DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected due to the phrase “the plurality of sensors” since the phrase lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if “the plurality of sensors” is with respect to further limiting the “at least one sensor” if the phrase is with respect to different sensors from the “at least one sensor” or something different altogether.
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 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schackmuth et al. (7973642; ids 1/17/24)
With respect to Independent claim 19, a method of food holding pan communication, the method comprising:
receiving a pan with food items at a pan identification station (col. 6 lines 56-59; holding cabinet)
reading an encoded identification from the pan (col. 6 lines 57-59; RFID);
acquire sensor data from one or more sensors (col. 5 line 42; camera) directed at the pan (col. 5 lines 49-51; during loading of food into tray)
identifying the food items in the pan at least partially based upon the sensor data (col. 5 lines 49-51)
counting the food items in the pan at least partially based upon the sensor data (col. 5 lines 42-43)
assigning a location in a holding bin to the pan (col. 9 lines 40-47) and
automatedly operating the holding bin to control for a predetermined environment at the location in the holding bin assigned to the pan (col. 7 lines 17-20).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schackmuth et al. (7973642) in view of Riefenstein (20130302483).
Schackmuth teaches a food holding pan communication system comprising:
a food holding pan (col. 4 lines 1-2 ref. 22), the food holding pan comprising a pan identifier (col. 4 lines 1-2 ref. 24) and configured to receive food items (col. 3 lines 67-col. 4 line 1)
a pan identification station (col. 6 lines 56-57; holding cabinet), the pan identification station comprising:
a pan receiving area (col. 6 line 57; slot)
a pan identifier reader (col. 6 line 57 sensor ref. 52) and
at least one sensor (col. 3 lines 53-57; camera) and configured to acquire data regarding a food item received by the food holding pan (col. 5 lines 49-51) and
a processor (col. 5 lines 5-6 system controller, PC) communicatively connected to the plurality of sensors to receive signals from the at least one sensor (col. 5 lines 60-63), and the processor is configured to determine a type of food item in the food holding pan (col. 5 lines 51-53).
Schackmuth teaches a need exists for a system that can automatically monitor the types and quantities of food in a food holding area (col. 1 lines 52-54) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food holding cabinets and food identification as taught by Riefenstein.
Riefenstein teaches a food holding system for accepting a food product carrier (par. 0049), a vision system directed at the receiving area (fig. 3) for capturing images of the food during the loading process of the food product carrier into the holding device (par. 0054) and food product identification by a controller (par. 0058).
Though Schackmuth is silent to the vision system directed at the pan receiving area. Since both teach a same food product tray and since both teach identifying the food type prior to the food product tray being within the holding cabinet by a same vision system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to direct the vision system at the pan receiving area as taught by Riefenstein for its art recognized purpose of identifying the food type prior to being placed in the holding cabinet and achieving the art recognized advantage of when a tray is inserted and the food type determined, controlling the desired atmosphere of the holding cabinet and more specifically each tray as appropriate for each food type as taught by Schackmuth (col. 7 lines 17-19) which reduces operator error and assures consistent quality of the food product due to automated functions (col. 10 lines 31-33).
Claim 2, wherein the pan identifier is a bar code or an RFID tag (col. 4 lines 1-2)
Claim 3, further comprising a kitchen management system (col. 5 lines 1-5; central computer) communicatively connected to the processor of the pan identification station (col. 4 lines 62-66), wherein the KMS comprises a database (col. 5 lines 60-64) wherein an identification of the pan from the pan identifier reader is stored in association with the determined type of food item in the food holding pan (col. 5 lines 1-7).
Claim 4, further comprising a holding bin (col. 6 line 56 holding cabinet), wherein the holding bin is communicatively connected to the KMS (col. 5 lines 1-8), and the holding bin informs the KMS of a status of each location in each compartment of the food holding bin (col. 7 lines 53-57), wherein the KMS operates to assign a location of the pan to the holding bin (col. 7 lines 53-57) and communicate the assigned location to the holding bin (col. 7 lines 1-5).
Claim 5, wherein the holding bin comprises at least one visual indicator in association with each location in each compartment of the holding bin (col. 7 lines 57-59; LED), and the holding bin operates a visual indicator of the at least one visual indicator to identify the assigned location (col. 7 lines 57-59).
Claim 6, the holding bin comprises the pan identification station (col. 6 lines 55-59)
Claim 7, wherein the pan is configured to be moved from the cooking station to the pan identification station (col. 6 lines 54-56 individual slot) and from the pan identification station to the holding bin (col. 6 lines 55-56; appropriate holding cabinet).
Though silent to a broiler, Schackmuth teaches the type of cooking station is not limited (col. 3 lines 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known type of cooking with that of another, such as in the instant case a broiler thus achieving its art recognized advantage of cooking methods depending on the type of food being prepared (col. 3 lines 46-50).
Claim 8, Schackmuth teaches the cooking container, i.e. pan, comprising the RFID tag (col. 6 lines 46-47). Though silent to a broiler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known type of cooking with that of another, such as in the instant case a broiler thus achieving its art recognized advantage of cooking methods depending on the type of food being prepared (col. 3 lines 46-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the cooking station, in the instant case the broiler, with the pan identification station for its art recognized purpose of initiating and controlling variable responsible for appropriate cooking for the food product as taught by Schackmuth (col. 6 lines 49-52).
Claim 9, wherein the processor of the identification station analyzes the data of the at least one sensor to determine the type of food items in the holding pan (col. 5 lines 49-53).
Claim 10, wherein the processor of the identification station analyzes the data of the at least one sensor to determine a count of the food items in the holding pan (col. 5 lines 60-61).
Claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a camera (col. 5 lines 42 ref. 14).
Claim 12, wherein the at least one sensor is a plurality of sensors and further comprises a load cell (col. 9 lines 7-10).
Claim 13, wherein the processor analyzes image data from the camera to determine a type of the food items in the holding pan (col. 8 lines 22-26), the processor accesses a database of food item specifications for the type of food items in the holding pan (col. 5 lines 1-6; col. 8 lines 33-35).
Claim 14, further comprising a load cell, wherein a measured weight of the food items in the holding pan are weighed and compared against a weight specification for the type of food items in the holding pan (col. 6 lines 32-39).
Claim 15, Riefenstein teaches the holding cabinet further comprising an infra-red thermometer (par. 0071 last line) configured to measure a surface temperature of the food items (par. 0071), wherein the processor compares the surface temperature to a surface temperature specification for the type of food item in the holding pan (par. 0071).
Thus since Schackmuth teaches controlling temperature of the food by pan identification (col. 9 lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate a temperature sensor as taught by Riefenstein (par. 0071) thus achieving the same shared purpose of controlling temperature of the food and the additional advantage of providing a determination of whether the food is cooked correctly based on surface temperature analysis and if not alerting an operator with additional instructions as taught by Schackmuth (par. 0070).
Claim 16, Riefenstein teaches the measured surface temperature is stored in a database in association with the pan identification (par. 0072), where it is noted associated is taken with respect to food type.
Thus since Schackmuth teaches a maintained database specific to each pan identification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further teach the measured surface temperature is stored in a database in association with the pan identification (par. 0072) thus achieving the same shared purpose of controlling temperature of the food and the additional advantage of providing a determination of whether the food is cooked correctly based on surface temperature analysis and if not alerting an operator with additional instructions as taught by Schackmuth (par. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine if the measured surface temperature is outside of the surface temperature specification and provide a visual indication to reject the pan of food items is produced as taught by Riefenstein (par. 0071; visual output) thus achieving the same shared purpose of controlling temperature of the food and the additional advantage of providing a determination of whether the food is cooked correctly based on surface temperature analysis and if not alerting an operator with additional instructions as taught by Schackmuth (par. 0070).
Claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine if the measured surface temperature is inside of the surface temperature specification (where it is noted inside is taken with respect to not cooked properly), a location in holding bin is assigned to the holding pan as taught by Riefenstein (par. 0071) thus achieving the same shared purpose of controlling temperature of the food and the additional advantage of providing a determination of whether the food is cooked correctly based on surface temperature analysis and if not alerting an operator with additional instructions defined by the location in the holding bin as taught by Schackmuth (par. 0070).
With respect to claim 20, Riefenstein teaches measuring a surface temperature of the food items in the pan (par. 0071), comparing the surface temperature against an acceptable temperature range (par. 0071; properly) and producing an alarm (par. 0071 warning) if the surface temperature is below the acceptable temperature range (par. 0071).
Thus since Schackmuth teaches controlling temperature of the food by pan identification (col. 9 lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate measuring a surface temperature of the food items in the pan (par. 0071), comparing the surface temperature against an acceptable temperature range (par. 0071; properly) and producing an alarm (par. 0071 warning) if the surface temperature is below the acceptable temperature range (par. 0071) as taught by Riefenstein (par. 0071) thus achieving the same shared purpose of controlling temperature of the food and the additional advantage of providing a determination of whether the food is cooked correctly based on surface temperature analysis and if not alerting an operator with additional instructions as taught by Schackmuth (par. 0070).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20200005110 directed to RFID cooking control, 20050211775 directed to food tray cooking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792