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 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All bullets should be removed and the limitations reformatted into proper US claim format and grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 as follows.
“a first module housing” in Claim 1, line 5.
“an autonomous assembly zone” in Claim 1, line 7.
“a first food dispensing module” in Claim 1, line 9.
“a second food dispensing module” in Claim 1, line 12.
“a first conveyor module” in Claim 1, line 16.
“a second module housing” in Claim 3, line 3.
“a third food dispensing module” in Claim 3, line 4.
“a second conveyor module” in Claim 4, line 11.
“an elevator module” in Claim 5, line 1.
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.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 have a multiplicity of issues under section 112b. The following are considered exemplary.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “work surface height” in line 2 and "a of food hopper" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-20 are generally narrative and it is not clear what the relationship of each limitation is with the rest of the limitations. For example, in Claim 1, line 5, “a first module housing” does not have a transitional phrase such as “comprising” after the word “housing”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the following limitations each concern the housing or if they concern another limitation. For example, in Claim 1, line 16, the phrase “comprising a first conveyor module”, it is not clear what of the following limitations in lines 17-27 are part of the conveyor module or whether they are part of another element.
Dependent Claims 2-15 are not clear as to their dependency from any particular claims.
For example, Claim 2, line 1, recites the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:”. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 2, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 2.
In Claim 2, line 4, it is not clear what element “further comprising(comprises) a container dispensing module”.
Claim 2, lines 6 and 7, it is not clear what is “configured to dispense the food container into the first inlet door of the first conveyor module”.
Claim 4, line 2, the phrase “further comprising the second module housing:” requires a transitional phrase.
Claim 5, line 1, the phrase “further comprising an elevator module:” requires a transitional phrase.
Claim 6, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 6, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 6.
Claim 6, line 2, mentions the phrase “first conveyor belt” that lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 7, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 8, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 9, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 10, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 11, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim 11:” requires a transitional phrase and may not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 12 via Claim 11, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim 11:” requires a transitional phrase and may not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 13 via Claim 11, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 14, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, line 1, the phrase “the food production system of Claim [0019]:” requires a transitional phrase and does not recite proper claim dependency. Note that if Claim 19 is the dependency of Claim 15, then there is no antecedent basis for any of the limitations recited in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, the method recites the steps of receiving, in lines 2 and 3, a set of steps in response to a condition in lines 4-13 and another set of steps in response to a condition in lines 14-23. None of these steps mention any elements that perform these steps that would describe them as either manually or automatically performed. However, in light of the specification, paragraph 3 states the system is both manual and autonomous. See also paragraphs 15 and 17 mentioning a controller, for example. See also paragraphs 52-54 mentioning a controller and paragraphs 55-59 mentioning a computer system. It is therefore unclear and indefinite as to whether the steps are performed manually or automatically.
Claims 17-19 which depend from Claim 16 also exhibit the same issues.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claims 1-15, above.
Applicant should note that this is not an exhaustive list of all issues in Claims 1-20 and should inspect the claims for full validity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) first paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarra (US 2019/0069728 A1) in view of Lin (US 9,895,018 B2), further in view of Purgatorio et al (US 2011/0253482 A1), further in view of Mabee (10,391,597 B2), further in view of Egami et al (US 2008/0082206 A1) and further in view of Mack (US 9,237,817 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Alfarra teaches
a food production system, i.e., food preparation environment (100), with food system (105), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example, comprising:
a food preparation surface at (a) work surface height, i.e., the top surface of the food system (105) as illustrated in figure 2, defining a receptacle configured to
receive a of food hopper configured to store ingredients for preparation of units of a food product type;
a first module housing, i.e., interpreted as the housing of food service system (105), as illustrated in figure 2:
supporting the food preparation surface, i.e., the top of the housing of food system (105), as illustrated in figure 2;
defining an autonomous assembly zone extending along a longitudinal assembly axis, i.e., interpreted as the area along the track (225) as shown in figure 2, along with robot arm (310) as illustrated in figure 3, for example;
configured to transiently house a first food dispensing module, i.e., any of raw material station (205) as mentioned in paragraphs 39 and 41 and as illustrated in figure 3a, preparation station (210), as mentioned at paragraph 46 and as illustrated in figure 3b, ingredient station (215), as mentioned in paragraph 49 and as illustrated in figure 3c, and dispensing station (220) located below
the food preparation surface and configured to dispense a first ingredient
toward the autonomous assembly zone, as mentioned in figure 2, for example; and
configured to transiently house a second food dispensing module, i.e., any one of the other of (205, 210, 215, 220) located below
the food preparation surface, as illustrated in figure 2, located adjacent the first food dispensing module (205, 210, 215, 220),
and configured to dispense a second ingredient, i.e., as mentioned at paragraph 4, mentioning avocados or lettuce, for example, toward the autonomous assembly zone, via track (225), as illustrated in figure 2, for example;
a controller, i.e. control unit (235), as mentioned in paragraph 40 and as illustrated at figure 2, and network (135), computing devices (140), database (145) and server (150), along with backend system (152) and third party system (165), as mentioned in paragraph 28 and 32, configured to:
receive a food order indicating a first ingredient and a second ingredient, as mentioned in paragraphs 32 and 67, for example;
locate a first region of the food container beneath the first food dispensing
module by triggering the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt to advance by a first distance, noting the controller (235) controls the conveyor/track (225);
trigger the first food dispensing module (205, 210, 215, 220) to dispense the first ingredient into the first region of the food container, i.e., via the controller (235);
locate a second region of the food container beneath the second food dispensing module, i.e. via sensors as mentioned at paragraphs 3, 50, 64 by:
triggering the first conveyor belt to advance by a second distance, i.e. noting that the controller (235) is able to advance the conveyor carrying the food container to whatever distance is needed; and
triggering the second conveyor belt to advance by a third distance; and
trigger the second food dispensing module to dispense the second ingredient into the second region of the food container, noting the controller (235) is able to control and synchronize multiple modules to dispense items as needed.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach the top surface of the food system defining a receptacle configured to receive a of food hopper configured to store ingredients for preparation of units of a food product type.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Purgatorio teaches the top surface of the food system, i.e, food order assembly device (100, 200), as illustrated in figures 1 and 7, defining a receptacle, i.e., receptacles (136, 136a-136g) and pans (138) as mentioned at paragraphs 41 and 43 and pans (238a-238k), as illustrated in figures 7-9 and as mentioned at paragraph 51, for example, configured to receive a of food hopper, i.e., pans (138) and (238a-238k), configured to store ingredients for preparation of units of a food product type, i.e., such as condiments as mentioned at paragraphs 2 and 41, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the top surface of the food system defining a receptacle configured to receive a of food hopper configured to store ingredients for preparation of units of a food product type, as taught by Purgatorio, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of holding contents of items/ingredients for making food products.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach
comprising a first conveyor module:
arranged within the autonomous assembly zone of the first module
housing;
comprising a first conveyor belt extending parallel to and laterally offset
behind the longitudinal assembly axis;
comprising a second conveyor belt:
extending parallel to and laterally offset in front of the
longitudinal assembly axis; and
configured to cooperate with the first conveyor belt to support a
rim of a food container with a base of the food container
extending below the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor
belt.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Egami teaches
comprising a first conveyor module, i.e., input conveyor (42), as illustrated in figure 2:
arranged within the autonomous assembly zone of the first module
housing, as taught by Alfarra;
configured to cooperate with the first conveyor belt, as stated in paragraph 29, mentioning belts and rollers.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided comprising a first conveyor module:
arranged within the autonomous assembly zone of the first module
housing configured to cooperate with the first conveyor belt, as taught by Egami, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of transporting feed products to appropriate assembly stations.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Mabee teaches
comprising a first conveyor module, i.e., the workstation (14) having area inside wall portions (56, 55, 57), as mentioned in col. 7, lines 30-42:
arranged within the autonomous assembly zone, i.e., the area inside wall portions (56, 55, 57) of the first module housing, as illustrated in figure 9, for example;
comprising a first conveyor belt, i.e., belt member (32) extending parallel to and laterally offset behind the longitudinal assembly axis, i.e., the midline between belts (32, 34) as seen in figure 3, for example;
comprising a second conveyor belt, i.e., belt member (34),
(the belt) extending parallel to and laterally offset in front of the
longitudinal assembly axis, i.e., the midline between belts (32, 34) as seen in figure 3, for example;
a conveyor module (14), configured to cooperate with the first conveyor belt (32, 34) to support a bowl/container of a food item.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided comprising a first conveyor belt extending parallel to and laterally offset
behind the longitudinal assembly axis;
comprising a second conveyor belt:
extending parallel to and laterally offset in front of the
longitudinal assembly axis,
a conveyor module, configured to cooperate with the first conveyor belt as taught by Mabee, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of transporting feed products to appropriate assembly stations using a common alternative conveyor well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Mack teaches
support(ing) a rim of a food container, i.e., a bottle or a bowl, as mentioned at col. 35, lines 17-32, for example,
with a base of the food container, extending below the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt, i.e., both rails (7) as illustrated in figures 25, 26 and 31, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided support(ing) a rim of a food container, with a base of the food container, extending below the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt, as taught by Mack, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of securely holding a food container as the conveyor moves the food container.
Claim(s) 2-8, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarra (US 2019/0069728 A1) in view of Lin (US 9,895,018 B2), further in view of Purgatorio et al (US 2011/0253482 A1), further in view of Mabee (10,391,597 B2), further in view of Egami et al (US 2008/0082206 A1), further in view of Mack (US 9,237,817 B2) and further in view of Showalter (US 2021/0047165 A1) and further in view of Klein et al (US 2020/0154949 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-8, 16-18 and 20, Alfarra teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Alfarra does not expressly teach
wherein the first module housing comprises:
a first inlet door facing the container dispensing module;
further comprising a container dispensing module:
arranged adjacent the first conveyor module; and
configured to dispense the food container into the first inlet door of the first conveyor module; and
wherein the controller is further configured to:
trigger the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt to advance by the first distance to:
load the food container from the container dispensing module onto the
first conveyor and the second conveyor via the first inlet door; and
transition the food container from the first inlet door to a first position
under the first food dispensing module.
Regarding Claim 2, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Klein teaches
a container dispensing module, as mentioned at paragraph 88, which states as follows.
[0088] In another implementation, the system 100 includes packaging modules, such as: an upstream packaging module configured to dispense a food container (e.g., a cup, a bowl, a paper wrapper) at the head of a set of food dispensing modules 120; and a downstream packaging module configured to close a food container loaded with ingredients by upstream food dispensing modules 120, such as by placing a lid on a cup, placing a lid on a bowl, or wrapping a paper wrapper.
[0089] However, the system 100 can include any other type of food processing module 140 configured to modify ingredients dispensed by upstream food dispensing modules 120 in any other way.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a container dispensing module, as taught by Klein, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of dispensing a food container for creating a food product.
Regarding Claim 2, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Showalter teaches
wherein the first module housing, i.e.,, either of dispensing chambers (61, 62, 210) as illustrated in figure 33 and as mentioned at paragraphs 125 and 130, comprises:
a first inlet door, i.e., insulated chamber door (39) as illustrated in figure 33, facing the container dispensing module, as taught by Klein, noting that the container needs to be dispensed before the dispensing of the items/ingredients into the container;
further comprising a container dispensing module:, as taught by Klein,
arranged adjacent the first conveyor module, i.e., the roller table (30) under primary and secondary dispensing chambers (61, 62) as illustrated in figure 34, for example; and
configured to dispense the food container (34), as taught by Klein, into the first inlet door (39) of the first conveyor module (30); and
wherein the controller, i.e., computer (82) as mentioned at paragraph 92 and as illustrated in figure 20, is further configured to:
trigger the first conveyor belt (30) and the second conveyor belt (30) to advance by the first distance to:
load the food container from the container dispensing module, as taught by Klein, onto the first conveyor (30) and the second conveyor (30) via the first inlet door (39); and transition the food container (34) from the first inlet door (39) to a first position under the first food dispensing module (61, 62).
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the first module housing comprises:
a first inlet door facing the container dispensing module;
further comprising a container dispensing module:
arranged adjacent the first conveyor module; and
configured to dispense the food container into the first inlet door of the first conveyor module; and
wherein the controller is further configured to:
trigger the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt to advance by the first distance to:
load the food container from the container dispensing module onto the
first conveyor and the second conveyor via the first inlet door; and
transition the food container from the first inlet door to a first position
under the first food dispensing module, as taught by Showalter, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of dispensing a food container and dispensing ingredients into it for creating a food product.
Regarding Claim 3, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Showalter teaches
wherein the first module housing (61, 62, 210) comprises:
a first output door (39) facing a second module housing (61, 62) containing a third food dispensing module (61, 62), noting that it is obvious to have duplicated as many food dispensing modules as needed to meet the dispensing demand for various ingredients, the first conveyor module (30) interposed between the first inlet door (39) and the first output door (39), as illustrated in figure 33; and
wherein the controller (82) is further configured to:
transition the food container (34) out of the first module housing (61, 62, 210) and into the second module housing (61, 62, 210) by triggering the first conveyor belt (30) and the second conveyor belt (30) to advance by a fourth distance.
Regarding Claim 4, see the rejection of Claims 1-4, above.
Regarding Claim 5, Alfarra does not expressly teach
further comprising an elevator module:
downstream of the second module housing;
defining a third inlet door configured to receive the food container downstream of the first module housing and the second module housing; and
configured to raise the food container to the food preparation surface for collection by an operator.
Regarding Claim 5, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Klein teaches
further comprising an elevator module, i.e., a lift, as mentioned in paragraph 92, for example:
downstream of the second module housing (120), noting the food dispensing module (120) includes multiple food dispensers for dispensing various salad ingredients, as mentioned at paragraphs 92 and 93, and as illustrated in figure 1;
defining a third inlet door, as taught by Klein, configured to receive the food container, i.e., a food unit, downstream of the first module housing (120) and the second module housing (120); and
configured to raise the food container to the food preparation surface for collection by an operator, as mentioned at paragraph 93, for example. Note that paragraph 94 mentions that “the system 100 can include handoff modules of any other type or format configured to interface with food units, food dispensing modules 120, and/or food processing modules 140 in any other way”.
Regarding Claim 6, Alfarra does not expressly teach
wherein first conveyor belt is configured to contact and support a first arc of the food container, the first arc defining a first arc length less than 5% of a circumference of the food container; and
wherein second conveyor belt is configured to contact and support a second arc of the food container, the second arc opposite the first arc and defining a second arc length less than 5% of the circumference of the food container.
Regarding Claim 6, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Mack teaches
wherein first conveyor belt (7), as illustrated in figure 31, is configured to contact and support a first arc of the food container, and
wherein second conveyor belt (7) is configured to contact and support a second arc of the food container, the second arc opposite the first arc, noting that the food container is supported about 100% of its circumference, as illustrated in figures 30 and 31 and as mentioned at col. 35, lines 17-32.
Note that Applicant’s specification does not provided a discussion of the criticality of the necessity of using 5% of a circumference of the food container or more or less of the circumference.
Therefore, it is considered to be a matter of design choice as to whether the first arc defining a first arc length less than 5% of a circumference of the food container and/or
the second arc opposite the first arc and defining a second arc length less than 5% of the circumference of the food container,
i.e., what percentage of the circumference to use based upon the purpose of maintaining the balance between reduction of friction and stability of the container as it moves along the conveyor.
Regarding Claim 7, see the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
Regarding Claim 8, see the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claims 4, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claims 1-3, above.
Claim(s) 9-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarra (US 2019/0069728 A1) in view of Lin (US 9,895,018 B2), further in view of Purgatorio et al (US 2011/0253482 A1), further in view of Mabee (10,391,597 B2), further in view of Egami et al (US 2008/0082206 A1), further in view of Mack (US 9,237,817 B2) and further in view of Showalter (US 2021/0047165 A1), further in view of Klein et al (US 2020/0154949 A1) and further in view of Nazarian et al (US 2017/0280763 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 9-15 and 19, Alfarra teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Alfarra does not expressly teach
wherein the first food dispensing module and the second food dispensing module are arranged in a radial pattern over the autonomous assembly zone;
wherein the controller is configured to:
advance the food container to locate the first region of the food container
centered beneath the first food dispensing module by triggering the first
conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt to advance in a first longitudinal direction by the first distance;
rotate the food container to locate the second region of the food container
centered beneath the second food dispensing module by:
triggering the first conveyor belt to advance in the first longitudinal
direction by the second distance; and
triggering the second conveyor belt to advance in a second longitudinal
direction opposite the first longitudinal direction by the third distance
equal to the second distance.
Regarding Claim 9, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Nazarian teaches
wherein the first food dispensing module, i.e., one of the spice units (30), as illustrated in figure 2, and the second food dispensing module, i.e., another of the spice units (30), are arranged in a radial pattern over the autonomous assembly zone (14) as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the first food dispensing module and the second food dispensing module are arranged in a radial pattern over the autonomous assembly zone, as taught by Nazarian, in Alfarra’s food production system, for the purpose of dispensing a food ingredients in a compact manner, for creating a food product.
Regarding Claim 9, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Showalter teaches
wherein the controller (82) is configured to:
advance the food container (34) to locate the first region of the food container centered beneath the first food dispensing module (61, 62) by triggering the first conveyor belt (30) and the second conveyor belt (30) to advance in a first longitudinal direction by the first distance;
rotate the food container (34), i.e., via central rotation mechanism (32) for rotating the roller conveyor (32), as mentioned at paragraph 129, to locate the second region of the food container (34) centered beneath the second food dispensing module (61, 62) by:
triggering the first conveyor belt, i.e., support wheel (33), as mentioned in paragraph 129, to advance in the first longitudinal direction by the second distance; and
triggering the second conveyor belt, i.e., another support wheel (33) to advance in a second longitudinal direction opposite the first longitudinal direction by the third distance equal to the second distance, as mentioned in paragraph 129, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 9, above.
Regarding Claim 11, Alfarra does not expressly teach,
further comprising:
a first rail arranged under the first conveyor belt and configured to rigidly support a first section of the first conveyor belt in contact with the rim of the food container; and
a second rail arranged under the second conveyor belt and configured to rigidly support a second section of the second conveyor belt in contact with the rim of the food container.
Regarding Claim 11, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Mack teaches
further comprising:
a first rail (7) arranged under the first conveyor belt and configured to rigidly support a first section of the first conveyor belt in contact with the rim of the food container; and
a second rail (7) arranged under the second conveyor belt and configured to rigidly support a second section of the second conveyor belt in contact with the rim of the food container.
Regarding Claim 12, Alfarra does not expressly teach,
further comprising:
a first weight sensor coupled to the first rail and configured to output a first
signal corresponding to a first weight of the food container carried by the first conveyor belt; and
a second weight sensor coupled to the second rail and configured to output a second signal corresponding to a second weight of the food container carried by the second conveyor belt; and
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive the first signal from the first weight sensor;
receive the second signal from the second weight sensor;
calculate a lateral center of mass of the food container based on the first signal and the second signal; and
define the second region of the food container corresponding to a greatest
distance, within the food container, from the lateral center of mass of the food container.
Regarding Claim 12, Alfarra does not expressly teach, but Showalter teaches
further comprising:
a first weight sensor, i.e., a set of load weight cell scales (78) as mentioned at paragraph 137, and as illustrated in figure 34, coupled to the first rail, as taught by Mack, and configured to output a first signal corresponding to a first weight of the food container carried by the first conveyor belt (30); and
a second weight sensor (78), noting that a set of load weight cell scales (78) are construed to include two load cell scales, coupled to the second rail, as taught by Mack, and configured to output a second signal corresponding to a second weight of the food container (34) carried by the second conveyor belt (30); and
wherein the controller (82) is configured to:
receive the first signal from the first weight sensor (78);
receive the second signal from the second weight sensor (78);
calculate a lateral center of mass of the food container based on the first signal and the second signal, as is commonly performed with a set of load cell weight sensors; and
define the second region of the food container (34) corresponding to a greatest distance, within the food container (34), from the lateral center of mass of the food container (34), as is commonly performed with common proximity and load cell sensors.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 12, above.
Regarding Claim 14, Alfarra does not expressly teach
wherein the food order further comprises a plating instruction indicating a region within the food container for each ingredient in the set of ingredients; and
wherein the controller is further configured to align a region of the food container beneath a food dispensing module according to the plating instructions.
Regarding Claim 14, official notice is taken that it is well known to cause a controller to:
wherein the food order further comprises a plating instruction indicating a region within the food container for each ingredient in the set of ingredients; and
wherein the controller is further configured to align a region of the food container beneath a food dispensing module according to the plating instructions.
Regarding Claim 15, Alfarra does not expressly teach
wherein the first conveyor module is
further configured to:
support the rim of a first food container of a first depth at a target distance
beneath the food dispensing module; and
support the rim of a second food container of a second depth at the target
distance beneath the food dispensing module, wherein the second depth is
greater than the first depth and a base of the second food container is suspended closer to a bottom of the module housing than a base of the first food container.
Regarding Claim 15, official notice is taken that it is well known that:
wherein the first conveyor module is
further configured to:
support the rim of a first food container of a first depth at a target distance
beneath the food dispensing module; and
support the rim of a second food container of a second depth at the target
distance beneath the food dispensing module, wherein the second depth is
greater than the first depth and a base of the second food container is suspended closer to a bottom of the module housing than a base of the first food container.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 12, above.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oleynik ‘795 is cited as teaching a kitchen module (50), as illustrated in figures 7a-7e, for example.
Kodali ‘081 is cited as teaching an automated kitchen system (200), as illustrated in figures 1-8, for example.
Babkock ‘226 is cited as teaching another example of a surface that defines ingredient receptacles as illustrated in figures 1-22, for example.
Tuhro ‘536 is cited as teaching a modular food service equipment, as illustrated in figures 1-15, for example.
Leslie ‘742 is cited as teaching a modular food service equipment, as illustrated in figures 1-7, for example.
Showalter ‘706 is cited as the issued patent of PG pub Showalter ‘165.
Vardakostas ‘671 is cited as teaching a system of dispensing food ingredients to a sandwich food item, as illustrated in figures 1-14, for example.
Frehn ‘053 is cited as teaching a system of dispensing food ingredients to a sandwich food item, as illustrated in figures 1-7, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
March 6, 2026