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 .
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Virtually all the claims are vague recitations of an element which might contain structure, followed by narrative language about how the element is supposed to operate. The language in the claims does not seem to qualify as functional language.
The broadness of claim 1 should be noted. While the elements are not necessarily considered indefinite, a person meets the limitations of all elements in claim 1. 112(f) is not considered to be invoked and limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.
There is no specific structure which makes the device “automatic” or structure for “automatically cutting”. A person with a knife could be considered a cutting mechanism and “automatically” cut the doner baton when it is received in front of them. It is not provided by a machine and could be picked up by a human, then cut.
It should be noted that functional language describes how an element operates in a somewhat specific manner. Language which generally describes how a broadly claimed element operates is not considered functional.
There is no structure making the device specific to “frozen doner batons”, or “frozen breads”. Claim 1 does not contain any refrigeration units or specific structure to handle frozen items over refrigerated items.
“At least one bread section” does not provide any structure. What are the structural limitations of “bread section”. This limitation is abstract. The bread section is broad enough to read on a table for a person to place a piece of bread, or even a cabinet which stores bread, similar to a bakery section in a grocery store.
The cooking mechanism does not contain any structure and could be a person grilling the baton.
Claim 1, recites “with the ability”. It is not clear how “ability” is to be interpreted. What limitations are included in the term “ability.” Significant unclaimed structure and limitations are implied by “the ability.”
Claim 2 recites “unmanned”, however it is not clear how this imparts any structure on the claim.
Claim 2 recites “follow the steps”, but no steps are claimed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the external wall" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No structure of “automat” is provided and it is not clear if this would comprise a wall.
Claim 2 recites “at least one payment unit”, but it is not clear which structure is included in the limitations of “payment unit”.
Claim 3 recites “a product output.” The limitations of “product output” are unable to be determined as no structure is claimed. It is also unclear how the product output is located outside the automat.
Claim 3 recites “fully prepared and packed condition.” However, there is no structure, or any other claim language to indicate what is considered fully prepared and packed condition, or structure to accomplish a fully prepared and packed order.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the frozen leaf donner slices" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “leaf donner slices.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "them" in lines 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what is meant by “them.” What is included in the limitations of “them”.
Claim 4 recites “move them along in the cooking mechanism”. No structure of the cooking mechanism is claimed. It is not clear how the conveyor would move items through a cooking mechanism as no structure of either device is claimed and no claim language indicates how the conveyor and cooking mechanism are oriented in relation to each other.
Claim 5 recites “at least on vertical conveyor”. This is not nearly enough for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine how the sections would be positioned on top of each other and operate. This language, is not functional, it is merely narrative and requires an excessive number of limitations to be read into the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "some sections" in lines 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "delivery" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “sandwich combining section”. Again, this could be a human. The same human or an assembly line of humans. It is also not clear what structure would be included in this section to accomplish the functional/narrative language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the breads" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “frozen breads”. It is also unclear if “breads” is considered multiple pieces of the same type of bread or a single piece of multiple types of breads.
Claim 8 recites “sauce unit” and “garniture unit”. As the extra adding mechanism already provides sauce, garniture and spice, it is not clear if these are additional units or if these are duplicate limitations.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a cleaning mechanism” but does not claim any structure of the cleaning mechanism. It is not clear how any cleaning mechanism would be, or could be structured, to clean all the elements mentioned in claim 1. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.
Claims 2-13 recite “it”. It is not clear if “it” is referring to the Doner preparation and service automat or a different element of a parent claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "conveyors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A conveyor is already claimed in claim 4.
It should be noted element numbers, such as “one cutting mechanism (201) “ in the claim are not given patentable weight and do not impart any structural limitations on the claims.
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) 1-13, as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al Afandi et al (US 2015/0306778).
Al Afandi discloses, regarding claim 1. A doner preparation and service automat (100) with the ability to take orders, to prepare doner automatically and to serve the same (See Figs 1-4), characterized in that; it comprises the following;
At least one cutting mechanism (201) that enables to automatically cut the frozen doner batons (200) in the automat (100) according to the received order into slices of leaf doner; (slicing component 150, See Paragraph, [0019], [0068] this element has the ability to cut frozen batons)
At least one bread section (300) that keeps the frozen breads in the automat (100) and supplies frozen bread according to the order; (bread dispenser, 225, 210, Paragraph [0073], the claim does not require the bread be kept frozen. See Abstract)
At least one cooking mechanism (204) that provides baking/heating the frozen leaf doner slices cut by the cutting mechanism (201) and frozen breads transferred from the bread section (300). (Grilling mechanism, or heater, 293 Paragraphs [0053], [0064]-[0068], [0071])
Regarding claim 2, ordering screen 286, credit card mechanism 280. (See Paragraph [0071])
Regarding claim 3, See Fig 1B. Sandwich exit is show. (See Paragraph [0075])
Regarding claim 4, Conveyor belt 134. (See Paragraph [0073]-[0076])
Regarding claim 5, vertical rail 287 allows the device to have a more compact space. (See Paragraph [0076])
Regarding claim 6, (See Paragraphs [0072]-[0076], the sandwich elements are combined.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, sections 371 contain garnishment, sections 267 provides sauce, and element 261 provides a spice. (See Paragraph [0074])
Regarding claim 9, See Paragraphs [0075], [0085], packaging and heating unit 340, 300
Regarding claim 10, [0051] The automatic control unit 116 would comprise a processor
Regarding claim 11, [0051] The machine is controlled by remote control 137.
Regarding claim 13, (See Paragraphs [0073]-[0074]) Conveyer belt 135 performs the elements of claim 13.
Given the indefiniteness of claim 12, it is unable to be rejected. Although, sliding rails 259 could be considered a cleaning mechanism as they allow a user to clean the entire device. See Paragraph [0080].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/10/2026