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 1, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 24 November 2025 is acknowledged. An updated claim set cancelling claims 18-21 has been filed.
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.
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: “a work unit” in claim 1 and “a seasoning provision unit” in claim 1, “a food material transfer unit” of claim 11; “a semi-finished product transfer unit” of claim 11 and 14, a “weight acquisition transfer part” in claim 12 and 14, “a tray position determination part” in claim 13 and 15.
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. The “work unit” is interpreted as at least comprising a “work table” (¶37), and the “seasoning provision unit” is interpreted to have at least a seasoning storage tank and/or seasoning distribution pipe (¶42), the “food material transfer unit may comprise a conveyor (¶0030) the “semi-finished product transfer unit comprises at least “a conveyor” (¶0032), the weight acquisition transfer part” comprises also a conveyor (¶0062) and the “tray position determination part” also comprises a “conveyor for the tray to be seated and transferred on (¶0071)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached).
Regarding claim 1, Lemonsoft discloses a seasoning provision device (100) comprising:
a work unit (Lemonsoft, ¶20, main material measuring unit 160) provided to acquire the weight of a food material to be seated thereon;
a seasoning provision unit (170, control unit for seasoning, dispenser 140 season preparation unit 176) provided to form a semi-finished product by providing seasoning of a seasoning provision amount, which is a predetermined weight, to the food material seated on the work unit (Lemonsoft, ¶17, “to discharge only a predetermined amount of the seasoning raw material through the dosing box 131”); and
a processor (Lemonsoft, controlling the seasoning unit 150) electrically connected to the work unit and the seasoning provision unit,
wherein the processor controls the seasoning provision unit such that seasoning is provided according to the seasoning provision amount determined on the basis of the weight of the food material acquired by the work unit (¶¶17, 18, 33, 34; “automatic seasoning apparatus”; ¶0099 “it automatically adjusts the amount of seasoning ingredients so as to be proportional to the weight of the main ingredient”).
Regarding claim 2, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a seasoning provision device wherein the processor comprises a mapping table in which the weight of the food material and the seasoning provision amount are made to correspond to each other (Lemonsoft, ¶0099 “it automatically adjusts the amount of seasoning ingredients so as to be proportional to the weight of the main ingredient”).
Regarding claim 16, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a seasoning provision device comprising an auxiliary seasoning provision unit which, in order to further provide the seasoning to the semi-finished product, performs at least one of vibrating the semi-finished product (Lemonsoft, ¶0074, “mixing” and providing a “vibration sensor”, thus the mixer also must provide some vibration), rotating the semi-finished product, dropping the semi-finished product, and providing vacuum.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached).
Regarding claim 3, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the processor calculates an application rate acquired by dividing a value acquired by subtracting the weight of the food material from the weight of the semi-finished product by the sum of the weight of the semi-finished product, and
the seasoning provision device further comprises a display part electrically connected to the processor and provided to display the application rate.
However, Lemonsoft does teach a notification unit 270 for updating the user of “the manufacturing progress data including the time, progress, completion notification, and the like required for manufacturing the seasoning in the seasoning unit 176” (Lemonsoft, ¶0095) and the cooking process may be adjusted according to the weight of the food (Lemonsoft, ¶70, 99,100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft, to figure out an application rate, that is, how much of the total food product is the seasoning, in order to ensure that all the food pieces are seasoned the same and have the same amount of flavoring to have consistency in the quality of the end product, and to display that value to the user so he or she may keep track of it and adjust it if the value rate goes off for some of the food product.
Regarding claim 4, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device wherein the processor calculates the seasoning provision amount such that a value acquired by dividing the seasoning provision amount by the sum of the amount of the food material and the seasoning provision amount is greater than or equal to a first reference value and less than or equal to a second reference value. However, Lemonsoft does teach comparing the weight of the seasoning ingredients with the weight of the predetermined seasoning ingredients, and is able to make adjustments (Lemonsoft, ¶66,67). In order to stay within a range of the desired amount, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in order to make Lemonsoft, work and to make sure that the same amount of seasoning is provided for each food item, for instance, to automatically change the amount of the seasoning if it was, for instance, below or above the certain amount of the desired amount of seasoning and to adjust the amount to be within this threshold to make sure that it is as close to the predetermined amount as possible, to create a consistent food product.
Regarding claim 12, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a seasoning provision device comprising a weight acquisition transfer part provided to acquire the weight of the semi-finished product discharged from the work unit and to transfer the semi-finished product to a tray. Lemonsoft does teach a system of identifying when the food product is complete (¶0076). However, knowing the ultimate weight of the product would be obvious to ensure that the proper amount of seasoning was applied to the food, and transferring the product to a tray would also be obvious to allow for further processing or presentation of the food product before it is ultimately presented to the user. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft, which only deals with the seasoning process itself, to take a final weight of the food product, to ensure all seasoning was properly applied and to move the food to a tray or plate to prepare for further processing or presentation so that the ultimately prepared food will be ready to be presented to the operator.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Roy (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0054175).
Regarding claim 8, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a seasoning provision device wherein the processor controls the seasoning provision unit to provide seasoning to the food material a predetermined number of times by a unit seasoning provision amount such that the total amount of the seasoning provided to the food material is within a predetermined range from the seasoning provision amount. Lemonsoft teaches the weight or amount of the predetermined seasoning but does not teach how this is done. However, using a predetermined scoop or adding a certain amount of seasoning would have been obvious to add spicing to a food product, removing the seasoning from larger container, scoops detecting weight such as in Roy, and adding a plurality of these amounts to achieve the total amount of seasoning would also be obvious. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with Roy, to use a weighted scoop to add ingredients, to a food product, and even multiple of those to achieve the desired amount of seasoning, in order to achieve the predetermined amount of seasoning to achieve consistency among the finished product.
Claims 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Han Eung-su (Korean Patent Publication KR 20150045230; in applicant’s IDS; English machine translation of description attached)
Regarding claim 5, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further discloses a seasoning provision device wherein the work unit comprises: a worktable (160) provided to allow the food material or the semi-finished product to be seated thereon,
but does not further disclose a work elevating member provided to elevate the worktable; and
a weight acquisition member provided to acquire the weight of the food material or the semi-finished product in a state in which the worktable lowered by the work elevating member is seated.
However, Han Eung-su teaches a work elevating member provided to elevate the worktable (Han Eung-su, Fig. 3). The advantage of the work-elevating table would be to elevate the workpiece/ingredients to provide a method so that ingredients may be added to the food product. After this, it would be obvious to then have a weight acquisition member, as in Lemonsoft (¶0020), after the device has been lowered, to know that status of the food product, and whether it has actually received the proper amount of seasoning or ingredient. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of Han Eung-su, to have a platform elevate to allow for a conventional method of providing ingredient to a food product, and then to, after that, weigh the product, in order to determine whether the food product has received an entire amount of ingredient, in order to make the food product properly, consistent with the other pieces, and to apply the food product in a conventional and well-known manner.
Claims 6, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Han Eung-su (Korean Patent Publication KR 20150045230; in applicant’s IDS; English machine translation of description attached) and further in view of in view of EDT (Korean Patent Application Publication KR102140907).
Regarding claim 6, Lemonsoft in view of Han Eung-su teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device wherein the processor controls the weight acquisition member such that the weight acquisition member is initialized, when the weight of the semi-finished product is acquired and then the semi-finished product is separated from the worktable. However, EDT teaches taking the weight and then, if there is sufficient weight, moving the food product and separating it from the work table to move it to further processing ( EDT ¶0037-39, after taking weight, moving to packaging process). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft in view of Han Eung-su with the teachings of EDT, to have the weight acquisition member initialized at the end of the process, and then to have to food product moved for further processing, in order to efficiently move the food product to further processing and/or packaging after ensuring that it has the proper ingredients/weight.
Regarding claim 7, Lemonsoft in view of Han Eung-su teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device wherein the weight acquisition member comprises a load cell for acquiring a weight. However, EDT teaches that it is a “load cell” (EDT, load cell 520) which takes the weight of the food and tray on the conveyor (EDT, ¶0071, for instance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft in view of Han Eung-su with the teachings of EDT, to weigh the bread using a conventional method, in order to take the weight of the food product during processing to ensure that there is enough food and ingredients to create consistent food products.
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Aouad (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0367304).
Regarding claim 9, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a seasoning provision unit wherein the seasoning provision unit comprises:
a pump for extruding the seasoning; and
a seasoning cylinder for discharging seasoning pushed by the pump to the food material seated on the work unit.
However, Aouad teaches a pump (50) for extruding the seasoning; and
a seasoning cylinder (10) for discharging seasoning pushed by the pump to the food material seated on the work unit. Thus, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with teachings of Aouad, to pump and deliver ingredients in a conventional way a food product, in an automated way, in order to more efficiently create a food product according to the user’s parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose wherein the seasoning provision unit includes a plurality of seasoning provision units that are independently controlled by the processor to individually provide seasoning. However, Aouad teaches a plurality of provision units (10) that are independently controlled (¶0032 “each conduit has its own independently controlled valve”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of Aouad in order to add different seasonings independently in order to make most efficiently a food product as the user desires.
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of EDT (Korean Patent Application Publication KR102140907).
Regarding claim 11, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a seasoning provision device comprising:
a food material transfer unit for transferring the food material to the work unit; and
a semi-finished product transfer unit for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the work unit,
wherein a speed at which the semi-finished product transfer unit transfers the semi- finished product is faster than a speed at which the food material transfer unit transfers the food material.
However, EDT teaches a food material transfer unit for transferring the food material to the work unit (¶¶0035 transferring to work unit and working on food material, 0037, weight acquisition part); and
a semi-finished product transfer unit for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the work unit (¶¶0038, 0039, transferring the food to packaging after processed food is complete).
The advantage of this would be to move the product from being worked on to create the food product, to then be moved for further processing, like packaging. Nonetheless, However, EDT still does not teach wherein a speed at which the semi-finished product transfer unit transfers the semi- finished product is faster than a speed at which the food material transfer unit transfers the food material.
However, since EDT does teach moving the product through the packaging after the food is made and weighed, it would be obvious to have the transfer speed be increased (even to a non-critical “double speed”) in order to move the product through the packaging process as quickly as possible, and there are potentially many rollers and conveyor to move through for packaging (EDT, ¶0039). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of EDT, to be able to move a food product through creating the food product with the ingredients (and proper weight) to then have the item packaged, and to even have an increased speed of the conveyor after the product is discharged from the work unit, in order to move the product through the packaging process as quickly as possible, and there are potentially many rollers and conveyor to move through for packaging (EDT, ¶0039).
Regarding claim 13, Lemonsoft teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches a seasoning provision device wherein: the weight acquisition transfer part is electrically connected to the processor (Lemonsoft, ¶¶20,21, wherein the weight is connected to the control unit 170 and analyzer 240), but does not further teach wherein
the seasoning provision device further comprises a tray position determination part for determining positions of a plurality of trays; and
the processor controls the tray position determination part and the weight acquisition transfer part such that the total weight of the semi-finished product provided to one of the trays is within a predetermined range.
However, EDT teaches the seasoning provision device further comprises a tray position determination part for determining positions of a plurality of trays (¶0034, trays move through hopper) ; and
the processor controls the tray position determination part and the weight acquisition transfer part such that the total weight of the semi-finished product provided to one of the trays is within a predetermined range (¶0037, “sort and separate the tray with insufficient weight of the processed food” indicates that the food on the plate must be within a certain range). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of EDT, to control the positions of multiple trays and weight them to ensure the finished product is within a certain range, in order to ensure the quality and consistency of the final product, and that it is reproducible, to ensure an efficient and consistent process.
Regarding claim 14, Lemonsoft teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising a semi- finished product transfer unit for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the work unit,
wherein the weight acquisition transfer part comprises a double speed conveyor provided to transfer the semi-finished product discharged from the work unit, and a weight conveyor provided to acquire the weight of the semi-finished product transferred from the double speed conveyor, and
a speed at which the double speed conveyor transfers the semi-finished product is faster than a speed at which the semi-finished product transfer unit transfers the semi-finished product.
However, EDT teaches a semi- finished product transfer unit for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the workunit (¶0037, weight acquisition part, ¶¶0038, 0039, transferring the food to packaging after processed food is complete). EDT, however, still does not explicitly teach
wherein the weight acquisition transfer part comprises a double speed conveyor provided to transfer the semi-finished product discharged from the work unit, and a weight conveyor provided to acquire the weight of the semi-finished product transferred from the double speed conveyor, and
a speed at which the double speed conveyor transfers the semi-finished product is faster than a speed at which the semi-finished product transfer unit transfers the semi-finished product.
However, EDT does teach acquiring the weight, as above, and then moving the product through the packaging. However, after the food is made and weighed, it would be obvious to have the transfer speed be increased (even to a non-critical “double speed”) in order to move the product through the packaging process as quickly as possible, and there are potentially many rollers and conveyor to move through for packaging (EDT, ¶0039). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of EDT, to have an increased speed of the conveyor after the product is discharged from the work unit, in order to move the product through the packaging process as quickly as possible, and there are potentially many rollers and conveyor to move through for packaging (EDT, ¶0039).
Regarding claim 15, Lemonsoft teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising: a tray position determination part provided to determine a position of a tray for containing at least one semi-finished product transferred by the weight acquisition transfer part; and
a supplement part having a supplement load cell provided to acquire the weight of at least one semi-finished product contained in the tray transferred by the tray position determination part, and
a supplement worktable for exposing an upper surface of the tray upward such that supplement work for the semi-finished product can be performed.
However, EDT teaches a tray position determination part provided to determine a position of a tray for containing at least one semi-finished product transferred by the weight acquisition transfer part (¶0034, trays move through hopper); and
a supplement part having a supplement load cell (¶¶0037,0071 “load cell” separate tray with insufficient food product) provided to acquire the weight of at least one semi-finished product contained in the tray transferred by the tray position determination part, and
a supplement worktable for exposing an upper surface of the tray upward such that supplement work for the semi-finished product can be performed (EDT, ¶0075, 510 is where supplemental food is added). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of EDT, to be able to determine the location of a tray, weigh it and have a location for supplemental work, should it be needed, to make sure that all the food pieces are consistent and therefore may be worked upon if something comes up in the middle of the process, and there is not enough food product on a particular tray, for whatever reason or error.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Hrudka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/ 0124434).
Regarding claim 17, Lemonsoft discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose wherein, when providing the seasoning to the food material, the processor stores at least one of the weight of the food material, the seasoning provision amount, the weight of the semi-finished product, an application rate acquired by dividing the seasoning provision amount by the weight of the semi-finished product, and a time of providing the seasoning, after making the at least one into a database. However, Hrudka teaches such a database for storing the claimed data (e.g. “list of ingredients…amount of ingredients) (Hrudka, ¶30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lemonsoft with the teachings of Hrudka, to have a database, in order to save or store a user’s preferences in order to create a more efficient process, i.e. less lime, in making the food product in the future.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761