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 .
Status
This office action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 16 April 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 5, 8, and 10-16 are amended, claims 2 and 9 are cancelled and no claims are added. This is a Final Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pump that “comprises two extruders having a plurality of vanes and rotating in engagement with each other” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 weight acquisition member in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Here, the weight acquisition member would include a load cell for acquiring a weight (¶40).
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.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 16 April 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 5, 8,10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have been amended. Claim 2 and 9 have been cancelled. No claims are added. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
[Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose the limitation]
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852).
Regarding claim 1, Lemonsoft discloses a seasoning provision device (100) comprising:
a work assembly provided to acquire the weight of a food material to be seated thereon, , wherein the work assembly comprises a worktable on which the food material is seated (Lemonsoft, ¶20, main material measuring unit 160), and a weight acquisition member configured to acquire the weight of the food material (¶20);
a seasoning dispenser (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 assembly (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 assembly and the seasoning dispenser,
wherein the processor controls the seasoning dispenser 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 assembly (¶¶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”)
Lemonsoft does not disclose
“wherein the seasoning dispenser comprises:
a pump configured to extrude the seasoning;
a seasoning cylinder configured to discharge the seasoning pushed by the pump to the food material seated on the work assembly; and
a seasoning valve configured to determine a discharge amount of the seasoning discharged through the seasoning cylinder”; nor
wherein the processor is configured to access a mapping table that includes a correspondence between the weight of the food material and the seasoning provision amount,
wherein the pump comprises two extruders having a plurality of vanes and rotating in engagement with each other;
wherein the mapping table includes an amount of rotation of the extruders and a discharge amount of the seasoning; and
wherein the processor controls the pump such that the two extruders rotate by the amount of rotation corresponding to the seasoning provision amount.“
However, regarding “wherein the processor is configured to access a mapping table that includes a correspondence between the weight of the food material and the seasoning provision amount”, while Lemonsoft does teach a correspondence between the weight of the food material and the provision amount (Lemonsoft, ¶25) and this correspondence is in order to keep the flavor of the food constant. And Lyons teaches that it is conventional to access a mapping table that includes a correspondence between a first parameter and a second parameter (Lyons, column 24, lines 39-43, in Lyon, height corresponds to volume in the table). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lemonsoft with the teachings of Lyons, to use a mapping table in the controller to ensure that the correct amount of seasoning is being added to the correct amount of food in order to keep the flavor constant, and to use the controller in a conventional way without an unexpected result.
Regarding the rest of the claim, Al teaches wherein the seasoning dispenser comprises:
a pump (figs. 7 & 8,303, augers) configured to extrude the seasoning;
a seasoning cylinder (Al312 device that incorporates the pump and moves the ingredient, fig. 8) configured to discharge the seasoning pushed by the pump to the food material seated on the work assembly; and
a seasoning valve (310 that accepts the ingredient) configured to determine a discharge amount of the seasoning discharged through the seasoning cylinder”
wherein the pump comprises two extruders (augers/ screw rod 303) having a plurality of vanes and rotating in engagement with each other”. (Al, extruders as seen in 315, figs. 6,8,vanes can be seen around each of the augers).
wherein the processor controls the pump such that the two extruders rotate by the amount of rotation corresponding to the seasoning provision amount ( Al, p. 7 end of ¶2; “the angle that controllable screw rod 303 rotates, can be measured according to required additive amount release condiment number.).
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 with the teachings of Al, to move the ingredient via extruders/augers, to substitute the augurs into Lemonsoft, in order to measure the ingredient in a conventional way (via auger turns) and move the seasoning in an efficient and predictable way to the measured food, in order to have a certain amount move along the auger as is conventional within the art to properly season the food without unexpected results.
And while Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations above, it still does not specifically teach
wherein the mapping table includes an amount of rotation of the extruders and a discharge amount of the seasoning;
However, given the teachings of the above, references, of the mapping table of Lyons, and that turning of the augers will produce a certain amount of ingredient (Al), and that a certain amount of seasoning is needed according to the weight/size of the food (Lemonsoft), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lemonsoft in view of Al and Lyons, to have the mapping table in the controller be able to determine how much the augers need to turn to have the correct amount of seasoning be applied to the food product according to how much weight the food product has, and this would be the most efficient way of controlling the amount of seasoning, moving directly from the weight to the mapping table to the rotation of the extruders for discharging the right amount of seasoning.
Regarding claim 3, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches 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 in view of Lyons and Al teaches 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 16, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a seasoning dispenser 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 5 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10863852) and Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and further 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 in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above but does not further teach a work elevating member provided to elevate the worktable; and
wherein the weight acquisition member acquires 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 on the weight acquisition member..
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 in view of Lyons and Al 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 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852) Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) 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 Lyons and Al, 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 Lyons and Al 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 Lyons and Al, 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 Lyons and Al 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.
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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852) Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and further in view of Roy (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0054175).
Regarding claim 8, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device wherein the processor controls the seasoning dispenser 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. However, Lemonsoft teaches the weight or amount of the predetermined seasoning and Al teaches dispensing via the augers and the amount of turns to provide the correct amount of seasoning Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide to the food material a predetermined amount of times a predetermined amount of seasoning within a range, in order to season the food properly given the amount of food and seasoning available and the amount of food product desired to be seasoned.
Claims 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10863852) and Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and further in view of Aouad (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0367304).
Regarding claim 10, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the seasoning dispenser includes a plurality of seasoning dispensers 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 in view of Lyons and Al 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.
Claim 11 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852) and Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) in view of EDT (Korean Patent Application Publication KR102140907).
Regarding claim 11, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising:
a food material conveyor for transferring the food material to the work assembly; and
a semi-finished product conveyor for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the work assembly,
wherein a speed at which the semi-finished product conveyor transfers the semi- finished product is faster than a speed at which the food material conveyor 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 in view of Lyons and Al 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lemonsoft (Korean Patent Publication KR 10-2018-0052052; in applicant’s IDS; English machine-translation of Description attached) in view of Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and further in view of Petri (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0207657).
Regarding claim 12, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising a weight acquisition conveyor provided to acquire the weight of the semi-finished product discharged from the work assembly and to transfer the semi-finished product to a tray. However, Petri does teach a “weight acquisition conveyor provided to acquire the weight of the semi-finished product discharged from the work assembly and to transfer the semi-finished product to a [further process]” (Petri, ¶¶55, 56). 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 Lyons and Al, which only deals with the seasoning process itself, to take the weight of the almost final product to determine any further processing and to supply it to a tray or other means for finishing the food product, whether that be bagging or further cooking, 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.
Claims 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852), Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and Petri (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0207657) and further in view of EDT (Korean Patent Application Publication KR102140907).
Regarding claim 13, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al and Petri teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches a seasoning provision device wherein:
the weight acquisition conveyor 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 dispenser further comprises a tray position determination conveyor for determining positions of a plurality of trays; and
the processor controls the tray position determination conveyor and the weight acquisition conveyor 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 in view of Lyons and Al 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 in view of Lyons, Al and Petri teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as above, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising a semi- finished product conveyor for transferring the semi-finished product separated from the work assembly,
wherein the weight acquisition conveyor comprises a double speed conveyor provided to transfer the semi-finished product discharged from the work assembly, 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 conveyor 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 in view of AI and Petri 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 in view of Lyons, Al and Petri teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but does not further teach a seasoning provision device comprising: a tray position determination conveyor provided to determine a position of a tray for containing at least one semi-finished product transferred by the weight acquisition conveyor; 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 conveyor, 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 in view of Lyons, AI and Petri 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 Lyons (U.S. Patent 10,863,852), Al (Chinese Patent Publication CN110360606A; attached with English translation of Specification) and further in view of Hrudka (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/ 0124434).
Regarding claim 17, Lemonsoft in view of Lyons and Al teaches 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 in view of Lyons and AI 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights