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 .
Status of the Claims
In the claim dated 04/07/2023, claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, “the uppermost rotary shaft” should be “an uppermost rotary shaft”
Claim 12, “a upper end surface of the deep fryer” should be “an upper end surface of a deep fryer ”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Robert (EP0455477A2).
Regarding claim 1, Robert discloses
A fried food preparation system (111, see fig.1), comprising a food dispenser assembly (uncooked bulk food dispensing station 115, see fig.1), a manipulator arm assembly (113, see fig.1), a deep fryer assembly (cooking vats 137, see fig.3) and a frying basket (237, see fig.3), wherein the deep fryer assembly (137, see fig.3, which is a part of the cooking station 117 in figs.1-2) and the food dispenser assembly (115, see fig.2) are respectively arranged in parallel (see figs.2-3) on both sides (left and right sides) of the manipulator arm assembly (113, see fig.3);
the manipulator arm assembly (113) is connected with the frying basket (237, see fig.3), and the manipulator arm assembly (113) moves the frying basket (237) in a plane formed by a first direction (arrow A direction, see figs. 1-2) and a second direction (arrow B direction, see figs. 1-2. See page 8, lines 50-53: “Referring to FIGS. 1-2 and 9-10, robot 1 13 is composed of structure 125 for providing horizontal movement (axis 1 , indicated by arrow A) which includes a shroud cover 125', a vertical axis arm 127 for vertical movement (axis 2, indicated by arrow B) attached to structure 125…”), and
wherein the first direction (arrow A direction, see figs. 1-2) is the direction from the deep fryer assembly (137, see fig.3, which is a part of the cooking station 117 in figs.1-2) to the food dispenser assembly (115, see figs.1-2), and the second direction (arrow B direction, see figs. 1-2) is a height direction (See figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Robert further discloses a slide base (wheel 485, see fig.2), wherein the manipulator arm assembly (113) is arranged on the slide base (wheel 485, see fig.2); and the deep fryer assembly (137, see fig.3) is also arranged on the slide base (485, see fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Robert further discloses the manipulator arm assembly (113) comprises a manipulator arm (149, see fig.6) and a support frame (147, see fig.6 and page 11, lines 14-15: “a carriage assembly 149 that rides on track 147”) , wherein the manipulator arm (149) has a base (185, see fig.6) provided on the support frame (147, see fig.6), and the other end of the manipulator arm (lower end of 149, see fig.6) is provided with a grasping and shaking device (combo 129, 131,133 and 217, see fig.9-11) which is connected with the frying basket (237, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 4, Robert further discloses the grasping and shaking device (combo 129, 131, 133 and 217, see fig.9) comprises a assembly of gripper (133 and 217, see fig.9); and the assembly of gripper (133 and 217) comprises a gripper (133, see fig.11 and page 12, lines 10-13: “…end of arm tool 133 is composed of a frame 213, an air cylinder 215, having an air inlet and outlet 215' and 215" respectively, that opens and closes jaws 217 via mechanism 219 of end of arm tool 133 …”) and two fingers (217, see fig.11A-B) which are provided on the gripper (see figs.11A-B, items 217 are provided on item 215 of the arm tool 133), and the two fingers (217) move on the gripper (133, see fig.11A-B, item 217 moves on the item 215 of 113) along a third direction (E-F directions, see fig.11).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Zhongfeng (WO2017133131A1)
Regarding claim 11, Robert discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 3. Robert discloses a shaft that helps wrist or vertical axis arm 131 is secured to gear 199 and horizontal axis aim 129 (see fig.9 and page 12 lines 4-5).
Robert does not expressly disclose the manipulator arm has a plurality of rotary shafts, and a length direction of the plurality of rotary shafts is the same.
However, Zhongfeng discloses a robotic arm, comprising:
the manipulator arm (200, see fig.24) has a plurality of rotary shafts (207. See fig.24 and abstract: “the second arm member (200b) being rotatably connected to the first arm member (200a) through a first rotary shaft (207)… the third arm member (200c) being rotatably connected to the second arm member (200b) through a second rotary shaft”), and a length direction of the plurality of rotary shafts (207, see fig.24) is the same (see fig.24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the manipulator arm of Robert to have “a plurality of rotary shafts, and a length direction of the plurality of rotary shafts is the same” as taught by Zhongfeng. Doing so allows for easier assembly and maintenance, as a single segment can be replaced if it fails.
Regarding claim 12, Robert, as modified by Zhongfeng, further discloses wherein the distance between the uppermost rotary shaft (shaft, see fig.9 and page 12 lines 4-5: “wrist or vertical axis arm 1 31 is secured via a shaft (not shown) to gear 199 and horizontal axis aim 129”) of the plurality of rotary shafts (shafts on both side as modified by ‘131) and a upper end surface of the deep fryer (137E, see fig.3) of the deep fryer assembly (all 137, see figs.2-3) is a (See fig.3), except wherein a is greater than 400mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance a of Robert, as modified by Zhongfeng above, to be “greater than 400mm” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144, section II). Doing so allows to obtain the desired distance between the uppermost rotary shaft and the upper end surface of the deep fryer which ensures consistent and even frying results.
Regarding claim 13, Robert further discloses a cooked food storage station (cooked food storage station 121, see fig.2), wherein the cooked food storage station (121, see fig.2) is disposed on a side of the deep fryer assembly (137, see figs.2-3) away from the manipulator arm assembly (113, see fig.2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200047349 A1 discloses A robotic kitchen assistant for frying includes a robotic arm, a fryer basket, and a robotic arm adapter assembly allowing the robotic arm to pick up and manipulate the fryer basket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761