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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schackmuth et al. (7973642; ids 1/17/24)
Schackmuth teaches a food holding pan communication system comprising:
a food holding pan (col. 6 lines 46-47; col. 4 lines 1-2 ref. 22; col. 5 lines 27-32), the food holding pan comprising a pan identifier (col. 6 lines 47-51; col. 4 lines 1-2 ref. 24) and configured to receive food items (col. 6 lines 47-51; col. 5 lines 27-32)
a pan identification station (col. 6 lines 46-53 transferred to controller), the pan identification station comprising:
a pan receiving area (col. 6 lines 16-17 fryer; col. 5 lines 27-32; col. 6 line 57; slot) configured to receive the food holding pan therein (col. 6 lines 16-17 fryer; col. 5 lines 27-32; col. 6 lines 57)
a pan identifier reader (col. 4 lines 15-25, col. 6 lines 46-53 transferred to controller; col. 6 line 57 sensor ref. 52) and
at least one sensor (col. 6 lines 19-30 load sensor) directed at the pan receiving area (col. 6 lines 19-30 load) and configured to acquire data regarding a food item received by the food holding pan (col. 6 lines 19-30) in the pan receiving area (col. 6 lines 16-17 fryer) and
a processor (col. 5 lines 5-6 system controller, PC; col. 6 line 29) communicatively connected to the at least one sensor (col. 6 lines 27-30) to receive signals from the at least one sensor (col. 6 lines 27-30), and the processor is configured to determine a type of food item in the food holding pan (col. 5 lines 60-65; configured to not limited by when; alternatively col. 6 line 59-52; read from tag).
a food holding bin configured to maintain a status of each location in the food holding bin (col. 10 lines 26-30; col. 9 lines 48-54) and configured for assignment of a location within the food holding bin to the food holding pan (first instance with respect to assigning relative grill vs fried food holding cabinet col. 4 lines 33-37, col. 5 lines 60-65, col. 6 line 62; col. 6 lines 63-66; alternatively col. 9 lines 40-47 during insertion) prior to receiving the food holding pan in the food holding bin (col. 5 lines 60-65; col. 6 lines 63-66; alternatively col. 9 lines 42 when inserted, i.e before at rest, prior to completely receiving).
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. 5 lines 27-32 col. 6 lines 46-52 fryer; alternatively col. 9 line 28; cabinet)
reading an encoded identification from the pan (col. 6 lines 46-52; alternatively col. 9 line 49; identification number);
acquire sensor data from one or more sensors (col. 6 lines 19-30 load sensor; alternatively col. 4 line 4 RFID sensor, col. 9 lines 50-54) directed at the pan (col. 6 lines 19-30 load; col. 9 lines 42-45, col. 9 lines 55-62 weight sensor)
identifying the food items in the pan at least partially based upon the sensor data (col. 6 lines 40-43; col. 5 lines 49-51; col. 9 lines 50-52; col. 9 lines 55-62 change in weight identity)
counting the food items in the pan at least partially based upon the sensor data (col. 6 lines 27-29; col. 5 lines 42-43; col. 9 lines 56-62)
assigning a location in a holding bin to the pan (first instance with respect to assigning relative grill vs fried food holding cabinet col. 4 lines 33-37, col. 5 lines 60-65, col. 6 line 62; col. 6 lines 63-66) before receiving the pan at the assigned location in the holding bin (col. 5 lines 60-65; col. 6 lines 63-66)
alternatively, assigning a location in a holding bin to the pan (col. 9 lines 40-47 during insertion) before receiving the pan at the assigned location in the holding bin (col. 9 lines 42 when inserted, i.e before at rest, before completely receiving) 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 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 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 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schackmuth et al. (7973642).
Claim 7, Schackmuth teaches 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, or provide an additional cooking type with respect to the grilling and frying as taught, 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).
Claims 15-18 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 need exists for a system that can automatically monitor the types and quantities of food in different food cooking environments and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the claim amendments, Schackmuth is taken to teach such with respect to a first interpretation relative prior to any insertion in the cabinet and alternatively with respect to before at rest, before completely receiving.
Thus with respect to applicants urging of claim 19, Schackmuth teaches assigning a location in a holding bin to the pan (first instance with respect to assigning relative grill vs fried food holding cabinet col. 4 lines 33-37, col. 5 lines 60-65, col. 6 line 62; col. 6 lines 63-66) before receiving the pan at the assigned location in the holding bin (col. 5 lines 60-65; col. 6 lines 63-66).
Alternatively, assigning a location in a holding bin to the pan (col. 9 lines 40-47 during insertion) before receiving the pan at the assigned location in the holding bin (col. 9 lines 42 when inserted, i.e before at rest, before completely receiving).
With respect to claim 1, Schackmuth teaches a food holding bin configured to maintain a status of each location in the food holding bin (col. 10 lines 26-30; col. 9 lines 48-54) and configured for assignment of a location within the food holding bin to the food holding pan (first instance with respect to assigning relative grill vs fried food holding cabinet col. 4 lines 33-37, col. 5 lines 60-65, col. 6 line 62; col. 6 lines 63-66; alternatively col. 9 lines 40-47 during insertion) prior to receiving the food holding pan in the food holding bin (col. 5 lines 60-65; col. 6 lines 63-66; alternatively col. 9 lines 42 when inserted, i.e before at rest, prior to completely receiving).
Riefenstein is not relied upon with respect to the claimed pre-identification.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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)270-34753475. 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
Prosecution Insights