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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishino U.S. Patent No. 11,134,803.
Claim 1, Ishino teaches a cautioning method of 10, comprising: delivering an item on a conveying path of a conveying device 20, 30L,R to a target seat among two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 that arranged in a restaurant Fig. 1 along the conveying path of 20 by controlling the conveying device 20; outputting, in a manner corresponding to the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3, a delivery notification indicating that the item will be delivered to the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 presently by the conveying device 20 C4 L15-40; determining whether a caution state has occurred at each of the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 based on information from a sensor 42,43,S1L,S2L disposed in the restaurant, the caution state being a state where a foreign object approaches the conveying path C6 L30-67; determining that a caution condition is satisfied when the caution state is determined to have occurred at any seat among the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 located upstream of the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 in a conveying direction of the conveying path after the delivery notification was output C7 L1-30; and outputting caution information for alerting a user that an abnormality may have occurred in the item that is conveyed on the conveying path upon determining that the caution condition is satisfied C7 L30-55.
Claim 2, Ishino teaches a restaurant system Abstract, comprising: a conveyance control unit that is configured to control a conveying device 20,30L,R to deliver an item 4 on a conveying path to a target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 among two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 arranged in a restaurant along the conveying path of 20,30L,R; a detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L that is configured to detect, at each of the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3, a caution state where a foreign object approaches the conveyance path of 20,30L,R C6 L30-67; a determination unit S101 that is configured to determine that a caution condition is satisfied when the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects, during delivery of the item, that the caution state via S102 has occurred at any seat among the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 that is located upstream of the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 in a conveying direction of the conveying path of 20,30L,R; and a warning unit S103 that is configured to output caution information for alerting a user that an abnormality may have occurred in the item 4 that is conveyed on the conveying path of 20,30L,R when the determination unit S101 determines that the caution condition is satisfied C7 L1-55 Fig. 4.
Claim 3, Ishino teaches a delivery notification unit 42 that is configured to output, in an output manner corresponding to the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3, a delivery notification via control unit indicating that the item will be delivered to the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 presently by the conveying device 20, wherein the determination unit 42 determines that the caution condition is satisfied when the caution state is detected at any seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 among the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 that is located upstream of the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 after the delivery notification unit (control unit) output the delivery notification C10 L1-15.
Claim 4, Ishino teaches the determination unit S101 determines that the caution condition is satisfied when the caution state is detected at any seat among the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 and when the item is not conveyed C10 L35-60.
Claim 5, Ishino teaches the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects the caution state when a foreign object enters a detection area that is defined on a side of the conveying path of 20 when viewed in the conveying direction of the conveying path C10 L1-60.
Claim 6, Ishino teaches the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L includes a sensor S3R,L that is disposed in each of the two or more seats 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3, and the sensor S3R,L is configured to measure a physical quantity that varies by the foreign object entering the detection area S8 L30-50.
Claim 9, Ishino teaches the warning unit S103 is further configured to output the caution information in an output manner corresponding to a seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 at which the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects the caution state when the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects the caution state and when the determination unit determines that the caution condition is satisfied C6 L30-55.
Claim 10, Ishino teaches the warning unit S103 is further configured to output the caution information in an output manner corresponding to the target seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 when the determination unit S101 determines that the caution condition is satisfied during delivery of the item C6 L30-55.
Claim 11, Ishino teaches the warning unit S103 is further configured to store the caution information in a storage unit (memory of control unit) in association with information for identifying a seat 3L1 to 3L3, 3R1 to 3R3 for which the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects the caution state when the detection unit 42,43,S1L, S2L detects the caution state and when the determination unit 42 determines that the caution condition is satisfied C6 L20-55.
Claim 12, Ishino teaches the conveyance control unit is further configured to stop delivering the item when the determination unit S101 determines that the caution condition is satisfied during delivery of the item (as limit is reached) C6 L25-55.
Claim 13, Ishino teaches the conveying device 20,30L,R includes a delivery start button BL1 to BL3 provided in a kitchen 2 of the restaurant, the conveyance control unit is configured to control the conveying device 20,30L,R to start delivering the item when the delivery start button BL1 to BL3 is operated, and the delivery notification unit 42 is configured to output the delivery notification when the delivery start button BL1 to BL3 is operated C8 L15-30.
Claim 14, Ishino teaches the conveying device 20,30 further includes an item sensor S1L that is disposed in a boundary portion extending into a dining area from a kitchen of the restaurant, the item sensor S1L is configured to detect the item when the item is conveyed into the dining area from the kitchen, and the delivery notification unit 42 is configured to output the delivery notification when the item sensor detects the item C5 L10-45.
Claim 15, Ishino teaches the conveying device 20 further includes a transfer conveying path 30 that is disposed in a kitchen of the restaurant to be connected to a start edge portion of the conveying path, the transfer conveying path is configured to transfer the item to the conveying path, the conveying device 20 further includes an item sensor S1L that is configured to detect the item that is transferred from the transfer conveying path 30 to the conveying path 20, and the delivery notification unit 42 is configured to output the delivery notification when the item sensor 43 detects the item C5 L10-45;C8 L15-30 Fig. 1.
Claim 17, Ishino teaches a restaurant processing device (control unit) used in a restaurant including a conveying device 20 that is configured to deliver an item on a conveying path to a target seat 3 among two or more seats 3R,L arranged in the restaurant along the conveying path Fig. 1, the restaurant processing device comprising: at least one processor (as known in control systems); and at least one memory storing computer program code, wherein the computer program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to: determine whether a caution state has occurred at each of the two or more seats 3, the caution state being a state where a foreign object approaches the conveying path; determine that a caution condition is satisfied upon determining that the caution state has occurred during delivery of the item at any seat among the two or more seats 3 that is located upstream of the target seat in a conveying direction of the conveying path 20, and output caution information for alerting a user that an abnormality may have occurred in the item that is conveyed on the conveying path upon determining that the caution condition is satisfied C6 L30-67; C7 L1-45 Fig. 4.
Claim 18, Ishino teaches a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a program for a restaurant processing device (control unit) disposed in a restaurant that includes a conveying device 20 configured to deliver an item on a conveying path to a target seat 3 among two or more seats 3L,R arranged in the restaurant along the conveying path Fig. 1, the program, when executed by at least one processor of the restaurant processing device, causing the at least one processor to: determine whether a caution state has occurred at each of the two or more seats 3, the caution state being a state where a foreign object approaches the conveying path 20; determine that a caution condition is satisfied upon determining that the caution state has occurred during delivery of the item at any seat 3 among the two or more seats 3L,R that is located upstream of the target seat in a conveying direction of the conveying path 20, and output caution information for alerting a user that an abnormality may have occurred in the item that is conveyed on the conveying path upon determining that the caution condition is satisfied C6 L30-67; C7 L1-45 Fig. 4.
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) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino U.S. Patent No. 11,134,803 in view of Abekawa U.S. Patent No. 6,557,669.
Claim 7, Ishino does not teach as Abekawa teach the detection unit includes: a camera 16 that is disposed to have the detection area of at least one of the two or more seats 6 covered by an imaging range of the camera 16; and an image determination unit 21 that is configured to determine whether the caution state has occurred based on an image captured by the camera 16 C5 L55-67; C6 L1-20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Ishino with the camera configuration taught in Abekawa with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 8, Ishino does not teach as Abekawa teach the detection unit of 33 includes: a distance measuring sensor 40,40 that is disposed in association with a group including at least two seats among the two or more seats 32 C9 L25-35, the distance measuring sensor 40,40 being configured to measure a distance to the foreign object that enters the detection area via 16 of each of the at least two seats 32 in the group; and a seat identification unit 43 that is configured to identify a seat among the at least two seats where the caution state has occurred based on the distance to the foreign object measured by the distance measuring sensor C10 L25-50. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Ishino with the control configuration taught in Abekawa with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishino U.S. Patent No. 11,134,803 in view of Ishino U.S. Patent No. 10,405,682.
Claim 16, Ishino does not teach as Ishino (10,405,682) teach the conveying device includes a weight sensor disposed in the conveying path 30, the weight sensor is configured to detect the item when the item is placed on the conveying path, and the delivery notification unit is configured to output the delivery notification when the weight sensor detects the item C6 L35-55. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Ishino with the control configuration taught in Ishino with a reasonable expectation of success because
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS