking device wouldn’t be able to know when to commence the process of automatically cooking the food items with respect to a time and/or location from the delivery location].
To the extent that Meij arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein cooking settings [e.g., at least default cooking settings] for the food item are chosen and saved using the application executed on the communication device, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to choose and save a cooking setting [e.g., temperature] for a food item being cooked in the cooking device using the application executed on the communication device (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0059], [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., “The user may also control certain features of the oven via the oven access app, including temperature setting and placing the oven off”]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the application executed on the communication device is used for choosing the food item to cook (see paragraphs [0053], [0116], [0119]) [e.g., choosing a pizza (or a particular food item) to be cooked (and subsequently delivered) via an online ordering system].
Regarding claim 18, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij (Figures 1-11) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein default cooking settings for the food item are selected by the robotic cooking device to cook the food item (see paragraphs [0053], [0116]) [e.g., when a customer orders via the online ordering system, at least default cooking settings are selected with respect to the cooking settings concerning a particular food item and the time it takes to cook the particular food item at a particular temperature within a particular time].
Regarding claim 21, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to expressly teach wherein the application executed on the communication device is used (or usable) to view a real time video captured by the one or more sensors of the robotic device, of the food item being cooked or to monitor the cooking progress of the food item [e.g., while Meij does at least suggest allowing a user to track the location and status of the autonomous delivery vehicle (and by extension, the cooking progress of the food item), Meij does not expressly teach utilizing sensors to enable the user to watch a video of their food item(s) being cooked in real time remotely].
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to view a real time video, captured by one or more sensors [e.g., via a camera configured to stream video] of the cooking device, of the food item while being cooked or to monitor the cooking process of the food item (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0059], [0077]-[0079]) [e.g., “the oven may be controlled and/or accessed by an oven access app on an oven user's mobile phone or tablet computing device. This may be considered remote access of the oven by a computing device (for example, a mobile phone, computer, or tablet) external to the oven”]; [e.g., “In another embodiment, the camera may be IP address accessible so that the camera may be viewed by an Internet browser or other software at any location”]; [e.g., “the cooking control chamber of the Android controlled oven is augmented with a camera. The cooking and controlling app may access the cooking chamber camera so that the oven user can take photos of items while they are cooking. The camera may be used to stream video of the items being cooked to a user of the oven access app”]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 22-23, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to teach a self-cleaning mechanism that comprises at least adjusting the temperature to a high temperature when the food item is not present, and wherein the high temperature burns droppings.
However, Joseph (Figures 1-16) teaches an analogous cooking device (100), wherein a corresponding communication device [e.g., a mobile phone, personal computer, etc.] is configured to be provided with a software application (1610 on home screen 1600 per Fig. 16) that allows a user to adjust a cooking setting for a food item being cooked in the cooking device [e.g., adjusting a temperature, turning the cooking device on/off, etc.], and such that the cooking device is configured to execute a self-cleaning function (see Fig. 1, 16 in conjunction with paragraphs [0006], [0059], [0063]-[0064], [0077]-[0079] and claims 8, 17) [e.g., “The user may also control certain features of the oven via the oven access app, including temperature setting and placing the oven off”]; [e.g., “wherein the cooking modes include at least three of bake, broil, pure convection, dehydrate, defrost, warm/hold, proof, self-clean, slow cook and guided cooking”]; [e.g., further noting that it is well-understood to those of ordinary skill in the art that a self-cleaning functionality of an oven (or a self-cleaning oven) is with respect to the use of relatively high temperatures to remove food spillage and grime (or droppings) that accumulates overtime (e.g., the relatively high temperatures burning cooked-on food into more easily removable ash), and is presumably performed when not presently cooking a food item, and such that it is reasonable to presume that the invention(s) per Joseph is/are configured (or configurable) with the functionality claimed]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply the adjustable temperature and self-cleaning functionality per Joseph to the invention(s) per Meij as a modification [e.g., providing additional functionality to the cooking device(s) per Meij, including at least adjustable temperature control(s) and self-cleaning functionality], as suggested by Joseph, in order to enable the user to see increase the temperature(s) in the cooking device to perform a self-cleaning function and/or make the cooking device easier to clean [e.g., the relatively high temperatures burning cooked-on food (or droppings) into ash that is easier to remove than stuck on food, grime, droppings, etc.] (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of a self-cleaning functionality in cooking devices/ovens).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Meij and Joseph are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning cooking devices, software applications associated with cooking devices, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the features/functionality per Joseph to the cooking device(s) and/or software application(s) per Meij to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) per Joseph discussed above, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, desired cleaning burden, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2017156586A1 (Meij) in view of US 20130277353 A1 (Joseph) in further view of US 8087407 B2 (Wiker).
Regarding claim 10, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to expressly teach wherein the robotic cooking device comprises a fan configured such that the processor of the robotic cooking device adjusts the fan speed to maintain a predetermined temperature within the cooking device or a temperature or a temperature within the cooking device using the application of the communication device connected to the robotic cooking device [e.g., noting that while Joseph does teach a fan 120 per Fig. 3, Joseph makes no mention of adjusting a speed of the fan as per claim 10].
However, Wiker (Figures 1, 3a-4, 12-17) teaches an analogous cooking device (20) [e.g., oven for baking pizzas, and the like], wherein the cooking device comprises one or more fans (72, 74), and wherein the cooking device adjusts a fan speed to maintain a predetermined temperature within the cooking device or a temperature within the cooking device set using the application of a communication device (or a remote input device, such as a computer and the like) connected to the robotic cooking device (see Fig. 1, 3a-4 in conjunction with abstract, column 3, lines 35-60, column 8, lines 38-55, and column 18, lines 49-62) [e.g., a controller configured to receive a signal from a remote input device and to change the fan speed based at least in part upon the signal received from the remote input device]; [e.g., “it is desirable in some embodiments to control the speed of either or both fans 72, 74 based at least in part on one or more temperatures sensed within the oven 20 …”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to utilize one or more fans and such that the speed of the fans is adjustable to maintain a predetermined temperature within the cooking device or a temperature within the cooking device set using the application of a communication device (or remote input device) as a modification (or alternative) in the cooking device per Meij [e.g., utilizing one or more adjustable speed fans that may be controlled via a remote input device/computer/smartphone/etc. in the one or more cooking devices 13 per Meij when cooking food (or a pizza) at a particular temperature within a particular time], as suggested by Wiker, in order to achieve uniform (or more uniform) heating of the food item(s) and/or an improvement in energy management/energy savings (see column 8, lines 23-37, column 14, lines 53-57, and/or column 16, line 57 through column 17, line 23).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Meij and Wiker are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning cooking devices, food and/or pizza cooking devices/ovens, techniques for cooking food and/or pizza to a particular temperature within a particular time, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the teachings per Wiker to the cooking device(s) per Meij, and similarly, one skilled in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on the particulars of the application (e.g., food type, time to cook, oven type/size, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2017156586A1 (Meij) in view of US 20130277353 A1 (Joseph) in further view of US 20050193901 A1 (Buehler).
Regarding claims 19-20, Meij in view of Joseph teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Meij fails to expressly teach wherein the robotic cooking device further comprises one or more cooking tools comprising at least one of tongs, spatula, rotisserie spit, skewers, wire brush, baster, spoon, fork, and whisk, and consequently, wherein the robotic cooking device autonomously uses the one or more cooking tools to cook the food item(s) [e.g., Meij only teaches cooking, heating, cooling and/or freezing food, but does not teach one or more cooking tools used to cook the food item(s)].
However, Buehler (Figures 1-2, 39-40, 44) teaches an analogous autonomous (or almost completely autonomous) cooking device [e.g., the entirety of Fig. 1 or Fig. 2], wherein the cooking device comprises one or more cooking tools comprising at least one of a spatula, fork, and whisk and wherein the cooking device autonomously uses the one or more cooking tools to cook one or more food items (see Fig. 1-2, 39-40, 44 in conjunction with paragraphs [0010], [0013]-[0014], [0068]-[0069], [0073], [0124]-[0125], [0131]) [e.g., the manipulator(s) 2000 is/are configured to pick up attachable tools 3000 such as a spatula, fork, and whisk to cook one or more food items].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the cooking device autonomously uses one or more cooking tools to cook the food item(s) as a modification (or alternative) in the cooking device per Meij [e.g., having the food preparation and/or cooking per Meij further entail the utilization of autonomously used cooking tools], as suggested by Wiker, to achieve/allow for very (or more) precise control of the cooking process and a high degree of reproducibility and consistency, thereby achieving higher quality cooking [e.g., also via using one or more tools to adjust ingredients that may have moved during the navigation/guidance of the vehicle per Meij, the food item will be more likely to arrive in its intended state] (see paragraphs [0016]-[0018]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Meij and Buehler are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning cooking devices, food and/or pizza cooking devices/ovens, techniques for cooking food and/or pizza to a particular temperature within a particular time, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the teachings per Buehler to the cooking device(s) per Meij, and similarly, one skilled in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on the particulars of the application (e.g., food type, time to cook, oven type/size, etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747