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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/25/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 17 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 line 2, “…to a meal receptacle…” should read “…to the meal receptacle…” so that there is a proper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 17 line 2, “…to a meal receptacle…” should read “…to the meal receptacle…” so that there is a proper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 34 line 1, “…to a meal receptacle…” should read “…to the meal receptacle…” so that there is a proper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “wherein the track is configured to independently move each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders in the first degree of freedom” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 14, on which claim 15 depends on, recites “wherein the actuator is configured to move the shell in a first degree of freedom”. For the examination purpose the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the actuator is configured to move each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders in the first degree of freedom”.
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 (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 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) 1-3, 5-8, 12, 14-17, 19-22, 27-29, 32-34, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farid et al. (US 2017/0172350).
Regarding claim 1, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) a meal receptacle holder for a meal production system/automated kitchen apparatus (200), comprising:
a shell/cup holder ring (238) configured to receive and support a meal receptacle/cup (240) (Para 0074);
a chassis/attachment bracket (230) configured to be operatively coupled to a track/slide rail (224) such that the shell/cup holder ring (238) moves along the track in a first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) (Para 0073-0074);
an actuator/stepper motor (232) operatively coupled to the chassis and the shell/cup holder ring (238), wherein the actuator is configured to move/pivot the shell in a second degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) different than the first degree of freedom (Para 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 2, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder wherein the first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom, and wherein the second degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) is a rotational degree of freedom (Para 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 3, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder wherein the shell/cup holder ring (238) is configured to transmit torque to the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238), such that movement of the shell/cup holder ring (238) in the second degree of freedom rotates the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238) (meal receptacle/cup (240) is rotated by actuator/stepper motor (232) via the shell/cup holder ring (238)).
Regarding claim 5, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder further comprising a cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) supporting the shell/cup holder ring (238), wherein the chassis/attachment bracket (230) supports the cantilevered arm /pivoting arm (234) (clearly seen in figure 17) (Para 0074).
Regarding claim 6, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is disposed in the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly seen in figure 17; drive shaft (236) of the actuator/stepper motor (232) couples with the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234), thus actuator/stepper motor (232) is coupled/disposed at an end of the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234)).
Regarding claim 7, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder further comprising a transmission/coupling between the drive shaft (236) and the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly shown in the figure below), wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is disposed in the chassis/attachment bracket (230), wherein the transmission is disposed in the cantilevered arm, and wherein the transmission operatively couples the actuator to the shell/cup holder ring (238) (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is a servo comprising an output shaft/drive shaft (236) aligned with a first axis, wherein the second degree of freedom of the shell/cup holder ring (238) is rotation about a second axis parallel to the first axis (clearly seen in figure 17; output shaft/drive shaft (236) rotates the shell/cup holder ring (238); both first and second axes are along the output shaft/drive shaft (236).
Regarding claim 12, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder further comprising a controller/microcontroller configured to coordinate movement of the shell in the first degree of freedom and the second degree of freedom (Para 0050).
Regarding claim 14, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) a meal production system/automated kitchen apparatus (200) comprising:
a plurality of meal receptacle holders, wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders comprising:
a shell/cup holder ring (238) configured to receive and support a meal receptacle/cup (240) (Para 0074);
an actuator/stepper motor (232) operatively coupled to the shell/cup holder ring (238), wherein the actuator is configured to move/pivot the shell in a first degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) different (Para 0074-0075); and
a track/slide rail (224) supporting the plurality of meal receptacle holders, wherein the track/slide rail (224) is configured to move the plurality of meal receptacle holders along the track/slide rail (224) along the track in a second degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) different than the first degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) (Para 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 15 (as best understood), Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the actuator/ stepper motor (232) is configured to independently move each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders in the first degree of freedom (clearly seen in figure 16) (Para 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the first degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) is a rotational degree of freedom, and wherein the second degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom (clearly seen in figure 16).
Regarding claim 17, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the shell/cup holder ring (238) is configured to transmit torque to the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238), such that movement of the shell/cup holder ring (238) in the first of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) rotates the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238) (meal receptacle/cup (240) is rotated by actuator/stepper motor (232) via the shell/cup holder ring (238)).
Regarding claim 19, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders further comprises a chassis/attachment bracket (230) and a cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (0074) supporting the shell/cup holder ring (238), wherein the chassis/attachment bracket (230) supports the cantilevered arm (Para 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 20, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system further comprising a transmission/coupling between the drive shaft (236) and the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly shown in the figure below), wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is disposed in the chassis/attachment bracket (230), wherein the transmission is disposed in the cantilevered arm, and wherein the transmission operatively couples the actuator to the shell/cup holder ring (238) (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is a servo comprising an output shaft/drive shaft (236) aligned with a first axis, wherein the second degree of freedom of the shell/cup holder ring (238) is rotation about a second axis parallel to the first axis (clearly seen in figure 17; output shaft/drive shaft (236) rotates the shell/cup holder ring (238); both first and second axes are along the output shaft/drive shaft (236).
Regarding claim 22, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders further comprises a power source configured to supply power to the actuator (power supplied from a power source to the actuator enables the actuation of the actuator).
Regarding claim 27, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system further comprising at least one meal ingredient dispenser/ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) positioned above the track/slide rail (224), wherein the shell/cup holder ring (238) includes a plurality of regions configured to be aligned with the at least one meal ingredient dispenser/ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) to receive meal ingredient, wherein the actuator is configured to move the shell in the first degree of freedom and the track is configured to move the shell in the second degree of freedom to align one or more regions of the plurality of regions with the at least one meal ingredient dispenser/ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) (Para 0069, 0075; shell/cup holder dispensing module (204) can be divided into various regions; coordination of actuator and track can align various regions of the shell/cup holder dispensing module (204) with the at least one meal ingredient dispenser/ingredient holding and dispensing module (204)).
Regarding claim 28, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system further comprising a first controller/microcontroller (26) associated with the track, wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders comprises a second controller/motor controller, wherein the first controller is configured to coordinate movement of the plurality of meal receptacle holders along the track in the second degree of freedom, and wherein the second controller is configured to coordinate movement of a respective meal receptacle holder in the first degree of freedom (Para 0067-0068; motor controllers are associated with microcontroller (26); each motor controller is associated with a single motor; microcontroller/first controller (26) controls the track via motor controller associated with the track ).
Regarding claim 29, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the first controller/microcontroller (26) is configured to control dispensing of meal ingredients from the at least one meal ingredient dispenser into one or more regions of the plurality of regions when the one or more regions are aligned with the at least one meal ingredient dispenser (Para 0052, 0067-0068; microcontroller (26) controls both motor controller for controlling motor associated with dispensing of the ingredients and motor controller controlling motor associated with the track).
Regarding claim 32, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) a method of operating a meal production system/automated kitchen apparatus (200), comprising:
moving a shell/cup holder ring (238) configured to receive and support a meal receptacle/cup (240) in a first direction in a first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) to align the shell/cup holder ring (238) with a metal ingredient dispenser/ ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) (Para 0073-0074);
moving the shell/cup holder ring (238) with an actuator/stepper motor (232) in a second degree of freedom /rotation about the drive shaft (236) different than the first degree of freedom while the shell is aligned with the meal ingredient dispenser/ ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) (Para 0074-0075; shell/cup holder ring (238) is aligned underneath the meal ingredient dispenser/ ingredient holding and dispensing module (204) after movement in a first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) to receive ingredients, and after the ingredients are received and while the shell/cup holder ring (238) is still aligned underneath the meal ingredient dispenser/ ingredient holding, the actuator/stepper motor (232) initiates the movement in a second degree of freedom /rotation about the drive shaft (236) ).
Regarding claim 33, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method wherein the first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom, and wherein the second degree of freedom/rotation about the drive shaft (236) is a rotational degree of freedom (Para 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 34, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method further comprising transmitting torque to the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238), such that movement of the shell/cup holder ring (238) in the second degree of freedom rotates the meal receptacle/cup (240) received in the shell/cup holder ring (238) (meal receptacle/cup (240) is rotated by actuator/stepper motor (232) via the shell/cup holder ring (238)).
Regarding claim 36, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method wherein the moving the shell in the first direction comprises moving a chassis/attachment bracket (230) and a cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) supporting the shell/cup holder ring (238) along the track/slide rail (224), wherein the chassis/attachment bracket (230) supports the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (Para 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 37, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method the actuator/stepper motor (232) is disposed in the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly seen in figure 17; drive shaft (236) of the actuator/stepper motor (232) couples with the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234), thus actuator/stepper motor (232) is coupled/disposed at an end of the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234)).
Regarding claim 38, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method wherein moving the shell/cup holder ring (238) in the second degree of freedom comprises transmitting force from the actuator to the shell via a transmission/coupling between the drive shaft (236) and the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly shown in the figure below), wherein the actuator is disposed in the chassis/attachment bracket (230), wherein the transmission is disposed in the cantilevered arm/pivoting arm (234) (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method wherein the actuator/stepper motor (232) is a servo comprising an output shaft/drive shaft (236) aligned with a first axis, wherein the second degree of freedom of the shell/cup holder ring (238) is rotation about a second axis parallel to the first axis (clearly seen in figure 17; output shaft/drive shaft (236) rotates the shell/cup holder ring (238); both first and second axes are along the output shaft/drive shaft (236).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 18 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid et al. (US 2017/0172350) as applied to claims 1, 14 and 32 above, and further in view of Tan (CN 211066218).
Regarding claim 4, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder wherein the first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom, (Para 0074-0075)
but it is silent about the meal receptacle wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
Tan ‘218 teaches (figures 1-19) a utility model automatic catering equipment comprising a cabinet body (10) comprising a conveying mechanism (210) wherein the conveying mechanism (210) actuates a bearing tray/meal receptacle (211) and comprises a vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) and a horizontal transmission mechanism/second translational degree of freedom (212) perpendicular to the vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 13, Pg. 7 Para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Tan ‘218 to configure the meal receptacle wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance the meal production system by enabling translational movement of the meal receptacle perpendicular to the track.
Regarding claim 18, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system wherein the second degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom, (Para 0074-0075)
but it is silent about the meal production system wherein the first degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom and wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
Tan ‘218 teaches (figures 1-19) a utility model automatic catering equipment comprising a cabinet body (10) comprising a conveying mechanism (210) wherein the conveying mechanism (210) actuates a bearing tray/meal receptacle (211) and comprises a vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) and a horizontal transmission mechanism/second translational degree of freedom (212) perpendicular to the vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 13, Pg. 7 Para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Tan ‘218 to configure the meal production system wherein the first degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom and wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance the meal production system by enabling translational movement of the meal receptacle perpendicular to the track.
Regarding claim 35, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method wherein the first degree of freedom/movement along the track/slide rail (224) is a translational degree of freedom, (Para 0074-0075)
but it is silent about the meal production system wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
Tan ‘218 teaches (figures 1-19) a utility model automatic catering equipment comprising a cabinet body (10) comprising a conveying mechanism (210) wherein the conveying mechanism (210) actuates a bearing tray/meal receptacle (211) and comprises a vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) and a horizontal transmission mechanism/second translational degree of freedom (212) perpendicular to the vertical transmission mechanism/first translational degree of freedom (214) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 13, Pg. 7 Para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Tan ‘218 to configure the meal production system wherein the second degree of freedom is a translational degree of freedom in a direction perpendicular to the first degree of freedom.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance the meal production system by enabling translational movement of the meal receptacle perpendicular to the track.
Claim(s) 9-11, 23-26 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid et al. (US 2017/0172350) as applied to claims 1, 22 and 36 above, and further in view of Benjamin (US 4,286,911).
Regarding claims 9-11, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder further comprising a power source configured to supply power to the actuator (power supplied from a power source to actuator enables the actuation of the actuator),
but it is silent about the meal receptacle holder further comprising:
a power source disposed on the chassis,
wherein the power source is a battery or a capacitor, and
at least two contact surfaces disposed on the chassis, wherein the at least two contact surfaces are configured to receive corresponding charger surfaces of the meal production system to charge the battery or the capacitor.
Benjamin ‘911 teaches (figures 1-26) a stacker crane (10) travelling on track comprising a transfer vehicle (12) wherein the transfer vehicle/chassis (12) comprises a battery pack (218) for powering a permanent magnet motor (220) and contacts/contact surfaces (254) which cooperate with a plurality of levers (276) having contact blocks/charger surfaces (290) to charge the battery pack (218) (Col. 7 Lines 25-32; Col. 13 Lines 20-24; Col. 14 Lines 24-36; Col. 15 Lines 23-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin ‘911 to configure the meal receptacle holder further comprising:
a power source disposed on the chassis,
wherein the power source is a battery, and
at least two contact surfaces disposed on the chassis, wherein the at least two contact surfaces are configured to receive corresponding charger surfaces of the meal production system to charge the battery.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flexibility in the use of actuator by providing freedom to move the actuator without any wiring constraint.
Regarding claims 23-25, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system of claim 22 but it is silent about the meal production system wherein the power source is a battery or a capacitor,
at least two charger surfaces, wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders further comprises at least two contact surfaces, wherein the at least two contact surfaces are configured to receive the at least two charger surfaces to charge the battery or the capacitor, and
a charging actuator configured to move the at least two charger surfaces between an engaged position and a disengaged position, wherein in the engaged position the at least two charger surfaces are configured to contact the at least two contact surfaces, and wherein in the disengaged position the at least two charger surfaces are configured to be out of contact with the at least two contact surfaces.
Benjamin ‘911 teaches (figures 1-26) a stacker crane (10) travelling on track comprising a transfer vehicle (12) wherein the transfer vehicle (12) comprises a battery pack (218) for powering a permanent magnet motor (220) and contacts/contact surfaces (254) which cooperate with a plurality of levers (276) having contact blocks/charger surfaces (290) to charge the battery pack (218) wherein the plurality of levers (276) are spring loaded by a spring/actuator (284) such that contact blocks (290) are biased to engage the contacts (254) and disengage when the vehicle (12) moves from a home station (270) (Col. 7 Lines 25-32; Col. 13 Lines 20-24; Col. 14 Lines 24-36; Col. 15 Lines 23-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin ‘911 to configure the meal production system the power source is a battery,
at least two charger surfaces, wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders further comprises at least two contact surfaces, wherein the at least two contact surfaces are configured to receive the at least two charger surfaces to charge the battery, and
a charging actuator configured to move the at least two charger surfaces between an engaged position and a disengaged position, wherein in the engaged position the at least two charger surfaces are configured to contact the at least two contact surfaces, and wherein in the disengaged position the at least two charger surfaces are configured to be out of contact with the at least two contact surfaces.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flexibility in the use of actuator by providing freedom to move the actuator without any wiring constraint.
Regarding claim 26, modified Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production wherein the movement of the at least two charger surfaces between the engaged position and the disengaged position is in a direction perpendicular to the second degree of freedom (as modified by Benjamin ‘911; Col. 15 Lines 23-60).
Regarding claims 40-42, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the method further comprising powering the actuator with a power source (power supplied for a power source to actuator enables the actuation of the actuator),
but it is silent about the method further comprising:
a power source disposed on the chassis,
wherein the power source is a battery or a capacitor, and
receiving, at a contact surface disposed on the chassis, a corresponding charger surface of the meal production system to charge the battery or the capacitor.
Benjamin ‘911 teaches (figures 1-26) a stacker crane (10) travelling on track comprising a transfer vehicle (12) wherein the transfer vehicle/chassis (12) comprises a battery pack (218) for powering a permanent magnet motor (220) and contacts/contact surfaces (254) which cooperate with a plurality of levers (276) having contact blocks/charger surfaces (290) to charge the battery pack (218) (Col. 7 Lines 25-32; Col. 13 Lines 20-24; Col. 14 Lines 24-36; Col. 15 Lines 23-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farid et al. ‘350 to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin ‘911 to configure the method further comprising:
a power source disposed on the chassis,
wherein the power source is a battery, and
receiving, at a contact surface disposed on the chassis, a corresponding charger surface of the meal production system to charge the battery or the capacitor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flexibility in the use of actuator by providing freedom to move the actuator without any wiring constraint.
Claim(s) 13 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farid et al. (US 2017/0172350).
Regarding claim 13, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal receptacle holder of claim 12 but it is silent about the meal receptacle further comprising a transceiver in communication with the controller, wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with another controller of the meal production system.
Farid et al. ‘350 further teaches the automated system can further comprise a program code which is embodied on a computer readable storage component and is readable by a processing unit of the automated system to operate the automated system according to a programmed procedure to prepare a meal, an entrée, or other food product in response to an order received by the processing unit from a customer via. app/another controller (Para 0018; transceiver enable the processing unit to receive program code from customer via. app.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Farid et al. ‘350 to configure the meal receptacle further comprising a transceiver in communication with the controller, wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with another controller of the meal production system.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control and prepare a meal remotely.
Regarding claim 30, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system of claim 26 but it is silent about the meal production system wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders comprises a transceiver in communication with the first controller.
Farid et al. ‘350 further teaches a preparation module assembly (14, 100) comprising temperature and weight sensors to monitor temperature of the pot (15) and weight of the ingredients in the pot (15) based on which the optimal cook time is calculated and calibrated for different ingredients by the kitchen control program (Para 0064-0065; transceiver enable to receive and transmit sensed temperature and weight)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Farid et al. ‘350 to configure the meal production system wherein each of the plurality of meal receptacle holders comprises a transceiver in communication with the first controller.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to transmit data about the ingredients which can be used to program the cooking of the meal.
Regarding claim 31, Farid et al. ‘350 teaches (figures 12-17, 23) the meal production system of claim 27 but it is silent about the meal production system wherein the plurality of regions are arrayed in at least one column corresponding to the first degree of freedom and at least one row perpendicular to the at least one column.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to arrange the plurality of regions in at least one column corresponding to the first degree of freedom and at least one row perpendicular to the at least one column for uniform organization of the ingredients on the meal receptacle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Farid et al. ‘350 to configure the meal production system wherein the plurality of regions are arrayed in at least one column corresponding to the first degree of freedom and at least one row perpendicular to the at least one column.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to track the ingredients visually.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights