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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation “a customer’s device”. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should read “a device of the customer” to avoid ambiguity in claim interpretation.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation “customer's hand”. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should read “a hand of the customer” to avoid ambiguity in claim interpretation.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 of this title, 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 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapov et al. (“Agapov”)(US 2024/0257595) in view of Brooks et al. (“Brooks”)(US 10,482,420).
Agapov teaches a system and method for delivering food to a customer, the system comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a food container adapted to open on one side of the food container or another side opposite the one side (fig. 4A-4D showing container 18; para. 52 teaching a customer facing opening near 19 and kitchen facing opening near 66),
a processing unit comprising, a processor, a memory in communication with the processor, the memory for storing instruction executable by the processor (fig. 3 showing computer 44 and data storage 47; para. 48-49 teaching digital processing hardware and memory for executing and storing instructions for delivering food;), the processor is configured to,
receive an instruction from a device of the customer
wherein the customer is able to collect the food from the food container (para. 55 teaching opening of door “to allow the customer to remove his food order”);
a detector configured to detect that the food has been removed from the food container (para. 55 teaching controller configured to receive, i.e., detect, a verification of closed opening);
detect the food is removed from the food container, and close the food container on the one side automatically, wherein the another side faces a kitchen where food is placed into the food container from the kitchen (fig. 2 showing customer facing side of delivery wall comprising containers near 14, 34 and a kitchen side near 38; para. 51, 55 teaching that controller is configured to automatically close “after the customer collects the food order” and to detect customer verification that food has been removed; fig. 3A step 134 teaching door opens automatically);
(re: claim 6) wherein the processor is configured to close the food container after a pre-determined period of time (para. 51, 55, 58 teaching that customer opening is configured to remain “open a predetermined period of time” and to automatically close).
(re: claims 7, 9 and 12-13) The claimed method steps and related executable instructions are performed in the combined device described below.
Agapov as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) open the food container on the another side automatically;
(re: claim 3) wherein to detect the food is removed from the food container, the detector is configured to detect the presence of a hand of a customer
(re: claims 4, 10) wherein the detector is configured to detect the presence of the food in the food container.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the controller may be interpreted as not teaching (re: claim 1) a detector configured to detect that the food has been removed from the food container,
Brooks, however, teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling/delivery arts to configure a locker/container to detect the removal of an object so that a rear door can be automatically opened to provide a visual indication that the locker space is available to accept another object for delivery (fig. 1 showing dual-sided container/locker 28 and package sensors 38; fig. 2 showing controller linking package sensors 38 and door latch solenoids 50; col. 11, ln. 30-44 teaching that removal of object can be verified by sensors 38 and that front door can also be automatically opened based on user input; see also col. 7, ln. 20-57 teaching use of light emitting, weight, pressure or proximity sensor to detect removal of object, wherein Examiner regards the proximity and dual-light sensors as capable of detecting a customer hand within the container).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., detection sensors and related controller instructions) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Agapov for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agapov and Brooks (“Agapov et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Syed (US 11,908,256).
Agapov et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 5, 11) a heating element adapted to heat or a chilling element adapted to chill the food in the food container.
Syed, however, teaches that it is well known in the are well-known in the food delivery arts to configure a delivery container with a heating or cooling element to maintain the food being delivered at a proper temperature ( fig. 3 and col. 11, ln. 28-44). It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the food delivery arts.
The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Agapov et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 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.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights