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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology was found see MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(c). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a cooking worthy implement” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding the recitation of “wherein said food vessel comprising a lower receptacle having an upper opening” should read “wherein said food vessel comprises a lower receptacle having an upper opening” for clarity of record. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “plurality of food vessels, at least one of the food vessels” are not positively recited and as such are interpreted the automatic home cooking machine being adapted to be used with food vessels which is a statement of intended use and not positively required by the claim. As such, the examiner suggests making the recitation positively recited, the …lower plate which are positioned a plurality of food vessels, or something thereof because the recitation of “positionable a plurality of food vessels” is interpreted as a statement of intended use and not positively required by the claim)
Along the same lines, the recitation of the flux field, the examiner suggests, the flux field is directable to at least one of the food vessels, or something thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
“means for controllably discharging food products” in claims 1 and 5 is being interpreted as item screw conveyor 78 which are per par. 10 is a screw conveyor
“induction heating unit” in claims 1 and 11 is being interpreted as item induction heating unit 82 which are per par. 117 which is an induction coil
“cooking apparatus adapted to cook” in claims 1 is being interpreted as item 22 which are per par. 117 is an induction cooking coil.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “a food-safe ferromagnetic material” is unclear in the specification and claims because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to be food safe. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a food-safe ferromagnetic material”. An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible. See MPEP 2163A.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of a food-safe ferromagnetic material that becomes sufficiently heated to cook the received food products when impinged upon by a magnetic flux field generated by the at least one induction heating unit lacks written description as Applicant has not provided a description in the original disclosure which particularly points out which ferromagnetic materials are considered to meet the limitation of "becomes sufficiently heated to cook the received food products when impinged upon by a magnetic flux field generated by the at least one induction heating unit".
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “safely held” is unclear in the specification and claims because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to be “safely held”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “safely held”.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are 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, 6, and 7, the recitation of “Insulating plate” is unclear what structure is associated with the plate to make it insulating.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “further comprising an outer casing which is adapted to accommodate an above-counter or built-in space” is unclear what structure is required to make the outer casing capable of being adapted to accommodate an above-counter or built-in space.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “wherein the food vessel is adapted for facilitating both cooking of food products received therewithin and holding the food products after being cooked and while being eaten” is unclear what structure is required to allow the food vessel to be facilitated for cooking and holding food products after cooked and while being eaten.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “a food-safe ferromagnetic material” is unclear what structure is required to make the ferromagnetic material food safe.
The term “sufficiently heated” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently heated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “sufficiently cooled” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently cooled” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner is unclear what is being configured in the ceramic to meet the limitation of being sufficiently cooled, and what one or ordinary skill in the art would consider a temperature to be sufficiently cooled.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “and wherein the outer ceramic layer is able to become sufficiently cooled within less than one minute” is unclear what structure is required to allow the ceramic layer to be cooled within less than one minute.
The term “safely held” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safely held” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 12-15 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “at least one of two outer layers of the receptacle” is unclear because only one outer layer was previously recited in claim 11 of which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one of two outer layers of the receptacle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this presumes there are two outer layers already disclosed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the two outer layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “wherein the abutment is configured to urge radially inward compression of the two latches during downward displacement of the drive shaft” is unclear what structure is required to have the abutment configured to urge radially inward compression.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “wherein the cover member is further comprised with an interface member configured with the abutment” is unclear what the plain language meaning of “further comprised with”.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “a cooking worthy implement” is unclear what structure is required to meet the limitation of a cooking worthy implement.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20160235239A1 Patadia.
Regarding claim 1,
Patadia teaches,
An automatic home cooking machine (abstract), comprising:
a) a food storage section (storage area 7.2) for dry and unperishable food products (storage area 7.2 is capable of containing dry and unperishable food products);
b) means for controllably discharging food products (conveyor shaft 3.3) from said food storage section (par. 193);
c) a dispensing section (dispensers holding chamber 9) which includes a plurality of spaced controllable food dispensers (item dispenser 7) retained within a stationary freezer compartment (par. 180);
d) a lower plate (base disc 17.16) on which are positionable a plurality of food vessels (17.9)(figs. 1d and 1e and 17)(an alternative food vessel auto pressure cooker per fig. 18);
e) at least one induction heating unit (induction heating unit 5) configured to generate a magnetic flux field that is directed to at least one of the food vessels (par. 18, claim 12);
f) a rotatable insulating plate (rotatable body 6.1) located below said freezer compartment (figs. 1a through 1f) and formed with an aperture dropping container 6.7) through which desired food products are gravitationally delivered either from said food storage section or from said dispensing section to an underlying one of the food vessels located directly below said aperture (par. 192);
and g) cooking apparatus adapted to cook the food products received within each of the food vessels (par. 191).
Regarding claim 8,
Patadia teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
further comprising a feeding section laterally spaced to the freezer compartment through which an used food vessel is introducible, and vertical transfer apparatus (lifting mechanism 13.9) configured with a vertically oriented endless belt (lifting unit’s rod 13.10) aligned with an interspace between said feeding section and a cooking machine casing and with one or more support clips attached to said endless belt for intercepting a food vessel introduced through said feeding section, wherein said vertical transfer apparatus is adapted to downwardly transfer said intercepted food vessel to a waiting position above a cooking machine floor (par. 200).
Regarding claim 9,
Patadia teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 8 (as discussed above),
wherein the lower plate is configured with a circular base plate (fig. 17 base plate 17.16), a plurality of pivotable leaf elements each of which provided with a solid recessed region to support a corresponding food vessel (holding sprockets 17.17 see annotated fig. 17 below and par. 213), and a dividing element (see annotated fig. 17 below and par. 213), wherein of each said leaf elements is outwardly pivotable with respect to said base plate during rotation in a first rotational direction of the lower plate and is seatable in a corresponding recessed portion defined by said base plate and two adjacent arms of said dividing element when set to a non- pivoted position during rotation in a second rotational direction of the lower plate which is opposite to the first rotational direction (see annotated fig. 17 below and par. 213).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10,
Patadia teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 9 (as discussed above),
wherein rotation of the lower plate is synchronized with operation of the vertical transfer apparatus, such that one of the leaf elements is pivoted into a zone of the feeding section to receive the food vessel held at the waiting position during release of the support clip from the food vessel held at the waiting position (par. 213 teaches the synchronization of the digital connecting sockets to cause the lifter 17.7 to come in contact with the bucket’s holding socket rotary unit 17.18 to lift the bucket and drop the ingredients into the pan).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160235239A1 Patadia in view of US20200359845A1 Carlos.
Regarding claim 2,
Patadia teaches, The cooking machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: further comprising an outer casing which is adapted to accommodate an above-counter or built-in space.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Carlos teaches an automatic cooking machine (par. 19, 21, and fig. 1) with a food storage section (storage containers 102 par. 19), means for controllably discharging food products (par. 76), dispensing section (dispenser actuator 106), plurality of spaced controllable food dispensers (dispenser 103) retained within a stationary freezer compartment (par. 71), lower plate (cooking receptables 108), rotatable insulating plate (par. 76), cooking apparatus (cooking receptacles 108) and further teaches comprising an outer casing (housing 111) which is adapted to accommodate an above-counter or built-in space (fig. 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the home cooking apparatus of Patadia with the teachings of Carlos such that the home cooking apparatus of Patadia is usable in an above counter or built in space.
Claim(s)3, 4, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160235239A1 Patadia in view of US20150108177A1 Junkells.
Regarding claim 3,
Patadia teaches, The cooking machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: wherein each of the plurality of food dispensers is configured with a bottomless storage section within which one or more perishable food products are storable, a rigid lid positioned on top of said storage section, and a rotatably mounted shaft connected to a center of the lid which, when rotated, causes the lid to rotate and the one or more perishable food products to gravitate from said storage section
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Junkells teaches a dispensing device 10 which is in the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application for dispensing food products (Junkells par. 7) and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of food dispensers (dispenser assembly 5) is configured with a bottomless storage section (downstream section 23) within which one or more perishable food products are storable (par. 33), a rigid lid (sealed container 20) positioned on top of said storage section (fig. 1), and a rotatably mounted shaft connected to a center of the lid (elongated rod 37 extends helically to the outer end 36) which, when rotated, causes the lid to rotate and the one or more perishable food products to gravitate from said storage section (par. 35 to 36).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Patadia with the dispenser assembly 5 of Junkells for the purpose of easily allowing “the position of the dispensing opening could be easily changed by replacing the intermediate plate by another intermediate plate with the edge arranged at another angle ω and thereby adapt the dispensing device for different products” (Junkells par. 17).
Regarding claim 4,
The primary combination teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 3 (as discussed above),
Patadia further teaches wherein the freezer compartment (freezer unit 9) is configured with a bottom wall that is formed with a plurality of apertures within each of which the storage section of a corresponding food dispenser is frictionally fitted (fig. 1e).
Regarding claim 5,
The primary combination teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 4 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: wherein the food storage section is configured with a plurality of separate and elongated compartments within each of which a different unperishable food product is storable, and the means for controllably discharging food products from the food storage section comprises a screw conveyor rotatably mounted in each of said plurality of compartments to facilitate conveyance and discharge of a predetermined amount of a selected food product, a trough for receiving the discharged unperishable food product, and a chute extending downwardly and at an incline from the trough.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Junkells teaches wherein the food storage section (container 20) is configured with a plurality of separate and elongated compartments within each of which a different unperishable food product is storable (fig. 1 intermediate container sections 25), and the means for controllably discharging food products from the food storage section comprises a screw conveyor (elongated rod 37 extends helically to the outer end 36) rotatably mounted in each of said plurality of compartments to facilitate conveyance and discharge of a predetermined amount of a selected food product (par. 5), a trough (hatch 27) for receiving the discharged unperishable food product (par. 34), and a chute (dispensing outlet 15) extending downwardly and at an incline from the trough (fig. 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Patadia with the dispenser assembly 5 of Junkells for the purpose to provide a “sealed container (that) improves the dispensing device further since the items within the container could be stored for longer periods without adverse effects of the taste of the products in the container and/or the risk that the products getting dry” (Junkells par. 32).
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches,
The cooking machine according to claim 5 (as discussed above)
Patadia teaches,
wherein side walls of the freezer compartment are configured with an undercut arrangement (dropping container 6.7) to ensure that the rotatable insulating plate will be in insulating proximity to the bottom wall of the freezer compartment and that a portion of the insulating plate will be positioned externally to the freezer compartment (fig. 1), so as to be accessible to an exit opening of the chute (par. 192)(fetcher unit 6.11 is a chute par. 192).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160235239A1 Patadia in view of US20150108177A1 Junkells in view of US20200359845A1 Carlos
Regarding claim 7,
The primary combination teaches, The cooking machine according to claim 6 (as discussed above).
Patadia further teaches, except where struck through, further comprising a controller (par. 21-23, claim 1, par. 171, device-machine-controller 1.11) which is operable to-
i. rotate the insulating plate to a first position, prior to rotation of the shaft to cause gravitational dispensing of the one or more perishable food products from a selected food dispenser to the underlying food vessel, such that the aperture of the insulating plate is aligned with the aperture of the freezer compartment with which the selected food dispenser is frictionally fitted and other apertures of the freezer compartment are occluded by the insulating plate (par. 21-23, claim 1, par. 171-173, device-machine-controller 1.11, par. 192);
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: and ii. rotate the insulating plate to a second position, prior to operation of one of the screw conveyors to cause gravitational delivery of a selected unperishable food product via the chute to the underlying food vessel, such that the aperture of the insulating plate is aligned with the exit opening of the chute while the other apertures of the freezer compartment are occluded by the insulating plate.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Carlos teaches and ii. rotate the insulating plate to a second position, prior to operation of one of the screw conveyors to cause gravitational delivery of a selected unperishable food product via the chute to the underlying food vessel, such that the aperture of the insulating plate is aligned with the exit opening of the chute while the other apertures of the freezer compartment are occluded by the insulating plate (abstract, egress orifice 200 per par. 14, 85, and 93).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Patadia with the teachings of Carlos for the purpose to dispense a food product from an ingredient dispenser (Carlos dispenser 103 and par. 93).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160235239A1 Patadia in view of US20140291316A1 England
Regarding claim 11,
Patadia teaches, The cooking machine according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: wherein the food vessel is adapted for facilitating both cooking of food products received therewithin and holding the food products after being cooked and while being eaten, wherein said food vessel comprising a lower receptacle having an upper opening, and an upper cover member covering the upper opening, wherein an outer layer of the receptacle is made of ceramic material and an inner layer thereof is made of a food-safe ferromagnetic material that becomes sufficiently heated to cook the received food products when impinged upon by a magnetic flux field generated by the at least one induction heating unit, and wherein the outer ceramic layer is able to become sufficiently cooled within less than one minute, when the food vessel is out of range of the magnetic flux field, so that the food vessel is able to be safely held by a user wishing to eat the cooked food products while continuing to be retained within the receptacle.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, England teaches an induction cooking utensil (10) used for cooking food on an induction cooktop (par. 7) and further teaches wherein the food vessel is adapted for facilitating both cooking of food products received therewithin and holding the food products after being cooked and while being eaten (induction cooking utensil 10 is inherently adapted for cooking and holding a food product), wherein said food vessel comprising a lower receptacle having an upper opening (fig. 2 space between joints 16 define an upper opening), and an upper cover member (lid 20) covering the upper opening (fig. 2), wherein an outer layer (outer wall 14) of the receptacle is made of ceramic material (par. 63) and an inner layer (inner wall 13) thereof is made of a food-safe ferromagnetic material (par. 62) that becomes sufficiently heated to cook the received food products when impinged upon by a magnetic flux field generated by the at least one induction heating unit (par. 62 and 63), and wherein the outer ceramic layer is able to become sufficiently cooled within less than one minute (par. 63 teaches outer wall 14 made of ceramic which is the same material disclosed in the instant application, therefore, it is anticipated that outer wall 14 of England can be cooled within a minute, further, par. 63 also teaches this limitation), when the food vessel is out of range of the magnetic flux field, so that the food vessel is able to be safely held by a user wishing to eat the cooked food products while continuing to be retained within the receptacle (par. 63).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the buckets 17.9 of Patadia with the (induction cooking utensil 10) of England for the purpose of providing an induction cooking utensil with the advantage “that it heats the food/liquid within its chamber to a desired cooking temperature while maintaining a relatively cool outer surface, and preferably an outer surface that is cool enough to pick up with a person's bare hands and immediately set on a wooden (or other) table without damaging it” (par. 8).
Regarding claim 12,
The primary combination teaches, The food receptacle according to claim 11 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Patadia does not teach: wherein a peripheral wall of the receptacle is three-layered, such that at least one of two outer layers of the receptacle which are disposed outwardly from the inner ferromagnetic material layer is made of the ceramic material and an intervening air space layer is disposed between the two outer layers.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, England teaches wherein a peripheral wall of the receptacle is three-layered (fig. 2, 13, 14, and 17), such that at least one of two outer layers (17 and 13 fig. 2) of the receptacle which are disposed outwardly from the inner ferromagnetic material layer is made of the ceramic material (fig. 2) and an intervening air space layer (vacuum gap 15) is disposed between the two outer layers (fig. 2).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the buckets 17.9 of Patadia with the (induction cooking utensil 10) of England for the purpose of providing an induction cooking utensil with the advantage “that it heats the food/liquid within its chamber to a desired cooking temperature while maintaining a relatively cool outer surface, and preferably an outer surface that is cool enough to pick up with a person's bare hands and immediately set on a wooden (or other) table without damaging it” (par. 8).
Regarding claim 13,
The primary combination teaches, The food receptacle according to claim 11 (as discussed above).
Patadia further teaches an alternative food vessel auto pressure cooker per fig. 18) wherein the cover member (top cover fig. 18 par. 214) is loosely receivable on top of the receptacle (par. 214), and has an upwardly projecting annular throat which is provided with an inwardly disposed annular abutment (see annotated fig. 18 below) that defines a central socket adapted to receive and interface with an extendable and rotatable drive shaft (rings 18.9, rolling units 18.4) configured with two spring-loaded latches (circular gripping and locking 18.18, par. 214).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
The primary combination teaches, The food receptacle according to claim 13 (as discussed above).
Patadia further teaches wherein the abutment is configured to urge radially inward compression of the two latches during downward displacement of the drive shaft that causes contact with the abutment, and to provide secured engagement with the two latches after being extended following additional downward displacement of the drive shaft, and wherein the cover member is removable from the receptacle following upward displacement of the drive shaft while the two latches are in secured engagement with the abutment (par. 213, 18.5).
Regarding claim 15,
Patadia teaches, wherein the cover member is further comprised with an interface member (gears 18.16) configured with the abutment and with a cooking worthy implement, the interface member being vertically and rotatably displaceable with respect to the throat during selective manipulation of the drive shaft (fig. 18 par. 214).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights