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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims each contain the phrase “and,” (the word “and” followed by a comma), which is grammatically incorrect. Please see Claims, pg. 2, line 26 and pg. 3, line 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(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, 3-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schoenbauer (US 5,964,258).
Regarding Claim 1, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, the article comprising:
- a first tank (cooking oil supply container 110, introduced at Col 4, lines 55-57), said first tank selectively receiving fresh cooking oil;
- an inflowing pipe (Schoenbauer discloses "delivery and removal conduit" 124, introduced at Fig 4 and Col 5, lines 29-31 as part of a general "oil conduit system" 130, introduced at Col 5, line 8) of the first tank (110) for receiving the fresh cooking oil from a first associated source (the invention of Schoenbauer is explicitly drawn to the delivery and removal of cooking oil to/from "receiving facility 10", further disclosed as a restaurant, via transport vehicle 120. Although Schoenbauer does not specifically discuss a source of fresh cooking oil to be delivered to receiving facility 10, nor a destination for used cooking oil removed from receiving facility 10, Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know these facilities exist to provide/remove oil to/from transport vehicle 120, and broadly interprets the entire disclosure of Shoenbauer as additionally teaching, or at least heavily implying, "a first associated source of fresh cooking oil");
- an outflowing pipe (124, which is disclosed as handling both delivery and removal, and via oil delivery fitting 152 through the delivery valve 146) of the first tank (110) for discharging the fresh cooking oil to an associated container (supply station 30, located inside location/restaurant 10, which additionally provides oil to fryers as is commonly known in the art; see Col 3, lines 47-58) and Fig 1. See also Col 5, lines 20-25 and Col 3, lines 51-58.);
- a pumping mechanism (Fig 2, delivery pump 144, see Col 5, lines 15-18 and Col 6, lines 23-31) of the first tank (110) for pumping the fresh oil from the first associated source through the inflowing pipe (124) and for pumping the fresh oil to the associated container through the outflowing pipe (Col 5, lines 20-25);
- a second tank (waste oil container 114, introduced at Col 4, lines 55-67) , said second tank selectively receiving used cooking oil;
- an inflowing pipe (124, via waste oil fitting 154 and the removal valve 150) of the second tank (114) for receiving the used cooking oil from the associated container (of waste station 20 within location/restaurant 10; see Col; 5, lines 20-25 and Col 7, lines 36-45);
- an outflowing pipe (124, which is disclosed as handling both delivery and removal) of the second tank (114) for discharging the used cooking oil to a second associated source (per Examiner's rationale above, Schoenbauer discloses, or at least heavily implies "a second associated source" to receive used cooking oil collected by vehicle 120)
- a pumping mechanism Fig 2, removal pump 148, see Col 5, lines 15-18 and Col 6, lines 23-31) of the second tank (114) for pumping the used oil from the associated container through the inflowing pipe and for pumping the used oil to the second associated source through the outflowing pipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein said first tank and said second tank have essentially the same configuration (per Schoenbauer, the tanks 110 and 114 are "generally cylindrical" at Col 4, line 66).
Regarding Claim 4, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein said first tank further comprises a first tank footprint and said second tank further comprises a second tank footprint, said first tank footprint being coincident with said second tank footprint (per Schoenbauer, the tanks 110 and 114 are "generally cylindrical" at Col 4, line 66).
Regarding Claim 7, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a fresh oil conduit and a used oil conduit in a conduit network to respectively transport fresh oil and used oil between the first and second tanks and the associated container (Schoenbauer discloses "oil conduit system 130 delivers oil from the cooking oil supply container 110 to an oil delivery fitting 152 through the delivery valve 146 and the delivery pump 144 and the system 130 removes oil from the restaurant to the cooking oil waste oil container 114 through the waste oil fitting 154 and the removal valve 150" at Col 5, lines 20-25).
Regarding Claim 8, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein the outflowing pipe (124) of the first tank (110) is connected to the fresh oil conduit (130) for transporting fresh oil from the first tank to the associated container, and wherein the inflowing pipe (also 124) of the second tank (114) is connected to the used oil conduit (also 130) for transporting used oil from the associated container to the second tank (see at least Col 5, lines 20-25 and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a connection of the conduit network (130 and 124) for enabling the fresh oil conduit to connect to the first associated source, and for enabling the used oil conduit to connect to the second associated source (per Examiner's rationale as presented in the rejection of Claim 1 above, "delivery and waste oil fittings 152, 154...adapted to couple with a delivery and removal conduit 124" would also couple with first and second "associated sources" in addition to the receiving location 10 as taught by Schoenbauer. See at least Figs 1, 4, and Col 5, lines 20-33).
Regarding Claim 10, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein the associated container is at least one fryer for frying a food item in cooking oil, and wherein at least one of the first and second associated sources is a transport vehicle for cooking oil (Shoenbauer discloses oil delivery from transport vehicle 120 to supply station 30, whose stated purpose is "to provide fresh oil to fryers" per Col 3, lines 51-58).
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenbauer.
Regarding Claim 12, Schoenbauer discloses a method of delivering fresh cooking oil to a restaurant, and taking away used oil from the restaurant, the method comprises steps of:
- providing an article (receiving location 10) having a first tank (container 18 of supply station 30) for receiving fresh oil and a second tank (a second container 18 of waste station 20) for receiving used oil, said first and second tanks having sensors (Schoenbauer discloses oil level sensing device 38 for container 18 within supply station 30; see Col 4, lines 1-27, and first and second fluid meters 106 for onboard tanks 110 and 114 at Col 5, lines 45-60.
Although Schoenbauer does not specifically teach a second level sensing device 38 for a second container 18 within waste station 20, Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so if desired, as the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, the duplication of level sensor 18 would have the predictable effect of monitoring levels in multiple tanks. See MPEP 2144.04);
- providing a delivery vehicle (120) having a first container containing fresh oil (110), a second container for receiving used oil (114), and a third container containing associated non-oil supplies for the restaurant (Schoenbauer discloses transport vehicle 120 as "a delivery truck, a trailer coupled with a vehicle, or other delivery vehicles" at Col 5, lines 4-7. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known across the arts to use such vehicles to store and transport additional containers that have different purposes);
- sensing an oil level in said first tank (via first fluid level sensor 106);
- sending a signal from said sensor, calling for additional fresh oil (Shoenbauer discloses "The level sensor 38 is operative to deliver a signal to a control device 140 on the transport vehicle 120 (FIG 2), indicating the sufficient oil has been delivered to the container 18" at Col 4, lines 10-26. Since this teaching of Schoenbauer indicates an ability to stop oil delivery, Examiner broadly interprets the passage as also indicating an ability to "call for" oil delivery, and/or "continue delivery");
- receiving said signal (via control device 140, see Fig 2 and at least Col 4, lines 17-24 and Col 6, lines 6-21) at an associated source of fresh oil (transport vehicle 120);
- sending said delivery vehicle to the restaurant (the normal operation of the system of Schoenburg which is explicitly drawn to delivering and removing oil from a restaurant);
- delivering fresh oil from said first container (110) to said first tank (container 18 of supply station 30); and
- transporting used oil from said second tank (container 18 of waste station 20) to said second container (114).
Regarding Claim 13, Schoenbauer discloses a method of delivering fresh cooking oil to a restaurant, and taking away used oil from the restaurant, wherein said delivery vehicle has a third container containing other restaurant supplies that are not cooking oil (Schoenbauer discloses transport vehicle 120 as "a delivery truck, a trailer coupled with a vehicle, or other delivery vehicles" at Col 5, lines 4-7. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known across the arts to use such vehicles to store and transport additional containers that have different purposes).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenbauer, in view of Vandersteen (US 2014/0053950).
Regarding Claims 2 and 5-6 and 11, Shoenbauer teaches the claimed invention (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), to include transport vehicle 120 and first and second containers 110 and 114. Shoenbauer additionally teaches said containers mounted within the transport vehicle, as would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art, and as commonly practiced in commercial delivery. Per Shoenbauer (see Col 4, line 65- Col 5, line 5), “The containers 110, 114 are generally cylindrical in shape, and are mounted in a vertical direction… The containers 110, 114 are adapted to be mounted on a transport vehicle 120.”
Examiner acknowledges the Shoenbauer reference does not explicitly teach the limitations of Applicant’s Claims 2 and 5-6 and 11, drawn to an “upright and columnar” housing, and the location of the tanks within the housing “e.g., the first tank being above the second tank”. However, Examiner asserts that it is extremely well-known to utilize housing (e.g. a frame, chassis, or similar structure) within a delivery vehicle and elsewhere to vertically mount tanks and other items for the purposes of saving floor space. In the present application, Applicant has not given any particular reason for a vertical mounting of tanks within a housing, nor any novel or unexpected results in doing so. Since Shoenbauer teaches mounted tanks (110, 114) within a housing (the cargo area of vehicle 120), Examiner concludes that reference additionally teaches the limitations of Claims 2 and 5-6, since shifting the mounting location(s) of the container(s) would not have modified the operation of the apparatus of Shoenbauer, and amount to a rearrangement of parts. The claimed configuration of Claims 2 and 5-6 is therefore deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice. Please see MPEP 2144.04.
However, and in the interests of compact prosecution (and should Applicant traverse the above rationale), Examiner additionally presents Vandersteen, who teaches (see para 57) liquid containers 16 and “a support frame 18 formed of rigid frame members having rectangular sides assembled in a cubic configuration so as to be readily stackable with other frames of like portable containers 16”.
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Schoenbauer and Vandersteen references each teach container storage. The Vandersteen reference additionally teaches vertical, stackable storage that is easily secured and saves floor space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the containers 110 and 114 of Schoenbauer via the vertical, stackable support frames 18 as taught by Vandersteen (if so desired), in order to gain the advantages of vertical, stackable storage that is easily secured and saves floor space.
Therefore,
Regarding Claim 2, Schoenbauer as modified by Vandersteen above teaches an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein said first tank is located above said second tank (at para 57, Vandersteen teaches containers 16 and "a support frame 18 formed of rigid frame members having rectangular sides assembled in a cubic configuration so as to be readily stackable with other frames of like portable containers 16").
Regarding Claim 5, Schoenbauer as modified by Vandersteen above teaches an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising said housing being generally upright and columnar (per Schoenbauer, the tanks 110 and 114 are "generally cylindrical" at Col 4, line 66), said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank (at para 57, Vandersteen teaches containers 16 and "a support frame 18 formed of rigid frame members having rectangular sides assembled in a cubic configuration so as to be readily stackable with other frames of like portable containers 16").
Regarding Claim 6, Schoenbauer as modified by Vandersteen above teaches an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising at least one corner guide, said at least one corner guide supporting and holding said first tank above said second tank (at para 57, Vandersteen teaches containers 16 and "a support frame 18 formed of rigid frame members having rectangular sides assembled in a cubic configuration so as to be readily stackable with other frames of like portable containers 16". Please see Fig 2, Examiner's annotations, which show "corner guides").
Regarding Claim 11, Schoenbauer discloses an article for transporting cooking oil and storing cooking oil, said article comprising:
- a first tank (110), said first tank having a first width and first depth and extending upward with a first height to create a first volume (these parameters are inherent to any tank), said first tank selectively receiving and holding cooking oil (see at least Fig 2 and Col 4, lines 55-67);
- a second tank (114), said second tank having a second width and second depth and extending upward with a second height to create a second volume (also inherent to any tank), said second tank selectively receiving and holding cooking oil, said first and second tanks having essentially the same configuration (Fig 2 and Col 4, lines 55-67; both tanks are described as "generally cylindrical in shape").
Further regarding Claim 11, as shown above, Schoenbauer, as modified by Vandersteen would additionally teaches a housing (Vandersteen, 18), said housing being generally upright and columnar (Vandersteen, Fig 2), said first and second tanks (110/114 of Schoenbauer and/or tanks 16 of Vandersteen) being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank (as desired by the user).
Further regarding Claims 1-13, Examiner has presented the prior art (Schoenbauer) as disclosing the broad claim preamble of “an article for transporting cooking oil…” wherein the “article” is interpreted to be a transport vehicle capable of servicing a restaurant. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s Specification, wherein the “article” could also be interpreted in the preamble of the present claim set as being a stationary tank structure within the restaurant itself. However, Schoenbauer (see Fig 1 and Col 1, line 1 – Col 4, Line 54) also teaches this configuration, wherein multiple restaurant-based containers 18 are vertically stacked in a housing with associated connections for receiving and disposing cooking oil to and from a transport vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9512383 B2, US 20080277412 A1, US 8474662 B2 and US 20200300830 A1 (all attributed to at least one inventor of the present joint inventive entity) each teach aspects of the general concept of delivery and removal of cooking oil via a transport vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753