Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana (US 11986007 B2) in view of Patadia (US 20200146496 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rana teaches a machine for cooking food (FIG. 3, machine 1), the machine comprising: - a dispenser (FIG. 3, device 5) configured to be arranged over a container (FIG. 3, container 4) containing food (FIG. 3, pasta 2) and to close the container and comprising at least one first opening (FIG. 3, nozzle 16) to dispense steam into the container and at least one second opening (FIG. 3, nozzle 7) to dispense hot water into the container;- a first duct (FIG. 3, duct 15) and a first … valve (FIG. 3, flow adjuster 18), to supply steam to the first opening;- a second duct (FIG. 3, duct 6) and a second … valve (FIG. 3, flow adjuster 14) to supply hot water to the second opening; and - a control unit (FIG. 3, control unit 25) configured to control the opening and the closing of the first and the second … valves so as to modulate the time of the steam supply and the volume of water depending on a selected cooking program (“In accordance with an aspect of the invention, there is also provided a cooking process to cook pasta 2. The process comprises a water feeding step (FIG. 1 ), during which a given quantity of liquid water is fed to a container 4 (as defined above); and a vapour feeding step (FIG. 2 ), during which a given quantity of water vapour is fed to the container 4 containing a given quantity of pasta 2 for an amount of time ranging from approximately 7 to approximately 50 seconds (in particular, from 10 to 35 seconds).”).
Rana fails to teach that the first and second valves are solenoid valves.
However, Patadia teaches that the first and second valves are solenoid valves (paragraph 78 “Dispensing of various ingredients is done by various dispensing methods like Masala/Seasoning are dispensed by screw conveyor or spiral conveyor, liquids are dispensed by pipes-solenoid valves”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Rana by employing solenoid valves as flow adjusters, as taught by Patadia, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rana with these aforementioned teachings of Patadia with the motivation of using solenoid valves, which, as specified above, are better for liquid control.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rana and Patadia teaches that the first solenoid valve and the second solenoid valve are on-off type (Rana, FIG. 3, the flow adjusters 6 and 18 may be activated or deactivated).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination of Rana and Patadia teaches that the control unit is configured to close in sequence the second solenoid valve and, after a given time interval, the first solenoid valve (Rana, claim 1, the system shuts off the water valve then the steam valve when each is used in sequence).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination of Rana and Patadia teaches that the control unit is configured to control the first solenoid valve so as to supply steam to the first opening at intervals (Rana, claim 1, abstract, the system provides steam periodically to each noodle container).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination of Rana and Patadia teaches that the control unit is configured to control the second solenoid valve so as to supply hot water to the second opening at intervals (Rana, claim 1, abstract, the system provides hot water periodically to each noodle container).
Regarding claim 10, Rana teaches a method for cooking food (FIG. 3, the method performed by machine 1), the method comprising:- dispensing steam into a container (FIG. 3, container 4) containing food (FIG. 3, pasta 2) through at least one first opening (FIG. 3, nozzle 16) of a dispenser (FIG. 3, device 5) arranged over the container (claim 1, the system dispenses steam into the container 4);- dispensing hot water into the container through at least one second opening (FIG. 3, nozzle 7) of the dispenser;- supplying steam to the first opening through a first duct (FIG. 3, duct 15) and a first … valve (FIG. 3, flow adjuster 18);- supplying hot water to the second opening through a second duct (FIG. 3, duct 6) and a second … valve (FIG. 3, flow adjuster 14); and- controlling the opening and the closing of the first and the second solenoid valves so as to modulate the time of steam supply and the volume of hot water depending on a selected cooking program (In accordance with an aspect of the invention, there is also provided a cooking process to cook pasta 2. The process comprises a water feeding step (FIG. 1 ), during which a given quantity of liquid water is fed to a container 4 (as defined above); and a vapour feeding step (FIG. 2 ), during which a given quantity of water vapour is fed to the container 4 containing a given quantity of pasta 2 for an amount of time ranging from approximately 7 to approximately 50 seconds (in particular, from 10 to 35 seconds).”).
However, Patadia teaches that the first and second valves are solenoid valves (paragraph 78 “Dispensing of various ingredients is done by various dispensing methods like Masala/Seasoning are dispensed by screw conveyor or spiral conveyor, liquids are dispensed by pipes-solenoid valves”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Rana by employing solenoid valves as flow adjusters, as taught by Patadia, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rana with these aforementioned teachings of Patadia with the motivation of using solenoid valves, which, as specified above, are better for liquid control.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana and Patadia as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Hoare (US 20150230659 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Rana and Patadia fails to teach that the control unit is configured to emit an authorization signal to open the container and to remove the container from the machine.
However Hoare teaches that the control unit is configured to emit an authorization signal to open the container and to remove the container from the machine (paragraph 72, a signal indicates to a user to open a container and remove a food product).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Rana by having the system send the user an alert to open and remove the food, as taught by Hoare, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rana with these aforementioned teachings of Hoare with the motivation of telling the user when their food is done.
Claim(s) 7-9, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana and Patadia as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Sundaram (US 20200242680 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Rana and Patadia fails to teach that the control unit comprises a user interface configured to select a cooking program from a plurality of cooking programs related to respective recipes; the control unit being configured to control the first and the second solenoid valves depending on the selected cooking program (paragraph 164, the user may choose a recipe, which the appliance then makes).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Rana by a user choose a recipe on a screen, which then causes the system to manipulate the valves to cook that recipe, as taught by Sundaram, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rana with these aforementioned teachings of Sundaram with the motivation of allowing a user to easily choose from a wide variety of recipes.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Rana, Patadia, and Sundaram teaches that the user interface is configured to set cooking programs depending on respective recipes (Sundaram, paragraph 164).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Rana, Patadia, and Sundaram teaches that the user interface is configured to select the time of the steam supply, and/or the steam supply intervals, and/or the volume of hot water to be supplied, and/or the hot water supply intervals, and/or the delay of the hot water supply with respect to the steam supply, and/or the delay of the container opening with respect to the closing of the first solenoid valve (in the combination above, the user chooses a recipe that entails different steam and hot water processes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762