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
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “feeding the discrete seasoning portion” while claim 18 recites “providing, by a metering device.” For consistency and clarity, claim 18’s “providing, by a metering device” should be changed to –feeding, by a metering device--. 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following claim limitations appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“an apparatus configured to…” in claim 17. The enclosure 202, and other enclosures described herein, may include fans, suction fans, heaters, infrared devices (par. 46).
“food processing device” in claims 16-17 and 22. The food processing device may include at least one enclosure configured to accommodate consumable items (par. 6).
“securing feature” in claims 14-15. For example, the securing feature may be a magnet, a fastener, or another securing assembly configured to facilitate a concise assembly of the apparatus with an automated food preparation system (par. 56).
“metering device” in claim 1, 16, and 18. The metering device 408 may include a portioning plate 428 having a cavity (par. 71).
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redler (US 20130263781 A1)
Claim 1. Redler discloses a seasoning dispensing apparatus (precision seasoner 10, title), comprising:
a hopper (12) including that holds a seasoning (hopper contains the seasoning, par. 22, Fig. 2);
a metering device coupled below the hopper to receive the seasoning and to select a discrete seasoning portion of the seasoning from the hopper (slide plungers 14 dispenses pre-selected quantities, par. 22); and
a distributor coupled to the metering device to receive the discrete seasoning portion and to dispense the discrete seasoning portion outwardly from a distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 is below the slide plunger and has an axis, Fig. 5).
Claim 2. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distributor is stationary (seasoning spreader 16 is stationary, Fig. 5).
Claim 3. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a stationary support coupled to suspend the distributor at a predetermined height (support structure 36 holds up the seasoning spreader 16, Fig. 1, par. 27) above an enclosure including a volume to contain a plurality of consumable items to be seasoned (support structure sits above the food-holding container 18 which has a volume and contains food, par. 27, Fig. 1).
Claim 4. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the enclosure regulates a temperature of air within the enclosure (fry warming station, par. 22).
Claim 5. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distributor includes an angled surface about the distributor axis to spread the discrete seasoning portion radially outwardly with a radial spread of 360 degrees from the distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 has an angled surface which projects seasoning radially outward, Fig. 3, par. 35).
Claim 6. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distributor includes a dispersion cone (seasoning spreader 16 can have a dome shape, par. 35, Fig. 3).
Claim 7. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distributor includes a vertex disposed below the metering device (16 has a vertex, Fig. 3), the vertex containing the distributor axis, the distributor including a downwardly angled surface extending radially outwardly about the distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 has an angled surface which projects seasoning radially outward, Fig. 3, par. 35).
Claim 8. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metering device includes a portioning plate (sliding plunger) having a cavity (hollow compartment 38 in the slide plunger, Fig. 6, par. 29) configured to receive the seasoning from the hopper, the cavity defining a volume corresponding to the discrete seasoning portion (hollow compartment 38 receives a desired quantity of seasoning, par. 29).
Claim 9. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the portioning plate is restricted to a bidirectional movement to translate the cavity horizontally with respect to an outlet of the hopper (when the sliding plunger is pushed horizontally with respect to the outlet of the hopper, the seasoning is dispensed, par. 32, Fig. 2).
Claim 10. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 8, further comprising a stationary cover plate defining an opening (top wall of the hollow compartment has an opening, Fig. 6), the stationary cover plate positioned above the portioning plate such that the opening is selectively located above the cavity (top wall of the hollow compartment is above the sliding plunger, Fig. 6).
Claim 12. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metering device is arranged above the distributor (slide plungers 14 are above the seasoning spreader 16, Fig. 5).
Claim 14. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one securing feature configured to secure the seasoning dispensing apparatus to a food processing device (support structure 36 holds up the seasoning spreader 16 above the food holder 18, Fig. 1, par. 27, or the seasoner may be mounted onto any other food processing device, par. 22).
Claim 16. Redler discloses an automated food preparation system (precision seasoner 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a hopper (12) including that holds a seasoning (hopper contains the seasoning, par. 22, Fig. 2);
a metering device coupled below the hopper to receive the seasoning and to select a discrete seasoning portion of the seasoning from the hopper (slide plungers 14 dispenses pre-selected quantities, par. 22); and
a distributor coupled to the metering device to receive the discrete seasoning portion and to dispense the discrete seasoning portion outwardly from a distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 is below the slide plunger and has an axis, Fig. 5), and
a food processing device located below the distributor (food holding container 18 or the seasoner may be mounted onto any other food processing device, par. 22).
Claim 17. Redler discloses the automated food preparation system of claim 16, wherein the food processing device comprises at least one enclosure configured to accommodate consumable items (food holding container 18, Fig. 1) and
wherein the at least one enclosure is coupled to an apparatus configured to regulate a material composition and temperature of air within the at least one enclosure (fry warming station, wherein a fry warming station is capable of regulating material composition and temperature, par. 22).
Claim 18. Redler discloses a method of dispensing seasoning (precision seasoner 10, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing a seasoning in a hopper (hopper 12 contains the seasoning, par. 22, Fig. 2);
providing, by a metering device (slide plungers 14 dispenses pre-selected quantities, par. 22),
a discrete seasoning portion (pre-selected quantities, par. 22) of the seasoning to a distributor having a distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 is below the slide plunger and has an axis, Fig. 5); and
expelling the discrete seasoning portion with the distributor such that the discrete seasoning portion is spread radially outward from the distributor axis (seasoning spreader 16 has an angled surface which projects seasoning radially outward, Fig. 3, par. 35).
Claim 19. Redler discloses the method of claim 18, wherein feeding the discrete seasoning portion to the distributor comprises aligning a cavity (hollow compartment 38 in the slide plunger, Fig. 6, par. 29) of a portioning plate (sliding plunger) of the metering device with an aperture positioned above the distributor, the cavity defining a volume corresponding to the discrete seasoning portion (hollow compartment 38 receives a desired quantity of seasoning, par. 29).
Claim 20. Redler discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising guiding the discrete seasoning portion through the aligned cavity and aperture such that the discrete seasoning portion contacts a surface of the distributor (when the sliding plunger is pushed horizontally with respect to the outlet of the hopper, the seasoning is dispensed and hits the seasoning spreader, par. 32, Fig. 2).
Claim 21. Redler discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the metering device includes a reciprocating portioning plate (when the sliding plunger is pushed horizontally with respect to the outlet of the hopper, the seasoning is dispensed, par. 32, Fig. 2) defining a cavity having an interior volume (hollow compartment 38 receives a desired quantity of seasoning, par. 29) corresponding to the discrete seasoning portion.
Claim 22. Redler discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the discrete seasoning portion is distributed from the distributor to a food processing device positioned below the distributor (seasoning is distributed to the food holding container 18, Fig. 1),
further comprising regulating, by the food processing device, a material composition and temperature of air within at least one enclosure (food holding container can be a fry warming station, wherein a fry warming station is capable of regulating material composition and temperature, par. 22),
wherein the at least one enclosure is configured to accommodate consumable items (fry warming station, par. 22).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redler as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kasper (US 2022/0183508 A1).
Claim 11. The seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 8, further comprising a
Redler does not disclose a solenoid for the motor.
Kasper discloses a dispensing system wherein a solenoid 62 moves the dispensing arm 50 between the dispensing condition and the retaining condition (par. 31, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Redler to incorporate the teachings of Kasper and use solenoid for the motor. Kasper demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a solenoid for the motor to actuate the slide plungers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redler as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lagace (US 20200165059 A1).
Claim 13. Redler discloses the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 12, wherein an outlet of the hopper is
Redler does not explicitly disclose that the outlet is directly aligned with the distributor axis.
Lagace discloses a granular dispenser wherein a metering chamber dispenses a predetermined amount of product (par. 37, Fig. 1) directly onto the vertex of the dispersion cone 24 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Redler to incorporate the teachings of Lagace and provide at least one of the sliding plungers to be aligned with the dispersion cone’s axis. Doing so would have the benefit of evenly distributing the seasoning.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redler as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kanner (US 2018/0228319 A1).
Claim 15. Redler does not disclose the seasoning dispensing apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one securing feature includes a magnet.
Kanner discloses a spice dispenser 110 which is mounted above target food item using magnets (par. 108, Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Redler to incorporate the teachings of Kanner and use magnets to mount the support structure 36 to the food holding container 18. Doing so would have the benefit of easily mounting and dismounting the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
