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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 23-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: "forming apparatus” and “applying apparatus” in claim 1, “frying part” and “semi-finished product transfer part” in claim 2, “semi-finished product arranging part” in claim 5, “transfer apparatus” in claim 6 and “semi-finished product separating part” in claim 8.
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 limitations "forming apparatus” and “applying apparatus” in claim 1, “frying part” and “semi-finished product transfer part” in claim 2, “semi-finished product arranging part” in claim 5, “transfer apparatus” in claim 6, and “semi-finished product separating part” in claim 8 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” and “part,” respectively, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function:
"forming apparatus configured to cover a filling-ingredient stick”
“applying apparatus configured to apply a topping”
“frying part configured to heat oil”
“semi-finished product transfer part configured to transfer the semi-finished product across an upper side of the frying part”
“semi-finished product arranging part configured to rotate and arrange the semi-finished product”
“transfer apparatus configured to grip the stick of the semi-finished product”
“semi-finished product separating part configured to push the stick of the semi-finished product to separate the stick from the transfer apparatus”
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Terms “forming,” “applying,” “arranging,” “transfer,” and “separating” convey only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following 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:
"forming apparatus” is disclosed as element 20 (Figs. 5-7) which paragraph 0043 states includes a nozzle 21 for ejecting dough onto the ingredient stick.
“applying apparatus” is disclosed as element 30 (Figs. 8-11) which paragraphs 0059-0072 disclose a multitude of structures making up the applying apparatus, including topping part 31, topping plate 311, driver 313, rotating member 32, etc.
“frying part” is disclosed as element 41 (Fig. 13) which paragraph 0081 discloses as including an oil tank and a heating element for heating the oil.
“semi-finished product transfer part” is disclosed as element 44 (Fig. 14) which para. 0082 discloses as including a rail 441 and slider 442.
“semi-finished product arranging part” is disclosed as element 90b (Fig. 12) which paragraph 0078 discloses as including a gripping device having a plurality of clips capable of gripping the stick
“transfer apparatus” is disclosed as element 10 (Figs. 1, 5, 7) which paragraphs 0038-0040 disclose as including a conveyor belt 11, frame 12, and gripping part 13
“semi-finished product separating part” is disclosed as element 50 (Fig. 12) which paragraph 0073 discloses as including a push rod.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han Hyun (KR20190045572).
Regarding claim 1, Han Hyun teaches a stick-type food preparation system (Technical Field; “present invention relates to a method for producing deep-fried food, and more particularly, to a method for manufacturing deep-fried food which can improve crisp texture of the deep-fried food while reducing the peel-off of the deep-fried food.”) comprising:
a forming apparatus configured to cover a filling-ingredient stick, which is provided by skewering a filling ingredient with a stick, with a dough (Step S3, the raw material is covered with a primary batter fluid, which necessary involves some structure to cover the raw material with dough. Han Hyun states that the primary batter solution is covered onto the raw material. The structure inherently required amounts to a forming apparatus that is configured to cover the raw material with batter);
an applying apparatus configured to apply a topping to a dough stick provided from the filling-ingredient stick in the forming apparatus (Step S4, the raw material coated with primary batter is then covered with a secondary batter. See also Example 1); and
a deep fryer configured to deep-fry, in oil, a semi-finished product provided by applying the topping to the dough stick in the applying apparatus (Step S5; the raw material coated with the batters is put into a frying oil at 170-190°C).
Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In this case, the filling ingredient stick, which is provided by skewering a filling ingredient with a stick, and the dough are claimed functionally and not structurally. In other words, the aforementioned limitations are claimed as the material or article worked upon by the preparation system.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 recites “to transfer the semi-finished product to the deep fryer…in the transfer direction” which renders the claim indefinite as “the transfer direction” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is not reasonably clear what direction is being referenced.
Claim 7 similarly recites “the transfer direction” without defining the same and does not clarify the above ambiguity.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and inherits the above ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US 2019/0335770) in view of Han Hyun (KR20190045572).
Regarding claim 1, Walser teaches a stick-type food preparation system (para. 0002; “invention relates to the preparation and cooking of a coated food article on a stick, and in particular, to a corn dog.”) comprising:
a forming apparatus configured to cover a filling-ingredient stick, which is provided by skewering a filling ingredient with a stick, with a dough (para. 0042; “The components include a transport mechanism 12 to move the food articles 300 along the frame 10 using stick bars 38, a loading station 50 which inserts a first end 304 of sticks 302 into an aperture 40 in the stick bar 38 and a second end 306 into the food article 300 itself, a dipping station 162 which coats the food articles 300 with batter….”) (para. 0058; “control 350 will position the loaded stick bar 38 over the coating bin 164 in the lowered position. The control 350 will then elevate the coating bin, for example 6 inches, to submerge the entire food article 300 in the batter. The level of the batter within the bin 164 can be adjusted by varying the input rate of batter through the feed opening to insure the food article 300 is completely coated.”);
a deep fryer configured to deep-fry, in oil, a semi-finished product provided by applying the topping to the dough stick in the applying apparatus (para. 0063; “After the second dip, the stick bar 38 is then moved toward the frying station 190… As the stick bar 38 moves in the process direction, the gear racks 214 and gears 212 cause the stick bar 38 to rotate 360 degrees about its elongate direction as seen in FIG. 1 to lift the food articles 300 and sticks 302 over the front lip 196 of the fry tank 192 and into the hot grease therein. After being rotated into the fry tank 192, a channel 262 at the frying station engages lug 260 to hold the food articles vertical, as the frying process might otherwise move the food articles 300 about and create non-uniform frying.”).
Walser teaches the claimed invention except for an applying apparatus configured to apply a topping to a dough stick provided from the filling-ingredient stick in the forming apparatus.
Han Hyun relates to producing deep-fried food (Technical Field; “present invention relates to a method for producing deep-fried food, and more particularly, to a method for manufacturing deep-fried food which can improve crisp texture of the deep-fried food while reducing the peel-off of the deep-fried food.”) and teaches covering an ingredient with batter (Step S3, the raw material is covered with a primary batter fluid, which necessary involves some structure to cover the raw material with dough. Han Hyun states that the primary batter solution is covered onto the raw material. The structure inherently required amounts to a forming apparatus that is configured to cover the raw material with batter).
Han Hyun also teaches an applying apparatus configured to apply a topping to the battered ingredient (Step S4, the raw material coated with primary batter is then covered with a secondary batter. See also Example 1). Han Hyun states that the ingredient, after being coated in the primary and secondary batters, is then fried in oil (step S5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Walser with Han Hyun, by modifying the system of Walser, to include the topping application taught by Han Hyun, for in doing so would provide a food product that has a more crispy texture as a result of applying batter with reduced separation (Han Hyun; Abstract). In this case, by adding the secondary batter application of Han Hyun into the system of Walser would provide an system for producing a fried ingredient that has improved fried characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the deep fryer (Walser; fryer 190) comprises: a frying part (heating elements 200) configured to heat oil accommodated therein (para. 0065); and a semi-finished product transfer part (See Fig. 2; transport mechanism 12 moves food articles along frame 10) configured to transfer the semi-finished product across an upper side of the frying part and allow the semi-finished product to be inclined so as to be dipped into the oil accommodated in the frying part during the transfer operation (para. 0063; “As it approaches the frying station 190, the gears 212 on each side of the stick bar 38 engage gear racks 214 on frame 10. Gears 212 and gear racks 214 form an elevation mechanism 210. As the stick bar 38 moves in the process direction, the gear racks 214 and gears 212 cause the stick bar 38 to rotate 360 degrees about its elongate direction as seen in FIG. 1 to lift the food articles 300 and sticks 302 over the front lip 196 of the fry tank 192 and into the hot grease therein. After being rotated into the fry tank 192, a channel 262 at the frying station engages lug 260 to hold the food articles vertical, as the frying process might otherwise move the food articles 300 about and create non-uniform frying.”).
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein (Walser), when receiving the semi-finished product from the applying apparatus, the deep fryer further comprises a semi-finished product arranging part configured to rotate and arrange the semi-finished product so that a direction in which the stick of the semi-finished product faces a direction, in which the semi-finished product is transferred, or a direction opposite to the direction in which the semi-finished product is transferred (para. 0063; “As it approaches the frying station 190, the gears 212 on each side of the stick bar 38 engage gear racks 214 on frame 10. Gears 212 and gear racks 214 form an elevation mechanism 210. As the stick bar 38 moves in the process direction, the gear racks 214 and gears 212 cause the stick bar 38 to rotate 360 degrees about its elongate direction as seen in FIG. 1 to lift the food articles 300 and sticks 302 over the front lip 196 of the fry tank 192 and into the hot grease therein. After being rotated into the fry tank 192, a channel 262 at the frying station engages lug 260 to hold the food articles vertical, as the frying process might otherwise move the food articles 300 about and create non-uniform frying.”).
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including (Walser) a transfer apparatus (transfer mechanism 12 drives stick bar 38. Stick 302 and food article 300 are held in aperture 40 of the stick bar 38 by a spring loaded plunger 310. Abstract.) configured to grip the stick of the semi-finished product to transfer the semi-finished product to the deep fryer through the forming apparatus and the applying apparatus in the transfer direction (para. 0063; “As it approaches the frying station 190, the gears 212 on each side of the stick bar 38 engage gear racks 214 on frame 10. Gears 212 and gear racks 214 form an elevation mechanism 210. As the stick bar 38 moves in the process direction, the gear racks 214 and gears 212 cause the stick bar 38 to rotate 360 degrees about its elongate direction as seen in FIG. 1 to lift the food articles 300 and sticks 302 over the front lip 196 of the fry tank 192 and into the hot grease therein. After being rotated into the fry tank 192, a channel 262 at the frying station engages lug 260 to hold the food articles vertical, as the frying process might otherwise move the food articles 300 about and create non-uniform frying.”).
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 6, including (Walser) wherein the transfer apparatus comprises: a transfer operating part (chain 14) extending in the transfer direction; a transfer frame (stick bar 38) coupled to the transfer operating part so as to move in the transfer direction according to rotation of the transfer operating part; and a gripping part (stick 302 and food article 300 are held in aperture 40 of stick bar 38 via a spring loaded plunger 310) configured to grip the stick and rotatably coupled to the transfer frame.
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 6, including (Walser) a semi-finished product separating part configured to push the stick of the semi-finished product to separate the stick from the transfer apparatus (para. 0072; “When the slide cylinder 244 is extended, stick gripper rods 246 vertically extending from the stripper slide 234 are brought proximate fixed stick gripper rods(not shown) extending from the support bar 238. The fixed stick gripper rods extend from the support bar 238 through rod slots (not shown) in the stripper slide 234. The gripper rods 246 and fixed gripper rods are aligned. The fixed gripper rods remain stationary and the stick gripper rods 246 reciprocate back and forth. The rod slots are of sufficient dimensions that the stripper slide 234 may reciprocate freely. When the slide cylinder 244 is in the extended position, the stick gripper rods 246 move against sticks 302 within the stick bar 38 and clasp the sticks 302 between the stick gripper rods 246 and fixed gripper rods. When the slide cylinder 244 is in the extended position and the stripper cylinders 232 are retracted, the sticks 302 are withdrawn radially from the spring loaded plungers 310 within the apertures 40. A stop is welded to the underside of the support bar 238 against which the cylinder arm 240 abuts when the rods 246 and fixed gripper rods are slightly less apart than the width of the stick 302. When the slide cylinder 244 is retracted, the stick gripper rods 246 will release the sticks 302 after the stripper cylinders 232 have been retracted. A receiving tray or conveyor (not shown) is conveniently attached to the end of the frame 10 for receiving the food articles 300 released by the stick grippers 246.”) when the semi-finished product gripped by the transfer apparatus is disposed to be adjacent to the deep fryer, so as to deliver the semi-finished product to the deep fryer [the limitation of “when the semi-finished product gripped by the transfer apparatus is disposed to be adjacent to the deep fryer, so as to deliver the semi-finished product to the deep fryer” is considered the intended use of the separating part referring to the manner in which the separating part is intended to operate during use. Walser teaches the sticks being held during frying and having structure that causes the sticks to be pushed out of the aperture 40 of the bar 38. As such, Walser teaches the claimed structure. Operating the release of the sticks when the food is to be fried does not change the structure or require further modification. Therefore, the sticks of Walser are structurally capable of being released into the frying oil. See MPEP 2114 ].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US 2019/0335770) in view of Han Hyun (KR20190045572) and in further view of Millikin (US2017/0035247)
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein the deep fryer further comprises a cover configured to cover an upper side of the frying part.
Millikin relates to a fryer and is concerned with making fryers safer and/or more energy efficient (Abstract).
Millikin teaches using a cover (Figs. 1-2; cover 110 having flaps/doors 120 that open and close) configured to cover an upper side of a frying part (See Figure 1, the cover is placed on an upper side of the fryer above the oil. As the oil is necessarily heated by a heating element, the cover is also covering and upper side of the heating element(s).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Walser, as modified by Han Hyun, with Millikin by modifying the system of Walser, to include the cover taught by Millikin, for in doing so would improve the safety and energy efficiency of the fryer (para. 0016) while still allowing for the food being manufactured to be fried during use.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US 2019/0335770) in view of Han Hyun (KR20190045572) and in further view of Fauteux (US2015/0128816).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein the deep fryer further comprises an oil mist preventing filter configured to suction air containing oil mist generated from the frying part to filter and discharge the oil mist.
Fauteux relates to frying cooking assemblies (Abstract) including an oil vat (14) in which food being cooked is fried. Fauteux teaches an oil mist preventing filter (multi stage filter system 40 including filter 42, condenser 44, and filter 46-para. 0082 and Fig. 4) configured to suction air containing oil mist generated from the frying part to filter and discharge the oil mist (para. 0056; “filtering system is provided for suctioning air above the container during cooking and filtering it to provide clean air outside the assembly”) (para. 0084; “The baffle filter 42 is positioned at the hood 39 and serves to catch particles such as grease particles and water mist that are suctioned from the kitchen area. Once the air is filtered through the baffle filter 42, it flows into an air conduit 48 which brings the air to the condenser 44.”) (para. 0091; “thus the air is filtered through the condenser 44 having been cooled down and released its water, grease and odours, flows into conduit 72 (also shown in FIG. 8) which leads the air to the carbon filter 46.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Walser, as modified by Han Hyun, with Fauteux by modifying the system of Walser, to include the cover taught by Fauteux, for in doing so would aid in removing particulate matter and odors, resulting from the frying, from the air (para. 0091, 0096), thereby providing clean air outside the fryer (para. 0056).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 11134701 to Baumeister relates to a system and method of coating a food ingredient on a stick with a topping (Abstract) in which the stick is gripped and conveyed into a coating material (see Figs. 1-2).
CA 3071571 to Hansen relates to a system of coating a food ingredient with a topping (Abstract) in which the topping ingredient is conveyed using a screw conveyor and tray (Figs. 2A-2B, screw conveyor 222 and tray 32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights