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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (Pub. No.: 2015/0194043 A1) in view of Valverde (Pat. No.: 11,373,510 B1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Dunn discloses the claimed commercial kitchen monitoring system (figs. 5 & 6 and ¶0086), comprising:
a plurality of computer vision cameras (fig. 5: 20 and ¶0087);
a plurality of sensors (fig. 5: 17 and ¶0094); and
a control system (fig. 6: 40) in combination with the computer vision cameras and sensors, the control system including a feedback generator configured to automatically analyze video and sensor data and determine hygiene violations and/or safety risks (¶0099-¶0100).
Dunn does not explicitly disclose an alert module configured to deliver information on the hygiene violations and/or safety risks.
However, Valverde discloses it is known for a hygiene monitoring system to have an alert module configured to deliver information on a hygiene violations and/or safety risk (col. 3, lines 19-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn to transmit an alert in response to a hygiene violation or safety risk, as taught by Valverde.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to alert a manager of an un-sanitized employee, as taught by Valverde (col. 3, lines 36-38).
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the information comprises targeted correction interventions for the hygiene violations and/or safety risks, delivered to a person in violation and/or a kitchen manager (Valverde col. 3, lines 36-38).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 1.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose the control system comprises a risk prediction module and the information comprises preventative interventions delivered upon a predicted safety risk.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to be programmed to have a risk prediction module and the information comprises preventative interventions delivered upon a predicted safety risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn control system to be programmed with a risk prediction module.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to provide employees of the system with instructions in the event a dangerous situation occurs.
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 1.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose wherein the sensors comprise temperature sensors in combination with equipment and/or food products.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to have temperature sensors in combination with equipment and/or food products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn sensors to be a temperature sensor in combination with equipment and/or food products.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to monitor the area for unhealthy or unsafe conditions.
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer vision cameras are ceiling
mountable over a cooking station or a hand washing station (Dunn fig. 5).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the feedback generator monitors worker hand washing and alerts a worker if a hand washing is not in compliance with a predetermined hygiene standard (Valverde col. 3, lines 19-38).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 1.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose further comprising a predetermined state-space model configured to match a kitchen installation, the state-space model comprising a plurality of regions or stations each identified for a particular kitchen purpose.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to have a predetermined state-space model configured to match a kitchen installation, the state-space model comprising a plurality of regions or stations each identified for a particular kitchen purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to include in the system of Dunn a state-space model.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to design the layout of the kitchen efficiently.
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the feedback generator monitors movement in and between the plurality of regions or stations (Dunn ¶0087).
9) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 7.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of regions or stations are predetermined as a safe food region or a risky food region, the risky food region including raw food or allergens, and the feedback generator monitors movement of people and equipment from the risky food region to the safe food regions.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to allow each of the plurality of regions or stations to be predetermined as a safe food region or a risky food region, the risky food region including raw food or allergens, and the feedback generator monitors movement of people and equipment from the risky food region to the safe food regions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn to track the goings from an unsafe region to a safe region.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to track movement of unsafe containments from one area to another.
10) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 7), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 7.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose at least one of the plurality of regions or stations, and/or a food container, is predetermined as being allergen-free.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to have at least one of the plurality of regions or stations, and/or a food container, is predetermined as being allergen-free.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn to have a plurality of stations as being allergen-free.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to notify of zones which are allergen-free.
11) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 1.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback generator identifies spills and obstacles within the kitchen.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to have the feedback generator identifies spills and obstacles within the kitchen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn to monitor for areas where spills and obstacles are located.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify X as described above in order to identify safety risk in an area.
12) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of claim 1.
Dunn and Valverde do not explicitly disclose wherein the feedback generator monitors worker motion and worker posture within the kitchen to identify fatigue and injury risk.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to allow the feedback generator to monitor worker motion and worker posture within the kitchen to identify fatigue and injury risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Dunn to monitor for workers fatigue or risk of injury.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dunn as described above in order to prevent injury to personnel in the kitchen.
13) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Dunn and Valverde further disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the feedback generator extracts patterns from accumulated hygiene and safety data to identify people, kitchens, and operating times of increased safety concern (Valverde col. 3, lines 36-38).
14) In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 14), claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 14), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 14), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
18) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 14), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 9 and the references applied.
19) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 14), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 11 and the references applied.
20) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 14), claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 13 and the references applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685