DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application filed on 12/30/2024. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 12-19 and 37-41 are pending in the application.
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(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 12-19 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 12, the limitation “a surface comprising a surface upon which multiple food items are placed” is vague and unclear because it is a redundant limitation. Any surface will inherently have a surface. It is unclear how the second limitation of “surface” ccd further narrows the first limitation of “surface”. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the above limitation as “a surface upon which multiple food items are placed”
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 13-19 and 41 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12-16, 18, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by USP# 6,508,351 of Christoffersen et al. (henceforth Christoffersen).
Regarding claim 12, Christoffersen teaches
A delivery system (1) comprising:
a surface (31) comprising a surface (31) upon which multiple food items (7) are placed;
a camera (10a) positioned above the surface and which takes a digital picture of the multiple food items on the surface (c. 3, l. 45-63); and
a processor (9) that analyzes colored pixels of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera and determines whether there exist colored pixels 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 of one of the top portions that has 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, 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).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 12, Christoffersen teaches
a flipper station (20, 21, 22) 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, Christoffersen teaches
wherein the flipper station defines a gap (gap between conveyor 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, Christoffersen 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 to a second position (position of 51 as shown in fig. 2) wherein the food item flying over the gap contacts the food item (c. 4, l. 61-67 and c. 5, l. 1-8, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, as shown in claim 15, Christoffersen 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 18, as shown in claim 12, Christoffersen teaches
wherein the food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun or 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);
taking a digital image of the multiple food items on the surface by a camera (10a, c. 4, l. 13-22); and
analyzing colored pixels of top portions of each of the multiple food items that face the camera and determining whether there exist colored pixels 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 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).
Regarding claim 38, as shown in claim 37, Christoffersen 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 and the rotating mechanism 22, 51 flipping the food item 7, the majority of the food item is in the air during the flip as shown in fig. 2. The claims, as recited, do not require the food item to be completely in the air during the flip).
Regarding claim 39, as shown in claim 38, Christoffersen teaches
causing the food items flying in the air to contact a contact surface (top surface of 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,).
Regarding claim 40, as shown in claim 37, Christoffersen teaches
wherein the food items are selected from the group consisting of a hot dog bun or 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).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoffersen.
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 14, Christoffersen does not teach
where 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).
Claims 19 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoffersen in view of USPGP# 20080110132 of Yan Ruz et al. (henceforth Yan Ruz).
Regarding claim 19, as shown in claim 18, Christoffersen 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 Christoffersen 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, Christoffersen 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 Christoffersen 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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