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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. In particular, figure 1 shows boxes 4,5,6, and circle, 1, which require descriptive text labels. As well, trapezoid, 13, in figure 3 should be labeled with descriptive text as well. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
ART REJECTION:
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-9,11-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al(USPat. 12,045,968 B2).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Schmidt et al(Schmidt) includes:
1) a frying medium (3) is met by the pan(100),
2) measuring at least one event parameter which describes at least one frying event (10) is met by the analysis to determine wear based on the baking process(see: column 13, lines 4-24);
3) processing the at least one event parameter that is measured for making a determination the at least one state parameter is met by the illumination and visualization devices, which is used to screen the condition of pans(100), to determine which pans(100) have damage and wear(see: Schmidt, column 13, lines 25-38).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) accumulating measured ones of the at least one event parameter is met by the baking process including a determination of wear of the surface of the pan(see: column 13, lines 16-24).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) calculating the at least one state parameter describing the state of the frying medium (3) depending on at least one initial value and the at least one event parameter is met by the time and number of uses, plus number and degree of aggressiveness of pan cleaning, which would have inherently required an initial value(see: Schmidt, column 13, lines 39-52), so as to determine the degree of degradation based on initial uses
2) wherein the at least one event parameter describes at least one frying event (10), is met by time and number of uses as discussed above.
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the at least one state parameter is or correlates with at least one of a mass fraction of polar materials or a mass fraction of free fatty acids (2) in the frying medium (3) is met by the wearing of the non-stick EV coating(260)(see: column 13, lines 39-52), which would have constituted mass fraction of polar materials.
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) determining at least one further state parameter and using the at least one further state parameter for calculating the at least one state parameter is met by the image through the camera or image receiving devices, emitting a lower degree of light thereby indicating wear(see: column 13, lines 39-50).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the at least one further parameter is at least one event parameter that is used for the calculation is met by the EV coating deterioration based on determination of light or return energy(see: Schmidt, column 13, lines 39-50).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the at least one event parameter is at least one of a number, a duration, or an intensity of frying events (10) and/or correlates with at least one of the number, the duration, or the intensity of the frying events (10) is met by the time and number of uses which are determined to indicate waring of the EV coating(260), as discussed above.
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the at least one event parameter describes and/or is a frying food item (7) is met by the baking or food manufacturing process(see: column , which would have readily constituted frying(see: Schmidt, column 13, lines 25-38).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the at least one event parameter is at least one of a type, quantity, or number of the frying food item, and/or correlates with at least one of the type, the quantity, or the number of the frying food item (7) is met by the event parameter including time and number of uses of the pan(100) which inherently includes number of the frying food item.
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) the at least one event parameter is calculated and/or corrected using at least one other event parameter is met by the determination of the number of uses, wherein a degree of aggressiveness of pan cleaning constitutes the corrected event parameter(see: column 13, line 25-35).
-- With regards to claim 12,
1) the frying event (10) is detected by a sensor (13) is met by the camera(300) determining the number of uses(see: column 13, lines 39-52), which would have inherently included the frying event as being part of the baking process.
-- With regards to claim 13,
1) the sensor (13) is at least one of an ultrasound sensor, a radar sensor, or a lidar sensor is met by the illumination and reception of ultraviolet spectrum which is emitted by energy source(270).
-- In considering claim 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by
1) A detection device (11) for detecting frying events (10) of a fryer (12) is met by the sorting machine(600),
2) the detection device comprising:
i) a sensor (13) that is at least one of fitted above the fryer (12) or directed toward the fryer (12) is met by the visualization device(500),
ii) and a computer configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 is met by the automated sorting operation which is carried out by the sorting machine sorting machine(600) which identifies pans(100) which require re-glazing(see : Schmidt, column 13, lines 4-12).
-- With regards to claim 18,
1) the sensor (11) is at least one of a camera, an ultrasound sensor, a radar sensor, or a lidar sensor is met by the camera or image device(300)(see: Schmidt, column 13, lines 39-46).
-- With regards to claim 19,
1) A fryer (12), comprising the detection device (11) as claimed in claim 17 is met by the pan(100) including device(500) to determine wear on the surface of the pan, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights