DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/21/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3 and 6 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. claims 12 – 20 were previously withdrawn. Thus, claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 11 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments to the Non-Final Rejection on 07/01/2025 have been fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "distribution means" in claim 1, "supply means" in claim 2, "closure means" in claim 5, "positioning means" in claim 8 and "reactivation means" in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus,
"distribution means" is interpreted to mean any cart comprising trays that holds and transports the food containers as recited in ¶ 0112 of the publication specification, and equivalents thereof for the purpose of this examination.
"supply means" is interpreted to mean any delivery structure, e.g. conveyor belt, for supplying the container as recited in ¶ 0045 and 0055 of the publication of the specification, and equivalents thereof for the purpose of this examination.
"closure means" is interpreted to mean any positioner of the pressurizing station to close the lid over the food container as recited in ¶ 0075 - 0077 of the publication of the specification, and equivalents thereof for the purpose of this examination.
"positioning means" is interpreted to mean any mechanical arm for moving the tray or the prepared food of containers as recited in ¶ 0103 - 0105 of the publication of the specification, and equivalents thereof for the purpose of this examination.
"reactivation means" is interpreted to means is interpreted to mean any microwave heater or warmer of the food container as recited in ¶ 0129 - 0130 of the publication of the specification, and equivalents thereof for the purpose of this examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guarino (US 5,863,576 A), hereinafter “Guarino”, in view of Palumbo et al. (US 2017/0029146 A1) and hereinafter “Palumbo”.
Regarding claim 1, Guarino discloses an automated system for the preparation and distribution of food (machine for packing and microwaving food 12 as shown in the steps of FIG.4, (4:61 – 5:55 and see annotated FIG.4), the9 automated system comprising:
- at least one supply station of at least one container adapted to contain a plurality of food ingredients (providing pallet container 14, bag 16 and packaging 10 (FIG.1) adapted to hold a plurality of marinated food ingredients 12, (4:04 – 20, see FIG.1 and annotated FIG.4) *Note – “supply station” is where the pallet container 14 bag 16 and packaging 10 are provided to the machine);
- at least one filling station of said at least one container with said food ingredients (the food ingredient 12 is placed on the pallet container 14 (filled) and the container 14 is enveloped into bag 16 and packaging 10 by the machine, (4:61 – 5:15 and see annotated FIG.4));
- at least one pressurization station (vacuum sealing station, see annotated FIG.4) wherein said pressurization station comprises vacuum generating means , said container being provided with at least one valve element adapted to operate in conjunction with said connecting device to generate a vacuum inside said container (in the vacuum sealing station, a vacuum is applied to the bag 16 and sealing edges 18 (valve elements) are closed to generate vacuum packed food within package or bag 16, (5: 16 – 26 and see annotated FIG.4)) ;
- at least one microwave cooking station (microwaving station, see annotated FIG.4) positioned after said pressurization station, for microwave cooking of said food ingredients inside at least one vacuum container (the microwaving station is positioned after the vacuum sealing station, wherein the vacuum sealed package 16 is microwaved in its sealed condition, (5:43 – 55 and see annotated FIG.4)); and
- distribution means of said at least one container to an end consumer (the food package is distributed through a retail, business or storage units for consumption, (5:39 – 42)).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guarino further teaches that in the vacuum sealing station, a machinery well-known in packaging food stuffs can be used to generate the vacuum within the bag 16 and the sealing edge 18, (5:17 – 19).
Guarino does not explicitly teach the well-known food packaging machinery used to generate vacuum within the food container comprises at least one vacuum pump and at least one connecting device adapted to connect said vacuum pump to said container.
However, Palumbo that relates to an apparatus and process for packaging of food products (0001 - 0002), also teaches a vacuum pump 28 and evacuation pipe 29 connecting the inside of packaging chamber 24 to the vacuum pump to facilitate the removal of gas from the package and generate vacuum within the packaging chamber, (0129 and see FIG.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vacuum sealing station of Guarino to include a vacuum pump and a connector that pumps vacuum to the food bag and sealing edges to facilitate the removal of gas from the package and generate a vacuum sealed food package as taught in Palumbo. POSITA apprised of Palumbo’s vacuum pump and connector used in vacuum packaging of food items would routinely and easily apply the same, with a reasonable expectation of success, in the vacuum sealing station of Guarino that applies vacuum to the food bag in order to generate a vacuum sealed food package before microwaved.
Regarding claim 2, Guarino in view of Palumbo teaches the automated system according to claim 1, wherein said supply station comprises supply means of said at least one container at the point where at least one preparation line is located (the pallet 14 is placed by hand or a machine for filling the food ingredient 14 onto the pallet, Guarino (4:64 – 66 and see FIG.1)) and a transport assembly 3 with a conveyor 46, Palumbo (0275)), wherein said container comprises at least one container body adapted to contain said food ingredients and at least one lid adapted to close said container body (the container comprises a pallet 14 to place the food ingredients 12, a bag 16 with a seal 18 to cover the pallet 14 and a package 10, please see Guarino’s FIG.1).
Regarding claim 3, Guarino in view of Palumbo teaches the automated system according to claim 2, wherein said filling station comprises at least one loading device for at least one food ingredient placed at the point were said at least one preparation line is located (a machine, a hand or a combination of both for placing the food ingredient 12 onto the pallet container 14, Guarino (4:65 – 5:05 and see annotated FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 5, Guarino in view of Palumbo teaches the automated system according to claim 2, wherein said pressurization station comprises closure means of said lid to close said container body (the vacuum sealing station comprises a sealing mechanism of edge 18 after applying vacuum to the bag 16 or heat sealing of the edges of the bag 16 is performed, Guarino (5:17 – 25 and see annotated FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 6, Guarino in view of Palumbo teaches he automated system according to claim 5, wherein said closure means coincide with said vacuum generating means (the sealing of edges 18 are closed as the vacuum applying machine provides vacuum to the cover bag 16, Guarino (5:17 – 25)), said at least one connecting device being adapted to operate in conjunction with said lid to position the latter on said container body (the evacuation pipe 29 connecting the inside of packaging chamber 24 to the vacuum pump is adapted to operate in conjunction with cover 18 to facilitate generation of vacuum within the packaging chamber, Palumbo (0129 and see FIG.6)).
Claim(s) 7 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guarino in view of Palumbo in further view of Beizermann (US 5,393,960 A) and hereinafter "Beizermann".
Regarding claim 7, Guarino in view of Palumbo teaches the automated system according to claim 1.
Guarino in view of Palumbo do not explicitly teach wherein said distribution means comprises a preparation station of at least one tray adapted to support said at least one
container (claim 7), wherein said preparation station comprises positioning means of said tray and said at least one container at the point where at least one positioning line is located (claim8), wherein said distribution means comprise at least one cart which is adapted to contain and transport said at least one tray provided with at least one of said containers (claim 9), wherein said distribution means comprise reactivation means adapted to heat at least part of said containers (claim 10), wherein said reactivation means comprise at least one microwave emitting device, (claim 11).
However, Beizermann that relates to a device for the transport and distribution of meal
trays (1:05 – 10), also teaches a mobile preparation unit 2 comprising food trays 4 for holding food packages (2:08 – 15 and see FIG.1), slotted drawers for sliding in and out (positioning means) the trays from the mobile trolleys (2: 16 - 35 and see FIGS. 4), wherein the mobile preparation unit is comprised of two mobile trolleys 1 (carts), (see FIG.1), wherein the mobile preparation unit 2 comprises a microwave oven 3 for reheating the food in the containers (microwave oven is a reactivation means microwave emitting device), (2:8 - 19 and 21 - 23 and see FIG.1).
Beizermann, Further suggests that such arrangement of distribution means have
advantage of being of simple construction that would provide mobility to transport food in narrow
hallways for instance between kitchens and serving areas, (1:35 – 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the distribution means of the automated
system of claim 1 taught by Guarino in view of Palumbo to be of the same arrangement at the consumer point in order to realize a simplified and cheap distribution system that provides
mobility between kitchens and serving areas that have small space settings as taught in Beizermann.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, Remarks, pages 1 - 3, with respect to the Non-Final Rejection on 07/01/2025 have been fully considered and the following response is provided herein.
Claim objections and indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the claim objection to claim 4 and the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3 and 6 in the Non-Final rejection. As such, the objections and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The amendments to the claims did not provide sufficient structure to the interpreted limitations. As such, the claim interpretations are maintained herein.
Obviousness claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The arguments regarding the amendment overcoming the obviousness of rejection of independent claim 1 by Karoline in view of Van Appeldoorn is 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 argument. Independent claim 1 now stands rejected by Guarino in view of Palumbo.
Applicant also submitted that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency. The same response applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761