DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 12-19 and 37-43 remain pending in the application. This second Non-Final Action is issued in response to Applicant’s arguments submitted 04/20/2026. Claims 12-19 and 37-43 are presently rejected.
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 18-19 and 40-41 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.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun or a hamburger bun” is vague and unclear because the claims are directed to a delivery system. It is unclear if the hot dog buns or hamburger buns are part of the invention or items to be used with the delivery system. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes the hot dog buns and the hamburger buns are intended to be used with the delivery system.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation “the food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun or a hamburger bun” is vague and unclear because the claims are directed to a method of delivery. It is unclear if the hot dog buns or hamburger buns are part of the invention or items to be used with the method of delivery. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes the hot dog buns and the hamburger buns are intended to be used with the method of delivery.
Claims 19 and 41 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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, 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 12-18, 37-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP# 6,508,351 of Christoffersen et al. (henceforth Christoffersen) in view of USPGP# 20040197012 of Bourg, JR. et al. (henceforth Bourg).
Regarding claim 12, Christoffersen teaches
A delivery system (1) comprising:
a surface (31) upon which multiple food items (7) are placed;
a sensor (10a) positioned above the surface and which sends color signals of the multiple food items on the surface (c. 3, l. 45-63); and
a processor (9) that analyzes colored pixels/signals of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the sensor and determines whether there exist colored pixels/signals of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to a first color of a bottom of the multiple food items or a second color of a top of the multiple food items (c. 4, l. 13-22, fig. 4 “wrong way up” orientations (i.e. items 5-8 in fig. 4)), wherein if there exists a colored pixel/signal of one of the top portions that has a value that corresponds to -a first color of a bottom of the multiple food items, the processor will designate the food item associated with the top portion as being upside down (c. 4, l. 13-22, fig. 4 “wrong way up”, see also c. 5, l. 11-58 for additional details).
Christoffersen does not teach the sensor is a camera that takes digital pictures and the processor analyzes colored pixels in the digital picture.
Bourg teaches
A delivery system (18, 20, 22, 24) comprising: a surface (18) upon which multiple food items (16) are placed; a camera (22) positioned above the surface and which takes a digital picture (para 0098) of the multiple food items on the surface; and a processor (24) that analyzes colored pixels in the digital picture (para 0086) of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera (para 0086) and determines whether there exist relevant colored pixels in the digital picture of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to a first color (coated) of the multiple food items (table 1, para 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the sensor and processor of Christoffersen with a camera that takes digital pictures and a processor that processes the digital pictures, as taught by Bourg, in order to provide the predictable result of reliable and inexpensive camera analysis system for assuring quality control of food items and provide instantaneous monitoring and feedback control in an on-line manufacturing environment (Bourg: para 0010).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 12, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
a flipper station (20, 21, 22, 43, 46, 50) that receives those food items determined to be upside down and manipulates those food items to be right-side up (c. 4, l. 61-67 and c. 5, l. 1-8, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 13, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
wherein the flipper station defines a gap (gap between 46 and conveyors 43, 50) that the upside-down food item flies over to be contacted by a contact surface (51), which cause the food item to land right-side up (c. 4, l. 61-67 and c. 5, l. 1-8, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 14, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
wherein the contact surface is movable from a first position (position of 51 below the conveyor 50) wherein the food item flying over the gap does not contact the contact surface, to a second position (position of 51 as shown in fig. 2) wherein the food item flying over the gap contacts the contact surface (c. 4, l. 61-67 and c. 5, l. 1-8, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, as shown in claim 15, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
wherein the contact surface comprises pins (51 is described as fingers which is equivalent to pins, see fig. 2 and shape of elements 51).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 14, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg does not teach
wherein a size of the gap is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the size of the gap adjustable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art . In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 12, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
wherein the multiple food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun and a hamburger bun (Intended use: the claims are directed to the a delivery system and the delivery system of Christoffersen is capable of being used with hot dog buns and hamburger buns).
Regarding claim 37, Christoffersen teaches
A method of delivery comprising:
placing multiple food items (7) on a surface (31);
analyzing color of the multiple food items on the surface by a sensor (10a, c. 4, l. 13-22); and
analyzing colored pixels/signals in the image/signal of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the sensor and determining whether there exist colored pixels/signals in the image/signal of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to a first color of a bottom of the multiple food items or a second color of a top of the multiple food items (c. 4, l. 13-22, fig. 4 “wrong way up”), wherein if there exists a colored pixel/signal in the image/signal of one of the top portions that has a value that corresponds to the first color, designating the food item associated with the one of the top portions as being upside down (c. 4, l. 13-22, fig. 4 “wrong way up”, see also c. 5, l. 11-58 for additional details).
Christoffersen does not teach the sensor is a camera that takes digital images and the processor analyzes colored pixels in the digital image.
Bourg teaches
A method of delivery comprising:
placing multiple food items (16) on a surface (18);
taking a digital image of the multiple food items on the surface by a camera (22, para 0098); and
analyzing colored pixels in the digital image of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera and determining whether there exist colored pixels in the digital image of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to a first color the multiple food items (para 086, 0098 and Table 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the sensor and processor of Christoffersen with a camera that takes digital images and a processor that processes digital images, as taught by Bourg, in order to provide the predictable result of reliable and inexpensive camera analysis system for assuring quality control of food items and provide instantaneous monitoring and feedback control in an on-line manufacturing environment (Bourg: para 0010).
Regarding claim 38, as shown in claim 37, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
for the food items designated as being upside down, causing the food items to fly in the air and to land right-side up (c. 4, l. 61+ to c. 5, l. 1-10, see fig. 2 food item flies in the air between 46 and 43 and when the rotating mechanism 22, 51 flips the food item 7, the majority of the food item is in the air during the flip as shown in fig. 2. Therefore claims, as recited, do not require the food item to be completely in the air during the flip).
Regarding claim 40, as shown in claim 37, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
wherein the multiple food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun and a hamburger bun (Intended use: the claims are directed to a method of delivery and the method of Christoffersen is capable of being used with hot dog buns and hamburger buns).
Claims 19 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg in view of USPGP# 20080110132 of Yan Ruz et al. (henceforth Yan Ruz).
Regarding claim 19, as shown in claim 18, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
packaging the food items in a carton (c. 8, l. 8-10).
Christoffersen does not explicitly teach a bagger that receives one of the food items and packages the one of the food items into a bag.
Yan Ruz teaches
a bagger (100) for receiving a plurality of food items (para 0003) and packages the one of the food items into a bag (2, para 0039, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delivery system of the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg, with the addition of a bagger as taught by Yan Ruz in order to increase production rates while protecting the food items from environmental conditions, inhibiting contamination of the food items, and inhibiting degradation of the composition and the structure of the food items due to environmental humidity (Yan Ruz: para 0003-0004).
Regarding claim 41, as shown in claim 40, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg does not teach
the method further comprising packaging the food items in a bag.
Yan Ruz teaches
a bagger (100) for receiving a plurality of food items (para 0003) and packaging the food items in a bag (2, para 0039, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of delivery of the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg, with the additional step of packaging the food items in a bag as taught by Yan Ruz in order to increase production rates while protecting the food items from environmental conditions, inhibiting contamination of the food items, and inhibiting degradation of the composition and the structure of the food items due to environmental humidity (Yan Ruz: para 0003-0004).
Claims 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg in view of USPGP# 5287953 of Mims (henceforth Mims).
Regarding claim 39, as shown in claim 38, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg teaches
causing the food items flying in the air to contact a contact surface (top surface of 43 and 50) that results in the food items to land right-side up (see fig. 2, c. 4, l. 61+ to c. 5, l. 1-10,).
Christoffersen teaches using fingers (51) that lift from between conveyor (50) to flip the food item to make them land right side up. Therefore, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg does not teach the food items drop through a gap and land right-side up.
Mims teaches
an alternate method of flipping food items (100) including causing food items flying in the air (fig. 1B) to contact a contact surface (11, 12) that results in the food items to drop through a gap (gap between 12 and 15) to land right-side up (see fig. 1b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of flipping of the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg, such that the food items fly in the air to contact a contact surface that results in the food items to drop through a gap to land right-side up, as taught by Mims, in order to provide the predictable result of reliable and fast speed flipping of the food item (Mims: c. 2, l. 6-11). This improves efficiency.
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg in view of USPGP# US 20170079318 of Crescenzo (henceforth Crescenzo).
Regarding claim 42, as shown in claim 12, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg does not teach
wherein the surface comprises two or more parallel lanes upon which the multiple food items are placed, the digital picture of the multiple food items on the surface comprises the multiple food items in different lanes, and the processor identifies the lane upon which the food item designated as being upside down is placed.
Crescenzo teaches
A delivery system (device in fig. 1) comprising:
a surface (1) upon which multiple food items (P) are placed;
a camera (15) positioned above the surface and which takes a picture of the multiple food items on the surface (para 0038); and
a processor (microprocessor in para 0038 and PLC in para 0037) that analyzes the picture of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera and determines whether there exist features of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to expected value (para 0037-0040); wherein the surface comprises two or more parallel lanes (4, “lanes” in para 0032) upon which the multiple food items are placed (fig. 2), the picture of the multiple food items on the surface comprises the multiple food items in different lanes (para 0038), and the processor identifies the lane upon which the food item designated as being upside down is placed (para 0037-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delivery system of the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg, with the addition of multiple lanes and the processor recognizing which lane the food item is in, as taught by Crescenzo, in order to provide the predictable result of simultaneous processing of multiple food items. This improves the efficiency of the machine.
Regarding claim 43, as shown in claim 37, the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg does not teach
wherein the taking a digital image comprises taking a digital image of two or more parallel lanes upon which the multiple food items are placed, where the digital image comprises the multiple food items in different lanes, and identifying the lane upon which the food item designated as being upside down is placed.
Crescenzo teaches
A method of delivery comprising:
placing multiple food items (P) on a surface (4);
taking an image of the multiple food items on the surface by a camera (15, c para 0037-0040); and
analyzing pixels in the image of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera and determining whether there exist pixels in the image of the top portions that have a value that corresponds to the expected value (para 0037-0040); wherein the taking a digital image comprises taking a digital image of two or more parallel lanes (4, fig. 2) upon which the multiple food items are placed (para 0037-0040), where the digital image comprises the multiple food items in different lanes (fig. 2), and identifying the lane upon which the food item designated as being upside down is placed (para 0037-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delivery method of the combination of Christoffersen and Bourg, with the addition of multiple lanes and recognizing which lane the food item is in, as taught by Crescenzo, in order to provide the predictable result of simultaneous processing of multiple food items. This improves the efficiency of the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/20/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have overcome some of the previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s.
Rejection regarding claims 18 and 40 have not been overcome. The rejection is not based on what the different multiple food items are. The claims stand rejected because it is unclear if and how the hot dog buns or hamburger buns are part of the delivery system and delivery method. Therefore, the hot dog/hamburger buns are being treated as food items intended to be used with the delivery system/method.
Applicant' s arguments regarding digital picture/image with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and 37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bourg, Jr.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 14-17, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 14, Applicant states that Christoffersen does not disclose a gap over which the food item flies over.
Christoffersen has been reinterpreted such that the flipper station includes the gap between twisted band 46 and conveyor 50. As shown in fig. 2, the twisted band 46 is above the conveyor 43, 50 and as such the food item will fly over the gap between elements 46 and 43/50.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the additional reference of Bourg being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 39 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the additional reference of Mims being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100078294 A1 teaches flipping hot dog buns (para 0005, 0036) relevant for claims 18-19 and 40-41.
US 20050099620 A1 teaches using colored pixel of digital images to identify the orientation of the food item (para 0014, 0021) relevant to the independent claims and lanes 1 relevant to claims 42-43.
US 5899315 A teaches flipping mechanism (14) relevant to claims 14-19 and 38-41 and lanes shown in (fig. 1) relevant to claims 42-43.
US 6098782 A teaches flipping mechanism (14) relevant to claims 14-19 and 38-41.
US 5630496 A teaches flipping mechanism (12) relevant to claims 14-19 and 38-41.
US 20200055678 A1 teaches flipping mechanism (120) relevant to claims 14-19 and 38-41.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights