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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-2 and 5-10 in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 11, 13-17, and 21 have been withdrawn from prosecution; and claims 3-4, 12, 18-20, and 22-40 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because it depends on a cancelled claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner assumes it depends on claim 1 for prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation "the drawer" at line 9 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the drawer” and “a drawer assembly” at line 6 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the drawer) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second window" at line 2 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it depends on claim 1.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the enclosure” in the claim.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the food” at lines 5 and 11 and “the cooked food” at line 8 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between (“the food”, “the cooked food”) and “food items” as recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 1 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the food, the cooked food) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the group" at line 4 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the shield" at line 2 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinnet et al. (US 20200139554).
Regarding claim 1, Sinnet et al. discloses a robotic kitchen system (abstract, i.e. called a modular robotic kitchen system) for preparing food items in combination with at least one kitchen appliance (80, i.e. fryer; 90, i.e. grill) in a commercial or restaurant kitchen (see figure 3, ¶ 0164), the robotic kitchen system comprising:
a robotic arm 710 (fig. 15A) and end effector (770) (¶ 0245);
a basket (800), held by the end effector (770) (¶ 0075-0279);
a drawer assembly 1200 (figs. 24A, 24B) in the vicinity of the robotic arm (710), said drawer assembly configured to receive the basket (800) (¶ 0280);
a shield (1220) and first window (780) in the shield through which at least a portion of the drawer (1210) can protrude to receive the food items from outside the shield (see figure 24B; ¶ 0022, 0249, 0280);
a camera (340) or sensor array (310, 760) for collecting image data of the food items in the drawer assembly (1200) (¶ 0014-0015, 0021, 0204-0206); and
a central processor (abstract) operable to manage movement of the robotic arm (710) (¶ 0286).
With respect to claim 2, Sinnet et al. discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including wherein the central processor (abstract) is further operable to compute and provide directions to move the basket (800) into a fryer (i.e. a kitchen appliance) after the basket receives the food items (claim1).
With respect to claim 10, Sinnet et al. discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including a frame, to which the shield is attached, and a linear guide to which the robotic arm is movable coupled (¶ 0283, 0284, 0287).
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnet et al. (US 20200139554) in view of Cahlander et al. (US 4,922,435).
Regarding claim 5, Sinnet discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above with respect to claim 1, except for wherein the central processor is further operable to compute and provide directions to transfer the food items through a second window after the food items are cooked in the fryer.
However, Cahlander teaches wherein the central processor (128, i.e. a computer operating and control station) is further operable to compute and provide directions to transfer the food items through a second window (i.e. a dispensing station display(s)/window(s)) after the food items (e.g. french fries, chicken nuggets, fish filets and chicken patties) are cooked in the fryer (146, i.e. called a vat).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of the food preparation robot. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sinnet and Cahlander before him or her, to include such additional display(s)/window(s) station(s) of Cahlander because it performs multiple functions at the same time and so that food is removed from the cooking station at the desired time. As a result, the quality of the cooked food is consistently uniform. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because customer delays can be minimized, the food served to the customer is of optimum freshness and food waste is minimized (col. 2, lines 66-68).
With respect to claim 6, Sinnet in view of Cahlander discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above with respect to claim 1 of which Cahlander further discloses a ramp (124, 462) extending through the second window (i.e. a dispensing station display(s)/window(s)), and arranged at a downward angle such that the food items (e.g. french fries, chicken nuggets, fish filets and chicken patties) placed on the ramp from within the enclosure slide down the ramp out the second window; a sorting bin (460) for collecting the food from the ramp; a linear rail (114, i.e. food dispensers) and motor for moving the sorting bin laterally and rotationally; and at least one food holding tray (110, i.e. called fry cell) for dumping (i.e. by a dump station 126) the cooked food therein, and wherein the central processor (128, i.e. a computer operating and control station) is further operable to compute and provide directions to move the sorting bin (460)to the at least one food holding tray (110, i.e. called fry cell), and to dump (i.e. by a dump station 126) the food into the food holding tray (110, i.e. called fry cell).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sinnet and Cahlander before him or her, to include such foods arrangement distribution of Cahlander because it performs multiple functions at the same time and so that food is removed from the cooking station at the desired time. As a result, the quality of the cooked food is consistently uniform. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because customer delays can be minimized, the food served to the customer is of optimum freshness and food waste is minimized (col. 2, lines 66-68).
With respect to claim 7, Sinnet in view of Cahlander discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above with respect to claim 1 of which Cahlander further discloses wherein the drawer assembly comprises a plurality of drawers (468, i.e. storage areas/racks/cabinets).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sinnet and Cahlander before him or her, to include such food storages of Cahlander because it performs multiple functions at the same time and so that food is removed from the cooking station at the desired time. As a result, the quality of the cooked food is consistently uniform. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because customer delays can be minimized, the food served to the customer is of optimum freshness and food waste is minimized (col. 2, lines 66-68).
With respect to claim 8, Sinnet in view of Cahlander discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above with respect to claim 7, of which Cahlander further discloses a plurality of fryers (146, i.e. fry vats).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sinnet and Cahlander before him or her, to include such kitchen appliance(s) of Cahlander because it performs multiple functions at the same time and so that food is removed from the cooking station at the desired time. As a result, the quality of the cooked food is consistently uniform. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because customer delays can be minimized, the food served to the customer is of optimum freshness and food waste is minimized (col. 2, lines 66-68).
With respect to claim 9, Sinnet in view of Cahlander discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cahlander further discloses a scheduling engine (i.e. a computer) to determine a sequence of food preparation steps to detect and transfer the food items (e.g. french fries, chicken nuggets, fish filets and chicken patties) from each of the drawers (468, i.e. storage areas/racks/cabinets) to the fryers (146, i.e. fry vats) for cooking based on a plurality of inputs selected from the group consisting of camera data, customer orders, inventory, and recipe information (col. 8, lines 29-68).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sinnet and Cahlander before him or her, to include such scheduling tool(s) of Cahlander because it performs multiple functions at the same time and so that food is removed from the cooking station at the desired time. As a result, the quality of the cooked food is consistently uniform. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because customer delays can be minimized, the food served to the customer is of optimum freshness and food waste is minimized (col. 2, lines 66-68).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinnet et al. (US 20180345485; 20200047349; 20200046168). And Oleynik (US 20210387350).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 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 W. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
