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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/16/2026.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/16/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of species A (cam catch surface) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious search burden does not exist. This is not found persuasive because species A (cam catch surface) and species B (pneumatic cylinder) each include materially different structure to cause the retention clip to disengage. A different field of search would be required for each of these species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/989,197 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/989,197 anticipates claims 1 and 2.
The table below compares elements of the instant claims with those of copending application number 18/989,197.
Instant application number 18/748,713
Copending application number 18/989,197
1. An automated cooking system comprising:
a fryer including at least one fryer vat configured to hold a cooking medium;
at least one basket configured to receive and hold a food product for cooking in the cooking medium at the fryer; and
a basket movement device located proximate to the at least one fryer vat, the basket movement device including a basket support for engaging the at least one basket, the basket movement device configured to move the at least one basket into and out of the cooking medium,
wherein the basket movement device includes a retention clip to releasably secure the at least one basket to the basket support.
2. The automated cooking system of claim 1,
wherein the retention clip engages at least a portion of the basket, and wherein the retention clip is biased to lock the at least one basket in position on the basket support thereby preventing the at least one basket from being inadvertently removed from the basket support.
20. An automated cooking system comprising:
a fryer including at least one fryer vat configured to hold a cooking medium;
at least one basket configured to receive and hold a food product for cooking in the cooking medium at the fryer; and
a basket movement device located proximate to the at least one fryer vat, the basket movement device including a basket support for engaging the at least one basket, the basket movement device configured to move the at least one basket into and out of the cooking medium,
wherein the basket movement device includes a retention clip to releasably secure the at least one basket to the basket support,
wherein the retention clip engages at least a portion of the basket, and wherein the retention clip is biased to lock the at least one basket in position on the basket support thereby preventing the at least one basket from being inadvertently removed from the basket support, and
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “basket movement device … configured to move the at least one basket into and out of the cooking medium” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 limitation “basket movement device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV. While the basket movement device is described as “including a basket support for engaging the at least one basket” and “a retention clip to releasably secure the at least one basket to the basket support” in claim 1, these structural elements, i.e. a basket support and a retention clip, are not structural elements for performing the claimed function of “movement.” The specification does not describe any structure that performs movement of the basket into and out of the cooking medium. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-14 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 limitation “basket movement device” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709).
Regarding claim 1, Barandun discloses an automated cooking system comprising:
a fryer (Figs. 1-4, “frying unit” comprising “oil pan 1,” “transport unit 2,” and “baskets 3” [Col. 5, lines 45-48]) including at least one fryer vat (Figs. 1-3, oil pan 1) configured to hold a cooking medium;
at least one basket (Figs. 3 and 4, “baskets 3” [Col. 5, line 48]) configured to receive and hold a food product for cooking in the cooking medium at the fryer (“baskets 3 are movable from a filling position into the interior of the oil pan 1 and using which the baskets 3 are movable from the interior of the oil pan 1 into an emptying position” [Col. 5, lines 48-51]); and
a basket movement device located proximate to the at least one fryer vat (Figs. 3-4, basket movement device comprises vertical guides 20, vertical drive 21, horizontal guide 22, horizontal drive 23 [Col. 7, lines 14-25], and basket support and retention clip that are described below), the basket movement device including a basket support (Fig. 3, basket support / basket receptacles 13, 130; "Basket receptacles 13, 130, in which the baskets 3 can be arranged using corresponding receptacle elements 33" [Col. 6, lines 62-64]) for engaging the at least one basket, the basket movement device configured to move the at least one basket into and out of the cooking medium (Figs. 3-4),
wherein the basket movement device includes a retention clip to releasably secure the at least one basket to the basket support (Fig. 5, retention clip / receptacle elements 33 [Col. 6, line 64]).
Regarding claim 2, Barandun discloses wherein the retention clip engages at least a portion of the basket (Fig. 5 shows wherein retention clip / receptacle element 33 engages at least a portion of basket 3), and wherein the retention clip is biased to lock the at least one basket in position on the basket support (Fig. 3, basket support / basket receptacles 13, 130) thereby preventing the at least one basket from being inadvertently removed from the basket support ("Upper basket receptacles 13 and lower basket receptacles 130 are provided, wherein the baskets 3 are located in the oil pan 1 when they are arranged in the lower basket receptacle 130 and are located above the oil pan 1 and/or above the frying oil when they are arranged in the upper basket receptacle 13" [Col. 6, line 66 - Col. 7, line 4]; the retention clip / receptacle elements 33 are biased when they are moved vertically).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0333076).
Regarding claim 6, Barandun does not expressly disclose a vision system, the vision system including at least one camera and at least one image processor.
Watanabe is directed to a fryer comprising a cooking oil degradation degree determining device [Title]. Watanabe discloses a vision system, the vision system including at least one camera (“video camera 42” [Abstract]) and at least one image processor (“controller 5 that executes degradation degree determination processing of the frying oil Y” [Abstract]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vision system, the vision system including at least one camera and at least one image processor, “to maintain the quality of fried foods” [Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Barandun does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of a color and/or a level of the cooking medium in the at least one fryer vat, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify a change in the color and/or the level of the cooking medium.
Watanabe discloses wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of a color and/or a level of the cooking medium in the at least one fryer vat, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify a change in the color and/or the level of the cooking medium (“video camera 42 that captures an oil surface image of the frying oil Y”; “the controller 5 compares the color of the frying oil Y with colors displayed on the color sample 23, respectively, to determine the degradation degree of the frying oil Y” [Abstract]; “color determination unit 53 compares the RGB value of the surface of the frying oil Y extracted in step S503 with the plurality of RGB values of the color sample 23, respectively, to determine which of the plurality of RGB values of the color sample 23 the RGB value of the surface of the frying oil Y corresponds to (step S504; color determining step). Next, the degradation degree determination unit 54 determines the degradation degree of the frying oil Y based on the RGB value of the color sample 23, which has been determined to correspond to the RGB value of the surface of the frying oil Y in step S504 (step S505; degradation degree determining step)” [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of a color and/or a level of the cooking medium in the at least one fryer vat, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify a change in the color and/or the level of the cooking medium. This ultimately allows for notifying a user of the degree of oil degradation [0042].
Regarding claim 10, Barandun does not expressly disclose wherein the automated cooking system further comprises a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator to visually communicate information to an operator.
Watanabe discloses a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator to visually communicate information to an operator (Fig. 3, “notification unit 57” and “monitor 41”; “notification unit 57 outputs, to the monitor 41, a display signal indicating the degradation degree of the frying oil Y determined by the degradation degree determination unit 54” [0061]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the automated cooking system further comprises a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator to visually communicate information to an operator. This allows for communicating, to a user, information relating to the frying operation.
Regarding claim 11, Barandun / Watanabe does not expressly disclose wherein the at least visual indicator is mounted on a support, the support shared with the basket movement device.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least visual indicator is mounted on a support, the support shared with the basket movement device, as this is merely a rearrangement of the location of a visual indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to position a visual indicator at a location such that a user can see the visual indicator, including on a support / frame that also holds the basket movement device. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0333076), further in view of Sinnet et al. (US 2018/0345485).
Regarding claim 7, Barandun / Watanabe does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one camera is mounted on a support, the support shared with the basket movement device.
Sinnet is directed to an automated kitchen system capable of frying [0055]. Sinnet discloses wherein at least one camera is mounted on a support (Fig. 1 shows “kitchen assistant system 100” [0053] comprising a “plurality of sensors 110” [0054], wherein the plurality of sensors 110 can include an IR camera; “The sensor assembly may include a plurality of sensors, at least one of which is an IR camera” [0064]; Fig. 1 shows wherein sensors 110 are mounted on “support 152” [0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least one camera is mounted on a support. This is a known configuration for a camera used in a cooking system, applied to a known device, to predictably allow the camera to be directed toward a desired location.
While Barandun / Watanabe / Sinnet does not expressly disclose the support is shared with the basket movement device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the support is shared with the basket movement device, because this is merely a rearrangement of the location of the camera. That is, this merely involves positioning the camera at a desired location. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to aim the camera at the cooking location, as is done in Watanabe and Sinnet, and would be motivated to mount the camera at any position that allows the camera to be aimed at the cooking location, including on a support / frame that also holds the basket movement device. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 8, Barandun does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of the food product within the at least one basket, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify the food product from the at least one visual image.
Watanabe discloses wherein a camera is configured to capture a visual image (“video camera 42 that captures an oil surface image of the frying oil Y” [Abstract]).
Sinnet discloses wherein a camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of the food product within the at least one basket, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify the food product from the at least one visual image (Fig. 1 shows “kitchen assistant system 100” [0053] comprising a “plurality of sensors 110” [0054], wherein the plurality of sensors 110 can include an IR camera; “The sensor assembly may include a plurality of sensors, at least one of which is an IR camera” [0064]; Fig. 4 shows wherein sensor data is provided to a “kitchen scene understanding engine” 430, and wherein a trained convolutional neural network (CNN) takes processed sensor data as input; “a CNN processes the image input data to produce the CNN output layer 470. In embodiments, the CNN has been trained to identify food items” [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least one camera is configured to capture at least one visual image of the food product within the at least one basket, and wherein the at least one image processor is configured to identify the food product from the at least one visual image. Identifying a food product allows for ensuring that the correct food is being cooked.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0333076), further in view of Abney et al. (US 2011/0168032).
Regarding claim 12, Barandun / Watanabe does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern to communicate that an associated fryer vat should next receive at the at least one basket.
Abney is directed to a cooking medium system [Title]. Abney discloses wherein at least one visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern to communicate that an associated fryer vat should next receive at the at least one basket (Fig. 2 shows “Each cooking vessel 102, 104, 106, 108 also comprises a corresponding indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168. Each indicator, e.g., beacon, may be used to guide, or alert, or both, an operator of the cooking medium system 100 during frying and filtering operations” [0028]; “each indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168 may comprise one or more Light Emitting Diodes ("LED"). In another embodiment of the invention, each indicator may be an LED display configured to display a digit from 0-9. In still another embodiment of the invention, each indicator may be a digital display, e.g., an illuminated Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD") screen. Each indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168 may receive a signal from controller 110 to activate indication. Active indication may comprise steady illumination of a single color, flashing light of a single color, or illumination or flashing light of multiple colors, in a set pattern. In an embodiment of the invention, each pattern of color, or illumination, or both, may correspond to a status of the cooking medium system 100” [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least one visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern to communicate that an associated fryer vat should next receive at the at least one basket. This allows for alerting an operator during cooking operations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0333076), further in view of Koether et al. (US 2016/0331179).
Regarding claim 13, Barandun / Watanabe does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern to communicate that the food product in the at least one basket of an associated fryer vat is fully cooked and that the at least one basket is ready to be removed from the fryer.
Koether is directed to a controller for a fryer [Abstract]. Koether discloses wherein at least one visual indicator communicates that a food product in at least one basket of an associated fryer vat is fully cooked and that the at least one basket is ready to be removed from the fryer (“As seen in FIG. 6, display box 56 can indicate that the process is done in which engine 32 causes the true basket to be removed from the cooking medium or the basket is manually lifted” [0028]).
Koether does not expressly disclose wherein the visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern.
Abney discloses wherein a visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern (Fig. 2 shows “Each cooking vessel 102, 104, 106, 108 also comprises a corresponding indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168. Each indicator, e.g., beacon, may be used to guide, or alert, or both, an operator of the cooking medium system 100 during frying and filtering operations” [0028]; “each indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168 may comprise one or more Light Emitting Diodes ("LED")” [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least one visual indicator illuminates in a color or in a combination/pattern to communicate that the food product in the at least one basket of an associated fryer vat is fully cooked and that the at least one basket is ready to be removed from the fryer. This provides an indication that food has finished cooking and is ready for a next step.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barandun et al. (US 11,523,709) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0333076), further in view of Sinnet et al. (US 2018/0345485) and Abney et al. (US 2011/0168032).
Regarding claim 14, Barandun / Watanabe does not expressly disclose a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator configured to illuminate with different colors or different combinations of lights and/or colors to visually communicate information to an operator.
Abney discloses a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator configured to illuminate with different colors or different combinations of lights and/or colors to visually communicate information to an operator (Fig. 2 shows “Each cooking vessel 102, 104, 106, 108 also comprises a corresponding indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168. Each indicator, e.g., beacon, may be used to guide, or alert, or both, an operator of the cooking medium system 100 during frying and filtering operations” [0028]; “each indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168 may comprise one or more Light Emitting Diodes ("LED"). In another embodiment of the invention, each indicator may be an LED display configured to display a digit from 0-9. In still another embodiment of the invention, each indicator may be a digital display, e.g., an illuminated Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD") screen. Each indicator 162, 164, 166, and 168 may receive a signal from controller 110 to activate indication. Active indication may comprise steady illumination of a single color, flashing light of a single color, or illumination or flashing light of multiple colors, in a set pattern. In an embodiment of the invention, each pattern of color, or illumination, or both, may correspond to a status of the cooking medium system 100” [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a visual indicator system, the visual indicator system including at least one visual indicator configured to illuminate with different colors or different combinations of lights and/or colors to visually communicate information to an operator. This allows for alerting an operator during cooking operations.
Barandun / Watanabe / Abney does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one series of lights is mounted on the support shared with the basket movement device and shared with the at least one camera.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the at least one series of lights is mounted on the support shared with the basket movement device and shared with the at least one camera, as this is merely a rearrangement of the location of the visual indicator / series of lights. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to position a visual indicator / series of lights at a location such that a user can see the visual indicator / series of lights, including on a support / frame that also holds a basket movement device and a camera. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the bias is applied by a torsion spring of the basket support, as required in claim 3. Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest wherein the retention clip is disengaged by contact with a cam catch surface, wherein contact with the cam catch surface causes the retention clip to pivot against the bias such that the at least one basket may be removed from the basket support, as required in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rutigliano et al. (US 2013/0108758) is directed to a frying apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights