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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 (and 6), 13 (and 14) and claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11981020. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent claims anticipate the application claims.
Issued patent claim 1, where bold text shows claim 1, and underlined text shows claim 6: A modular system for food product preparation, the method system comprising: a container configured to provide an environment for preparation of food items; one or more intake ports on the container configured to receive the food items and supplies; one or more delivery ports on the container configured to provide prepared food product; one or more re-configurable anchor systems in the container configured to anchor one or more food preparation equipment; one or more re-configurable supply ports in the container configured to supply the one or more food preparation equipment; and an on-board controller configured to: determine travel information of a vehicle, food items information, and food product information associated with the food product to be prepared and delivered; determine one or more steps and a timing for a process to prepare the food product based on the travel information, the food items information, and the food product information; and control robotic devices of the one or more food preparation equipment to autonomously execute the process such that the food product is prepared when the vehicle reaches the delivery destination.
Claims 8 and 9 can be mapped to claims 7 and 8 of the issued patent.
Issued patent claim 16, where bold text shows claim 13, and underlined text shows claim 14: A vehicle to prepare food items en route, the vehicle comprising: a container configured to provide a re-configurable, sterile environment for one or more food preparation and storage equipment with robotic devices to autonomously prepare food items en route to a delivery destination; a communication system configured to enable wired or wireless communications with a remote controller system; and an on-board controller communicatively coupled to the communication system and robotic devices on each of the one or more food preparation and storage equipment, wherein the on-board controller is configured to: receive instructions from the remote controller system associated with one or more steps and a timing for a process to prepare the food items based on travel information, food items information, and food product information collected by the remote controller system for the vehicle; and control operations of the robotic devices to autonomously execute the process en route based on the received instructions.
Issued patent claim 17, where bold text shows claim 17, A food delivery truck to prepare food items en route, the food delivery truck comprising: a cab portion to control travel operations; a cargo portion configured to provide a re-configurable, sterile environment for one or more food preparation and storage equipment with robotic devices to autonomously prepare food items en route to a delivery destination; a communication system configured to enable wireless communications with one or more remote devices; and an on-board controller communicatively coupled to the communication system and robotic devices on each of the one or more food preparation and storage equipment, wherein the on-board controller is configured to: determine travel information, food items information, and food product information associated with a food product to be prepared and delivered; determine one or more steps and a timing for a process to prepare the food product based on the travel information, the food items information, and the food product information; and control robotic devices of the one or more food preparation and storage equipment to autonomously execute the process such that the food product is prepared when the food delivery truck reaches the delivery destination.
As can be seen the scope of the issued patent claims anticipates the application claims in its entirety.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 13-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garden [20140370167].
With respect to claim 1, Garden discloses: A modular system for food product preparation, the system comprising: a container (110) configured to provide an environment for preparation of a food product [paragraph 0039]; one or more re-configurable anchor systems (at 506) in the container configured to anchor food preparation equipment comprising robotic devices [paragraph 0012 with reference to “The portable cooking and delivery system may further include a securement structure in the cargo compartment of the vehicle that releasably secures the oven rack in the cargo compartment.” and paragraph 0090]; and an on-board controller (102) configured to control the robotic devices of the one or more food preparation equipment to autonomously execute a process to prepare the food product such that the food product is prepared when the container is delivered by a vehicle to a delivery destination [see FIG 2A, paragraph 0040-0041].
Garden further discloses:
{cl. 4} The modular system of claim 1, wherein the container is compartmentalized to enable distinct environmental conditions for the food preparation equipment [paragraph 0011, 0080].
{cl. 6} The modular system of claim 1, wherein the on-board controller is configured to: determine travel information of the vehicle, food items information, and food product information associated with the food product to be prepared and delivered; and determine one or more steps and a timing for the process to prepare the food product based on the travel information, the food items information, and the food product information [paragraph 0068-0070].
{cl. 7} The modular system of claim 6, wherein the travel information includes one or more delivery destination locations, one or more potential routes between the delivery destinations, road condition information for the potential routes, traffic condition information for the potential routes, or weather condition information for the potential routes; the food items information includes one or more of quantity information, quality information, or type information associated with ingredients for the food product to be prepared; and the food product information includes one or more of quantity information, quality information, type information, or packaging information associated with the food product to be prepared [paragraph 0068-0070].
{cl. 8} The modular system of claim 1, wherein the on-board controller is further configured to: determine an estimated time to reach the delivery destination; and determine one or more of an initiation time, a duration, or a termination time for each step for the process to prepare the food product [paragraph 0068-0070].
With respect to claim 13, Garden discloses: A vehicle to prepare a food product en route, the vehicle comprising: a container (110) configured to provide a re-configurable environment for food preparation equipment with robotic devices to autonomously prepare a food product en route to a delivery destination [paragraph 0039]; and an on-board controller (102) communicatively coupled to the robotic devices on the food preparation equipment, wherein the on-board controller is configured to control operations of the robotic devices to autonomously execute a process to prepare the food product while en route to the delivery destination [see FIG 2A, paragraph 0040-0041].
Garden further discloses:
{cl. 14} The vehicle of claim 13, further comprising a communication system configured to enable wired or wireless communications with a remote controller system [paragraph 0032, 0044].
With respect to claim 17, Garden discloses: A food delivery truck to prepare a food product en route, the food delivery truck comprising: a cargo portion configured to provide a re-configurable environment for food preparation equipment with robotic devices (112) to autonomously prepare a food product en route to a delivery destination [paragraph 0039-0041]; and an on-board controller (102) configured to control robotic devices of the one or more food preparation equipment to autonomously execute a process to prepare the food product such that the food product is prepared when the food delivery truck reaches a delivery destination [see FIG 2A, paragraph 0040-0041].
Garden further discloses:
{cl. 18} The food delivery truck of claim 17, further comprising a communication system communicatively coupled to the on-board controller, wherein the on-board controller is communicatively coupled to the robotic devices on the food preparation equipment [paragraph 0032, 0044].
{cl. 19} The food delivery truck of claim 17, wherein the on-board controller is further configured to: determine travel information, food items information, and food product information associated with the food product to be prepared and delivered; and determine one or more steps and a timing for the process to prepare the food product based on the travel information, the food items information, and the food product information [paragraph 0068-0070].
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.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garden [20140370167], further in view of Niessner [3888539].
With respect to claims 2-3, Garden discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the further details of the anchor system
Niessner makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} The modular system of claim 1, wherein the one or more re-configurable anchor systems comprise a plurality of unitary anchor points (44) [see FIG 7, col 3, line 58-col 4, line 21].
{cl. 3} The modular system of claim 1, wherein the one or more re-configurable anchor systems comprise a plurality of separated anchor points (42) along one or more frames or rails (44) within the container (22) [see FIG 7, col 3, line 58-col 4, line 21].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Garden with the teachings of Niessner because Niessner provides a known arrangement that prevents hazardous transport of heavy equipment during transit.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garden [20140370167], further in view of Taviera et al [20190066032].
With respect to claim 12, Garden discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the drone.
Taviera makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 12} The modular system of claim 1, further comprising a storage area (450) for one or more airborne or ground-based delivery drones (100), wherein the on-board controller is further configured to control operations of the one or more airborne or ground-based delivery drones to deliver the prepared food product [see FIGs 2A, 4, paragraph 0068].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Garden with the teachings of Taviera because Taviera provides a drone that allows deliveries to be completed in inaccessible areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11, 15-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The features are not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights