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
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 4/20/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1-9, 13-33 are as previously presented.
Claims 10-12 and 34-43 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 13-33 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 33 being independent.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 13-32) in a telephonic interview on 5/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
22 in fig. 21;
29, 654 in fig. 28.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “receptable” in para. 00100 should be receptacle [as per para. 00102]; and the abstract utilizes phraseology that can be implied “related methods are described” (608.01(c)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the computer system and the at least one sensor are operable monitor the elevation of the basin” should recite “wherein the computer system and the at least one sensor are operable to monitor the elevation of the basin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2:
“elevator” in line 2 is used by the claim to mean a linear actuator, a carriage, and a mount [paras. 0064-65]
Claim 27:
“sprayer” in line 1 is used by the claim to mean one or more spray jets arranged to aim air or liquid [para. 0080]
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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, e.g., station, system, assembly, or dispenser) 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1:
“dispensing station” is being interpreted as a refrigerated food dispenser/hopper (e.g., RAM 280, which includes cold storage for food), a ramp, and equivalents thereof [para. 0052]
“food transfer station” is being interpreted as a ramp, a basin, a carriage, a basin connector, a linear actuator, a mount, a guide, a slot, a pin, a magnet, and equivalents thereof [paras. 0061-67]
“fry station” is being interpreted as a robotic arm, a fryer, a fry basket, and equivalents thereof [para. 0068-69]
“mixing station” is being interpreted as a mixing bowl, dispensers, a liquid pump (e.g., a peristaltic pump), a rotating auger, a fixed bowl, rotating blades, a shaft, a motor, and equivalents thereof [para. 0071-76]
“computer system” is being interpreted as a computer, a conventional micro-computer, processors, memory, storage devices, , and equivalents thereof [para. 0011, 84-85]
Claim 3:
“carriage assembly” is being interpreted as a carriage, a mount, a guide, a slot, and equivalents thereof [see claim interpretation of food transfer station above; para. 0065]
Claim 13:
“clamp assembly” is being interpreted as socket, fastener holes, a cavity, a plug, screws, a handle portion, a wedge (i.e., a locking member), a cutout or channel, a plate, and equivalents thereof [figs. 26-29; paras. 00105-113].
Claim 20:
“ingredient dispenser” is being interpreted as a liquid pump (e.g., a peristaltic pump), a rotating auger, and equivalents thereof [see claim interpretation of mixing station above; para. 0072]
Claim 23:
“hub assembly” is being interpreted as a lower hub, an upper flange, a rotatable shaft or coupler, and equivalents thereof [figs. 22-25; paras. 00100-104]
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 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 1-9 and 13-32 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 limitation “at least one seasoning” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the “at least one type of seasoning” recited in lines 6-7. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 11 as reciting “the at least one type of seasoning”
Regarding claim 5,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the basin guide” in line 4. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 4 as reciting “the [[basin]] guide” so as to refer to the “a guide” recited in line 1
Regarding claim 6,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the slot” in line 1. In view of para. 0065 (“The mount 38 includes a guide or slot 39…”), for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting “wherein [[the]]a slot [[and]]or the guide [[are]]is arranged…”
Regarding claim 8,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the elevator basin” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 2 as reciting “the [[elevator]] basin”
Regarding claim 15,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cutout” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 2 as reciting “the lateral cut out” so as to refer the “a lateral cut out” in line 1.
lines 2-3 recite “when the socket is inserted into the socket”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a socket and be inserted into itself. In view of figs. 27-29, para. 00108, and claim 14, Examiner will interpret lines 2-3 as reciting “when the [[socket]]plug is inserted into the socket”
Regarding claim 16,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “cutout” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 2 as reciting “the lateral cut out” so as to refer the “a lateral cut out” in claim 15.
Regarding claim 17,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cutout” in line 2. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 2 as reciting “the lateral cut out” so as to refer the “a lateral cut out” in claim 15.
Regarding claim 20,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the at least one ingredient” in line 2. In view of claim 1 and para. 0072, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 2 as reciting “the at least one [[ingredient]]type of seasoning”
since the claim also recites “at least one ingredient dispenser”, and in view of para. 0053 (“In the embodiment shown in Figure 1, the automated fryer system includes a fryer 30, fry basket 41, robotic arm 40, mixing bowl 50, season dispensers 60, storage pan 70, and drain capture 80.”), Examiner recommends this limitation be changed to “at least one [[ingredient]]seasoning dispenser”.
Regarding claim 24,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the claim interpretation of computer system in claim 1, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting “[[the]]a computer”
Regarding claim 25,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the 112b rejection of claim 24, Examiner will interpret claim 25 as referring to the computer of claim 24
Regarding claim 26,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the 112b rejection of claim 24, Examiner will interpret claim 26 as referring to the computer of claim 24
Regarding claim 27,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 2. In view of the 112b rejection of claim 24, Examiner will interpret claim 26 as referring to the computer of claim 24
Regarding claim 28,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the claim interpretation of computer system in claim 1, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting “[[the]]a computer”
Regarding claim 29,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the 112b rejection of claim 28, Examiner will interpret claim 29 as referring to the computer of claim 28
Regarding claim 28,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the claim interpretation of computer system in claim 1, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting “[[the]]a computer”
Regarding claim 31,
there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the computer” in line 1. In view of the claim interpretation of computer system in claim 1, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret line 1 as reciting “[[the]]a computer”
Claims 2-9 and 13-32 are rejected because of dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 13, 14, 19-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20210107724 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Cohen teaches:
An automated food frying system [i.e., an automated food preparation system including a frying process; para. 0003: “This disclosure generally relates to the fields of robotics/automation and cooking/culinary arts”; para. 0102: “An automated food preparation system may employ receptacles or vessels into or onto which ingredients can be dispensed for processing and/or delivery to a user. Processing may include heating (e.g., frying, sauteing, simmering, boiling, baking, broiling, grilling), cooling, blending, mixing, chopping, cutting, whisking/whipping, stirring, etc., and combinations thereof.”] comprising:
a plurality of functional stations [i.e., a plurality of methods and apparatus for preparing (e.g., for dispensing, manipulating, heating) ingredients (i.e., raw food and cooked food); abstract: “Methods and apparatus for automatically preparing food for consumption in which preparation comprises dispensing, manipulation, heating, and other operations using a wide variety of ingredients. The methods and apparatus described use ingredients efficiently and maintain their quality, while avoiding contact between ingredients and apparatus to minimize the risk of system contamination.”] selected from the group comprising:
a dispensing station for dispensing a predetermined amount of raw food [i.e., a pouch manipulator 630 of a first transport (para. 0146) for the controlled dispensing of uncooked ingredients stored in a pouch (paras. 0172; 0193), into a reusable cleanable vessels (e.g., liner 642a; para. 0149); see fig. 19];
a food transfer station for transferring the raw food [i.e., a second transport; paras. 0147; 0237]
to a fry basket [i.e., the second transport transferring the ingredients into a liner 642b in a heated base 640 (i.e., a reusable cleanable vessel ; see fig. 19), wherein the liner may be equipped with porous inserts in order to drain cooking liquid (para. 0241)];
a fry station for frying the raw food into cooked food [i.e., heated base 640 for frying the ingredient (para. 0022) with a cooking liquid 475 such as oil (para. 0123);];
a mixing station for mixing the cooked food with [see figs. 19(k)(l), showing liners 642c/d being tumbled to mix ingredients therein; para. 0159:]
at least one type of seasoning [i.e., an ingredient such as salt; para. 0155;]; and
a computer system programmed to control the plurality of functional stations, in sequence, to dispense the raw food, transfer the raw food to the fry basket, fry the raw food, transfer the cooked food to the mixing station, and mix the cooked food with at least one seasoning [paras. 0312-0314: “The control of the apparatus and the implementation of the methods and steps described herein may be achieved using hardware, software, or any combination thereof, together forming a controller or control system... The control system may serve to load files, perform calculations, output files, control actuators such as motors, voice coils, solenoids, fans, and heaters, and acquire data from sensors, to automate or semi-automate apparatus which can implement the methods and steps described herein. Each method described herein, including any sequential steps that may be taken for the method's implementation and any modification of the behavior of the apparatus or control system as a result of human or sensor input, as well as combinations of such methods, may be implemented and performed by the control system, executing a program, or code, embodied in the control system. ”].
Regarding claim 2, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the food transfer station comprises
a basin [i.e., a liner 642a held by a ring; fig. 19(f); para. 0156: “In FIG. 19(f), the second transport (with X stage 632) has lifted liner 642a out of a base similar to base 640 (e.g., the liner may extend past the base and be lifted by a ring, for example) and is shown transferring (e.g., pouring) ingredient(s) 658 from liner 642a ( or another container) into liner 642b beneath it.”], and
an elevator to raise the basin from a home elevation [i.e., the second transport lifting the liner from a base similar to base 640] lower than the fry basket to a target elevation higher than the fry basket [i.e., from a lower stack to the right of base 640 to a position above liner 642b;].
Regarding claim 3, Cohen teaches the system of claim 2.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the elevator comprises a linear actuator and a carriage assembly that is operable to move up and down along the linear actuator [Cohen teaches carriage 634 of the second transport able to move along the Z axis (para. 0147) and a linear actuator assembly to effect a vertical motion; para. 0186: “Frame 738 is attached to carriage 746 through two linear bearings 732 riding on rails 748 or rods, allowing linear actuator 750 at the top of carriage 746 to move the assembly comprising frame 738 and attached components vertically.”], and to tilt the basin when the basin reaches the target elevation [i.e., pouring ingredients from liner 642a; see fig. 19(f); para. 0156].
Regarding claim 4, Cohen teaches the system of claim 3.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the carriage assembly includes
a carriage that moves along the linear actuator [i.e., carriage 634] and
a basin mount rotatably coupling the basin to the carriage such that the basin is free to rotate about an axis perpendicular to the linear actuator [i.e., a ring 450 holding a liner above a base, rotated so as to pour ingredients into the base; para. 0119: “In some embodiments the entire base 446 may be tilted to allow for pouring ( or tumbling/falling out of an ingredient), while in other embodiments as is shown in FIG. 13(c), ring 450 may raise liner 448 above the base and tilt it to pour ingredient 457 within into a receptacle, allowing base 446 to remain fixed.”].
Regarding claim 8, Cohen teaches the system of claim 2.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the dispensing station includes
a cold storage [para. 0240: “In some embodiments the food preparation system can be refrigerated (including the portion of the system where processing is done and/or storage areas).”],
a hopper [para. 0207: “In some embodiments ingredients, particularly those commonly used and with long shelf lives, may be housed within the bowlbot semi-permanently, and be dispensed from canisters, hoppers, shakers, vats, tubes, tanks, boxes, and other holding and dispensing devices known to the art.”], and
a ramp to direct the food into the elevator basin when the basin is positioned at the home elevation [Cohen further teaches the known method of using ramps; para. 0280: “Pouches can include internal Pachinko-like elements, diagonal (or parallel) ramps alternating from side to side, vertical walls subdividing the pouch into a set of tubes, internal sieves, internal rough textures, etc. (at least several of which can be made using impulse or ultrasonic sealing) to slow down the flow of material (solid or fluid) through viscous drag and surface tension effects, and avoid self-emptying.”].
Regarding claim 13, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
Cohen also teaches:
further comprising
a robotic arm for transferring the cooked food from the fry station to the mixing station [i.e., a robotic device such as a jointed arm can be used to effect the motion of the carriage; para. 0137: “FIG. 17 depicts as cross-sectional elevation views a sequence of steps in some embodiments by which motor 570 with coupler 572 and pickup for a cap 574 is moved by carriage 576 forming part of a conventional motion stage (not shown) or moved by another form of robotic device, such as a jointed arm…”], and
a clamp assembly mounted to the robotic arm via an end effector, wherein the clamp assembly is adapted to detachably hold the fry basket [i.e., carriage 634 equipped with end effectors (e.g., vacuum pickup) to detachably hold liners, wherein the tool would be clamped using a coupler 572 to retain it; para. 0147: “4) A second transport comprising X stage 632 as well as Y and Z stages, and carriage 634 able to move along the X, Y, and Z axes and rotate ( e.g., around the Z axis) and equipped with end effectors ( e.g., vacuum pickup) able to grasp liners and couple to caps and tools, as well as drive tools, e.g., through a motor.”; para. 0137: “Carriage 576 then moves over a tool (here, chopper 580) in tool storage area 584 as in FIG. 17(c) and motor 570 is coupled to tool 580 ( e.g., coupler 572 may involve a hexagonal or octagonal shaft fitting into a similarly-shaped socket, with a magnet or electromagnet to retain it).”].
Regarding claim 14, Cohen teaches the system of claim 13.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the clamp assembly comprises a plug and a socket adapted to receive the plug [i.e., coupler 572 involving a shaft and similarly-shaped socket; para. 0137: “Carriage 576 then moves over a tool (here, chopper 580) in tool storage area 584 as in FIG. 17(c) and motor 570 is coupled to tool 580 ( e.g., coupler 572 may involve a hexagonal or octagonal shaft fitting into a similarly-shaped socket, with a magnet or electromagnet to retain it).”].
Regarding claim 19, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the mixing station comprises a bowl assembly [see fig. 16; para. 0129: “While many processing operations common in food preparation such as dispensing, heating, stirring, and mixing can be performed using properly-designed pouches, dispensers, bases, liners, and apparatus for tumbling, some operations may still best be achieved using more conventional tools or adaptations thereof, either within vessels (lined or unlined), or within pouches or other containers and packages which can be opened, deformed, peeled apart, etc. so as to expel the contents after processing.”], and wherein the bowl assembly comprises
a bowl [i.e., liner 512] and
a blade rotatable within the bowl [i.e., tool 506; para. 0132: “the spoon/paddle/spatula-like tool of FIG. 16(f) may be used for stirring or
mixing.”].
Regarding claim 20, Cohen teaches the system of claim 19.
Cohen also teaches:
further comprising at least one ingredient dispenser operable to dispense the at least one ingredient into the bowl [i.e., container 656; fig. 19; para. 0155: “FIGS. 19(e)-(l) depict elevation views of the system engaged in different processes. In FIG. 19(e), the system is in the process of dispensing ingredient(s) 654 from container 656 into liner 642. To accomplish this, first transport X stage 626 moves container manipulator 656 over the appropriate container 656 in container storage area 621 (this requires Z-axis motion given that these storage areas are below the pouch storage areas in the example shown), grasps container 656, transports it over liner 642, inverts it if required, and dispenses from it. Dispensing may involve vibrating or rotating it or components thereof ( e.g., to dispense salt and ground pepper, spices, and milled flour through small openings), grinding or otherwise subdividing it (e.g., for peppercorns or nuts), compressing it to squeeze out ingredients ( e.g., oil, milk) through a hole or nozzle, etc.”].
Regarding claim 21, Cohen teaches the system of claim 20.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the bowl assembly is detachably coupled to a frame that is tiltably hung between opposing supports [i.e., a ring 450 detachably holding a liner, the ring being attached to the carriage for support, the ring being tiltable such that it can be rotated so as to pour ingredients into the base; para. 0119: “In some embodiments the entire base 446 may be tilted to allow for pouring ( or tumbling/falling out of an ingredient), while in other embodiments as is shown in FIG. 13(c), ring 450 may raise liner 448 above the base and tilt it to pour ingredient 457 within into a receptacle, allowing base 446 to remain fixed.”].
Regarding claim 22, Cohen teaches the system of claim 21.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the mixing station further includes a motor mounted to the frame [i.e., motor 518; fig. 16; para. 0130: “a motor 518 able to rotate tool 506 as shown by arrow 519, etc. are additionally depicted.”].
Regarding claim 23, Cohen teaches the system of claim 22.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the bowl assembly further comprises a hub assembly [i.e., a detachable coupling] that is removably engageable with the motor mounted on the frame [i.e., the tool 506 is removably engageable with the motor; para. 0132: “All tools may be attached to the motor through a detachable coupling (not shown) known to the art of machine design, allowing tool interchangeability.”].
Regarding claim 24, Cohen teaches the system of claim 23.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable to tilt the bowl assembly forward to a dispense position, wherein the dispense position is at a first angle such that at least a portion of the food falls from the bowl into a receiving area [para. 0154: “All motions and operations described as follows are implemented by the controller, based on following a program (e.g., including a recipe in suitable form and appropriate algorithms), and may involve directing the motion of various actuators, receiving and processing the input of various sensors, tracking time via a clock, etc.”].
Regarding claim 25, Cohen teaches the system of claim 24.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable to tilt the bowl assembly to a clean position, wherein the clean position is at a second angle such that residue falls from the bowl into a debris collection area [i.e., a waste bin; para. 0138: “Whether or not vessels include liners, it can be challenging to remove all the ingredients within simply by tilting or inverting the vessel, due to the tendency for many ingredients (particularly if moist/wet) to cling to the vessel's inner surface. This leads to ingredient waste, the possibility of incorrect recipes due to ingredients remaining behind in the vessel, increased difficulty in cleaning the vessel (if unlined), etc. Therefore it is useful to employ efficient methods for removing all ingredients from a vessel. In some embodiments the vessel can be struck ( e.g., with a soft mallet or equivalent), vibrated, spun, or otherwise moved with the goal of dislodging ingredients from the surface. In some embodiments, a fluid jet (e.g., air) can be used to push ingredients out of the vessel.”; para. 0188: “Not shown in FIG. 23(a) are the waste bin (e.g., a simple box),”].
Regarding claim 26, Cohen teaches the system of claim 25.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable to rotate the blade when the bowl is in the clean position [para. 0138: “In some embodiments, an approach in which the vessel interior surface is mechanically wiped (e.g., a self-emptying bowl) may also be used.”].
Regarding claim 27, Cohen teaches the system of claim 25.
Cohen further teaches:
further comprising a sprayer aimed at the bowl when the bowl is in the clean position, and the computer is programmed and operable to cause the sprayer to rinse the bowl during cleaning [i.e., a fluid jet pushing ingredients out of the vessel; para. 0138: “Whether or not vessels include liners, it can be challenging to remove all the ingredients within simply by tilting or inverting the vessel, due to the tendency for many ingredients (particularly if moist/wet) to cling to the vessel's inner surface. This leads to ingredient waste, the possibility of incorrect recipes due to ingredients remaining behind in the vessel, increased difficulty in cleaning the vessel (if unlined), etc. Therefore it is useful to employ efficient methods for removing all ingredients from a vessel. In some embodiments the vessel can be struck ( e.g., with a soft mallet or equivalent), vibrated, spun, or otherwise moved with the goal of dislodging ingredients from the surface. In some embodiments, a fluid jet (e.g., air) can be used to push ingredients out of the vessel.”].
Regarding claim 28, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable store and update status of the food, wherein the status comprises at least one status from the groups comprising: on-line/ready, dispensing, frying, mixing, order ready/pickup, service, off-line [para. 0211: “When a bowl has been filled, the controller may notify ( e.g., through an SMS text message, automated phone call, mobile app, email, Web site, loudspeaker announcement, etc.) the customer directly or indirectly that her order is completed”].
Regarding claim 29, Cohen teaches the system of claim 28.
Cohen also teaches:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable to
receive orders [para. 0253: “In some embodiments vending machines as described herein may be deployed as outdoor, weatherproof kiosks, including drive-up kiosks, allowing orders to be placed ( or just picked up) in a "drive through" manner.”],
make modifications to the order [para. 0300: “Bowlbots and other systems can be viewed as a "restaurant in a box", and can change the recipes and even types of cuisine they supply by simply receiving another set of recipe instructions and if needed, different ingredients. Such changes can be made on a frequent (e.g., daily) basis.”], and
provide reports including the order, status, and time [para. 0211: “When a bowl has been filled, the controller may notify ( e.g., through an SMS text message, automated phone call, mobile app, email, Web site, loudspeaker announcement, etc.) the customer directly or indirectly that her order is completed”; para. 0314: “The control system may serve to load files, perform calculations, output files, control actuators such as motors, voice coils, solenoids, fans, and heaters, and acquire data from sensors, to automate or semi-automate apparatus which can implement the methods and steps described herein. Each method described herein, including any sequential steps that may be taken for the method's implementation and any modification of the behavior of the apparatus or control system as a result of human or sensor input, as well as combinations of such methods, may be implemented and performed by the control system, executing a program, or code, embodied in the control system.”; para. 0255: “The system may provide notifications (e.g., via the Internet) when foods are ready, when it runs out of ingredient, of any problems encountered, of a need for maintenance, etc.”].
Regarding claim 30, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
Cohen also teaches:
further comprising a weighing station comprising a scale for weighing the raw food from the food dispensing station [para. 0261: “Sensors may be used for a variety of functions in some embodiments such as… weight measurements can be performed not just on a pouch discharging ingredients, but also on one receiving them, or on a vessel or other container discharging or receiving ingredients”], and wherein the food transfer station is operable to lower the basin onto the scale to weigh the raw food [i.e., base 394 as the scale, wherein the second transfer lowers a liner into the base; para. 0104: “Base 394 may also incorporate strain gauges or other sensors ( either as part of the apparatus that mounts the base to the system, or as part of the base) to measure the mass or weight of ingredients added to the vessel (the weight of the pouch contents may also be measured),”].
Regarding claim 32, Cohen teaches the system of claim 2.
Cohen also teaches:
further comprising at least one sensor to detect the presence of the basin along the linear actuator, and wherein the computer system and the at least one sensor are operable monitor the elevation of the basin [i.e., sensors to detect a bowl, such that the controller can keep track of individual bowls and a corresponding customer and corresponding required ingredients; para. 0210: “Sensors (e.g., optical, weight) within each delivery box can be used to verify that a box has been properly loaded with a bowl, and to detect when the bowl has been removed by a customer, thus freeing up the box for another bowl. The bowlbot controller can make decisions based on sensor data to determine for example which delivery box ( e.g., the first empty box available) should be used when offloading the next bowl. To accomplish this and other functions, the controller may keep track of each bowl, including which bowls belong to which customer and which bowls receive which ingredients.”].
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210107724 A1) in view of Sinnet (US 20200139554 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen teaches the system of claim 4.
However, Cohen does not disclose:
wherein the mount comprises
a guide which is positioned relative to the linear actuator to engage a fixed pin as the basin is raised above the fry basket, and
such that when the basin is being raised above the fry basket, the fixed pin is received by the basin guide, causing the basin mount (and consequently the basin) to rotate as the guide tracks the pin.
Sinnet, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a guide a fryer basket 850 [see fig. 19, showing inverted hook 852, positioned relative to”] which is positioned relative to a fixed pin [horizontal bar 870] such that when the basket is raised, the fixed pin is received by the guide, causing the basket to pivot [para. 0278: “FIG. 19 shows a basket design with implement 870 for easy dumping of basket without lifting full weight of basket. The basket 850 is shown having an inverted hook 852 on the front to engage with a horizontal bar 870 on a workspace as a pivot. This enables the basket to be dumped without lifting the entire weight of the basket.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Cohen by substituting the use of a conventional motor to rotate the vessel [para. 0229: “The vessel (and when desired, lid) may be driven to rotate by a conventional actuator such as a motor (not shown) through an attached vessel shaft 894 supported by a standard bearing (not shown).”], with the hook and bar of Sinnet, such that the mount comprises a guide which is positioned relative to the linear actuator to engage a fixed pin as the basin is raised above the fry basket, and such that when the basin is being raised above the fry basket, the fixed pin is received by the basin guide, causing the basin mount (and consequently the basin) to rotate as the guide tracks the pin, since Sinnet teaches this arrangement predictably allows for easy dumping of the basin without lifting the full weight of the basin [para. 0278].
Regarding claim 6, Cohen and Sinnet disclose the system of claim 5.
Cohen as modified by Sinnet, specifically Sinnet further teaches:
wherein the slot and guide are arranged to cause a greater than 90-degree rotation of the basin from upright in order to dump the cooked food.
In this case, selecting a given angle of rotation of the basin would have flown naturally to one of one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application (e.g., to allow for dumping of contents of the basin). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a rotation greater than 90 degrees, since the applicant has not disclosed that the rotation angle solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with selected such that it allows for easy dumping without lifting the full weight of basket, as taught by Sinnet.
Regarding claim 7, Cohen and Sinnet disclose the system of claim 6.
Cohen further teaches:
further comprising a magnet interface between the mount and the carriage to prevent the basin from separating from the carriage when the basin is rotated to dump the cooked food.
Specifically, Cohen teaches a container manipulator combined with the pouch manipulator comprising a magnet as a mechanical interface [para. 0148: “5) A container manipulator-adjacent to or combined with the pouch manipulator (not shown, but in some embodiments comprising a mechanical interface such a gripper, magnets, or electromagnets). In some embodiments this may interface with containers such as shown in FIG. 9, and may be equipped with grippers or another interface to the containers. It may be rotatable in some embodiments.”]. Cohen further teaches using magnetic couplers when securing a carrier (i.e., a liner/vessel) to a transport (i.e., a drive belt); para. 0209: “In some embodiments carriers are connected to the drive belt directly or through couplers 844, such as magnetic couplers 845 used in some embodiment variations. Magnetic couplers are advantageous in that no slot is required in the plate to allow direct mechanical connections between the belt and carriers, allowing for better thermal control and easier cleaning.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the system of Cohen and Sinnet, by including a magnet interface between the mount and the carriage to prevent the basin from separating from the carriage when the basin is rotated to dump the cooked food, since Cohen teaches a magnet interface allows for a secure, direct mechanical connection while allowing for better thermal control and easier cleaning [para. 0209].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210107724 A1) in view of Rolle (US 6165525 A).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Cohen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fry basket comprises side walls and a bottom plate, and wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of vents arranged along the bottom to direct the oil and food through the basket, thereby reducing clumping of the food in the basket during cooking.
Rolle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the fry basket comprises side walls and a bottom plate, and wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of vents arranged along the bottom to direct the oil and food through the basket, thereby reducing clumping of the food in the basket during cooking [see figs. 11 and 12, showing a plurality of vents 65 in a bottom of a fry basket; col. 7, lines 39-46: “FIG. 11 provides another view of the basket, and illustrates the general configuration thereof. Reference is made to FIG. 12. Base ribs 63 are provided radially on the basket base 53. These radial ribs are believed to promote a bellows effect during flexure. The basket base 53 also includes openings 65 formed therein to permit the flow of cooking liquid into and out of the basket.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Cohen by including the openings of Rolle, such that the fry basket comprises side walls and a bottom plate, and wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of vents arranged along the bottom to direct the oil and food through the basket, thereby reducing clumping of the food in the basket during cooking, since Rolle teaches this permits the flow of cooking liquid into and out of the basket [col. 7, lines 39-46].
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210107724 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 211759422 U).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen teaches the system of claim 14.
However, although Cohen teaches that a locking assembly may involve a magnet or electromagnet to retain shaft in the socket [para. 0137: “coupler 572 may involve a hexagonal or octagonal shaft fitting into a similarly-shaped socket, with a magnet or electromagnet to retain it”], Cohen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plug comprises a lateral cut out, and the socket comprises a lateral window that aligns with the cutout when the socket is inserted into the socket.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an equivalent locking assembly comprising a lateral cut out in a plug [see fig. 4n showing a wedge shaped cutout in connecting ring 15] corresponding to, and aligning with, a lateral window [see fig. 4, showing 22 and 14 in a lateral window formed in a socket].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Cohen, by substituting the magnet with a lateral cut out and lateral window, such that the plug comprises a lateral cut out, and the socket comprises a lateral window that aligns with the cutout when the socket is inserted into the socket, since Zhang teaches this predictably secures a plug to a socket, but also allows for convenient changing [p. 1: “The utility model not only can purify the harmful gas generated when welding, which is good for environment protection, but also convenient to change after the filter layer saturated adsorption, saving time and labour efficiency is high.”].
Regarding claim 16, Cohen and Zhang disclose the system of claim 15.
Cohen as modified by Zhang, specifically Zhang further discloses:
wherein the clamp assembly further comprises a locking member to hold the socket to the plug through the window and cutout [i.e., wedge-shaped clamping block 17; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 17, Cohen and Zhang disclose the system of claim 16.
Cohen as modified by Zhang, specifically Zhang further:
wherein the locking member has a wedge shape such that as the locking member is advanced into the cutout, the plug is further advanced into the socket [see fig. 17].
Regarding claim 18, Cohen and Zhang disclose the system of claim 17.
Cohen further discloses:
wherein the socket is attached to the end effector, and the plug is attached to the fry basket [i.e., the socket is arranged at a distal end of the robot arm, and the plug is attached to the end effector that is gripping the fry basket].
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210107724 A1) in view of Naslenas (GB 2547286 A).
Regarding claim 31, Cohen teaches the system of claim 30.
However, although Cohen discloses sensors for measuring the weight of ingredients in dispensing or receiving vessels [para. 0261] and that the controller operates according to a recipe and sensor input [para. 0195: “All steps are as-commanded by the controller, based on a stored program implementing various algorithms which may include a recipe, sensor input, etc.”], Cohen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the computer is programmed and operable control the food transfer station and food dispensing station to add more raw food to the basin if an order or recipe calls for more raw food than was initially dispensed into the basin.
Naslenas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches ingredients added in a metered amounts [p. 17: “The portioning wheel can therefore be 5 actuated to deliver measured amounts onto weighing section 63, so that a measured amount of ingredients can be portioned out for delivery to a cooking vessel 200”], wherein the weight of the ingredients is measured by a weighing station [i.e., weighing section 63; p. 4: “At least one of the ingredient portioning stations may comprise weighing means”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Cohen, by adding ingredients to the basin while measuring the weight of the added ingredients, as taught by Naslenas, such that the computer is programmed and operable to control the food transfer station and food dispensing station to add more raw food to the basin if an order or recipe calls for more raw food than was initially dispensed into the basin, since Naslenas teaches that this predictably dispenses the correct amount, thereby allowing for accurate following of a recipe [p. 17: “When the correct amount of ingredients have been measured in the weighing section 63, then an opening such as a flap or "trap door" 66 can be opened automatically to deliver the ingredients to the cooking vessel 200.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761