DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 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 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), 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):
(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) 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: “motion system” in Claims 2-3, 13-15; “locking mechanism” in Claim 7; and “engaging mechanism” Claim 11.
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 corresponding structure for “motion system” is a robotic arm (see [007]); “locking mechanism” is clips or pin and actuator (see [0010]); and “engaging mechanism” is an electromagnet or gripper finger (see [0015]).
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 Objections
Claims 1-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L. 8 “the air-frying process” should be “an air-frying process”
Claim 7, L. 1 “the side of the cover” should be “a side of the cover”;
Claim 9, L. 1 “the top edge” should be “a top edge”;
Claim 10, L. 2 “a closed FrB” should be “the closed FrB”; and
Claims 2-15 are also objected for being dependent on objected Claim 1.
Appropriate correction required and Claims are interpreted as indicated above.
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.
Claims 1, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman (US 2020/0093329) in view of Grass (US 2020/0154948).
Regarding Claim 1: Glucksman discloses a frying basket (FrB) (see annotated figure ‘329) comprising: a basket (400; Fig. 3) that is configured to obtain food-products ([0004]) and contains them along an air-frying process (process implemented by system 100); and a cover (see annotated figure ‘329) that is configured to be associated with the basket for keeping the food-products in the basket and converting the FrB into a closed-FrB (see Fig. 7A how the basket is closed); wherein the closed-FrB is configured to be used in an air-frying system (system 400) and wherein during the air-frying process the closed-FrB is revolved (see annotated figure ‘329).
Glucksman is silent regarding the air-frying system being an industrial-robotic system.
However, Grass teaches a food preparing system (100; fig. 1) having a food container ([0185]) and an industrial-robotic system (elements operatively coupled to 400; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add to the system of Glucksman the industrial-robotic system of Grass to have the air-frying system being an industrial-robotic system. Such a modification will enable to automatically cook the food.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Glucksman further discloses the cover is configured to be associated with the basket by a clip (see annotated figure ‘329), but is silent regarding the clip being a plurality of clips.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clip being a plurality of clips, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
(In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Regarding Claim 5: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Glucksman further teaches at least one clip from the plurality of clips is located over an edge (see annotated figure ‘329) of the cover.
Regarding Claim 6: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Glucksman further discloses wherein the cover is configured to be associated with the basket by one or more pivots (see annotated figure ‘329).
Regarding Claim 7: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, as stated above, and Glucksman further discloses wherein the side (see annotated figure ‘329) of the cover, which is opposite to the one or more pivots, is associated with a locking mechanism (see annotated figure ‘329).
Regarding Claim 8: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, as stated above, and Glucksman further discloses wherein the locking mechanism comprises one or more clips (see annotated figure ‘329).
Claims 2-3, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman (US 2020/0093329) in view of Grass (US 2020/0154948), and further in view of Crane (US H001378).
Regarding Claim 2: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, as stated above, and further teaches the basket is associated with a magnetized element ([0185] of Grass) that are configured to be associated with a magnet element ([0185] of Grass) that is associated with a motion system (arm 400; Fig. 2) of the IRAFS.
Glucksman in view of Grass is silent regarding the magnetized element being one or more metal- plates and the magnet being an electromagnet.
However, Crane teaches an industrial robotic system (system in Fig. 1) having a container (12; Fig. 1) with a magnetized element being one or more metal-plates (14; Fig. 1) that is configured be associated with a magnet element being an electromagnet (22; Fig. 1) that is associated with a motion system (arm Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Glucksman in view of Grass to have the magnetized element being one or more metal- plates and the magnet being an electromagnet, as taught by Crane. Such a modification will allow to easily grab the basket.
Regarding Claim 3: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, as stated above, and further teaches the basket is associated with a magnetized element ([0185] of Grass) that is configured to be associated with a magnet element ([0185] of Grass) that is associated with a motion system (arm 400; Fig. 2) of the IRAFS.
Glucksman in view of Grass is silent regarding the magnetized element being one or more metal- plates and the magnet being an electromagnet, and the one or more metal- plates being on the cover, i.e. top portion.
However, Crane teaches an industrial robotic system (system in Fig. 1) having a container (12; Fig. 1) having a top portion (see Fig. 1) with a magnetized element being one or more metal-plates (14; Fig. 1) that are configured be associated with a magnet element being an electromagnet (22; Fig. 1) that is associated with a motion system (arm Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Glucksman in view of Grass to have the magnetized element being one or more metal- plates and the magnet being an electromagnet, and the one or more metal- plates being on the cover, as taught by Crane. Such a modification will allow to easily grab the basket.
Regarding Claim 13: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 7, as stated above, and further teaches the basket having a front wall (see annotated figure ‘329) is associated with a magnetized element ([0185] of Grass) that is configured to be hold with a magnet element ([0185] of Grass) that is associated with a motion system (arm 400; Fig. 2) of the IRAFS.
Glucksman in view of Grass is silent regarding the magnetized element being a metal- plate and the magnet element being an electromagnet, and the metal- plate being on the front wall, i.e. front portion.
However, Crane teaches an industrial robotic system (system in Fig. 1) having a container (12; Fig. 1) having a front portion (wall facing 22; Fig. 1) with a magnetized element being one or more metal-plates (14; Fig. 1) that are configured be associated with a magnet element being an electromagnet (22; Fig. 1) that is associated with a motion system (arm Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Glucksman in view of Grass to have the magnetized element being a metal- plate and the magnet element being an electromagnet, and the metal- plate being on the front wall, i.e. front portion, as taught by Crane. Such a modification will allow to easily grab the basket.
Regarding Claim 14: Glucksman in view of Grass and Crane teaches all the limitation of Claim 13, and Grass further teaches the motion system of the IRAFS is configured to convey the basket along different sections of the IRAFS (see Fig. 2 wherein the arm 400 can move the container in different sections).
Regarding Claim 15: Glucksman in view of Grass and Crane teaches all the limitation of Claim 13, and Grass further teaches the motion system comprises a multi-axis gantry (see Fig. 2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman (US 2020/0093329) in view of Grass (US 2020/0154948), and further in view of Dalcq (US 2016/0051085).
Regarding Claim 9: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding the top edge of each one of two opposite walls of the basket is associated with a slot.
However, Dalcq a frying basket (basket in Figs. 2-3) a top edge (13C, D; Fig. 3) of each one of two opposite walls (tow of 1A; Fig. 3) of the basket is associated with a slot (14; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify basket of Glucksman to have the top edge of each one of two opposite walls of the basket is associated with a slot, as taught by Dalcq. Such a modification will allow to fully and easily open the basket.
Regarding Claim 10: Glucksman in view of Grass and Dalcq teaches all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and Dalcq further teaches the two slots enable the cover to be slipped over the basket and converting the FrB into a closed-FrB (see Fig. 2).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman (US 2020/0093329) in view of Grass (US 2020/0154948), and further in view of Foster (US 8,402,885).
Regarding Claim 11: Glucksman in view of Grass teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Glucksman further discloses a back wall (see annotated figure ‘329), but is silent regarding the wall being associated with a metal-plate that is configured to be engaged with a motor of an air-frying Unit (AFU) via an engaging mechanism.
However, Foster teaches a basket (16; Fig. 4), the basket having a wall (wall affixed to 20; Fig. 7) being associated with a metal-plate (plate next to 20; Fig. 7) that is configured to be engaged with a motor (30; Fig. 11) of an air-frying Unit (AFU) (10; Fig. 4) via an engaging mechanism (“electromagnet coupling” Col. 7 L. 49-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air fryer of Glucksman to have the wall being associated with a metal-plate that is configured to be engaged with a motor of an air-frying Unit (AFU) via an engaging mechanism. Such a modification will allow to easily engage the basket.
Glucksman modified by Foster as established above, is silent regarding the motor being at the back of the air-frying Unit (AFU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention rearrange the position of the motor to have the motor being at the back of the air-frying Unit (AFU), since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
(In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 12: Glucksman in view of Grass and Foster teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, as stated above, and Foster further teaches the engaging mechanism comprises an electromagnet (“electromagnet coupling” Col. 7 L. 49-57).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights