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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 44–63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,346,869 B2.
The present application and U.S. Patent No. 12,346,869 B2 are commonly owned and name the same inventive entity. Accordingly, the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting applies to prevent the unjustified extension of patent rights beyond the statutory term.
The pending claims are not patentably distinct from the patented claims because they merely recite obvious variations of, or obvious implementations of, the same inventive concept claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,346,869 B2, namely controlling cooking of food items transported within a vehicle based upon dynamically updated transit information while providing delivery-related customer services.
Present claim 44 recites a portable cooking and delivery system comprising:
a vehicle having a cargo compartment;
a plurality of independently operable ovens disposed within the cargo compartment;
at least one controller configured to dynamically determine an estimated transit time; and
independently operate each oven according to the estimated transit time.
Patented claim 1 recites:
providing a vehicle having a plurality of independently operable ovens;
a controller controlling temperature and/or cooking time of each oven;
cooking food while the vehicle travels;
dynamically updating an estimated arrival time; and
adjusting oven temperature and/or cooking time based upon the estimated arrival time.
The patented claim therefore already claims the fundamental inventive concept of dynamically controlling cooking of independently operable ovens during vehicle transit according to changing travel information.
The recitation of a cargo compartment merely identifies the obvious physical location in which the ovens are disposed.
Likewise, reciting the invention in system form rather than method form constitutes only a difference in statutory class and does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct.
Further, independently operating each oven according to estimated transit time merely encompasses the controller adjusting cooking temperature and cooking time as expressly recited in patented claim 1.
Accordingly, present claim 44 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1.
Claim 45 further recites:
at least one camera positioned to capture images of food being cooked.
Patented claims 1–4 require providing customers with images of producing or cooking food items and capturing such images.
Providing a camera to capture those images merely recites the obvious hardware necessary to perform the already patented image acquisition functions.
Accordingly, claim 45 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1–4.
Claim 46 further recites:
a radio configured to provide signals indicative of oven temperature or cooking time.
Patented claim 13 recites:
detecting oven operational conditions;
wirelessly transmitting operational conditions; and
wirelessly receiving updated cooking information.
Reciting a radio merely specifies the conventional communication hardware implementing the patented wireless communication.
Accordingly, claim 46 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 13.
Claim 47 further recites:
independently operating each oven to cook the respective food item according to the estimated transit time.
Patented claim 1 already adjusts cooking temperature and cooking time according to dynamically updated estimated arrival time.
Operating ovens according to estimated transit time merely restates the same controller functionality using broader terminology.
Accordingly, claim 47 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1.
Claim 48 further recites:
determining when to stop cooking according to estimated transit time.
Patented claim 1 already controls cooking time according to updated arrival estimates.
Stopping cooking necessarily represents completion of the controlled cooking time already claimed.
Accordingly, claim 48 merely recites an obvious consequence of patented claim 1.
Claim 49 further recites:
at least one transducer sensing operational conditions.
Patented claim 13 already detects operational conditions of the oven.
Specifying that a transducer performs the detection merely identifies the conventional sensing component used to perform the patented detecting function.
Accordingly, claim 49 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 13.
Claim 50 further recites:
the transducer communicating through a radio to a remote stationary source.
Patented claim 13 already wirelessly transmits operational conditions to a fixed site remote from the vehicle.
Providing a radio coupled to the transducer merely constitutes an obvious implementation of the patented wireless communication.
Accordingly, claim 50 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 13.
Claim 51 further recites:
an auxiliary power unit independently powering oven heating elements.
Providing an auxiliary electrical power source for mobile cooking equipment represents a routine engineering implementation of the patented mobile cooking system.
Such power architecture merely facilitates operation of the already patented cooking system and does not define a patentably distinct invention.
Accordingly, claim 51 is an obvious variation of patented claim 1.
Claim 52 further recites:
a packaging rack;
packaging compartments; and
a transfer mechanism transferring food into packaging.
Patented claims 9 and 10 already recite transferring food from ovens into packaging using a transfer mechanism.
Providing a rack holding packaging merely constitutes an obvious supporting structure facilitating the patented packaging operation.
Accordingly, claim 52 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 9 and 10.
Claim 53 further recites:
automatically actuating the transfer mechanism according to a cooking schedule.
Patented claims 9 and 10 already perform automatic transfer of food into packaging after cooking.
Automatically initiating transfer upon completion of cooking merely represents an obvious automation of the patented transfer process.
Accordingly, claim 53 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 9 and 10.
Claim 54 further recites: an ejector moving cooked food without human contact.
Patented claim 10 already transfers food without human contact.
An ejector merely represents one obvious transfer mechanism implementing the patented transfer operation. Accordingly, claim 54 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 10.
Claim 55 further recites: automatically actuating the ejector after completion of cooking.
Automatically controlling an ejector based upon completion of cooking merely automates the transfer mechanism already recited in patented claim 10. Accordingly, claim 55 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 10.
Present claim 56 recites a method including:
providing a vehicle;
providing independently operable ovens;
dynamically determining estimated transit time; and
independently operating ovens according to estimated transit time.
These limitations correspond directly to patented claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 56 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1.
Claim 57 further recites:
receiving customer food orders; and
providing images corresponding to those orders.
Patented claims 1–4 already provide customers with images associated with preparation and cooking of ordered food items.
Associating images with received customer orders merely represents an obvious implementation of the patented customer image delivery functionality.
Accordingly, claim 57 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1–4.
Claim 58 further recites: capturing images; and providing selectable links for customer access.
Patented claims 2–4 expressly recite capturing images and providing selectable links.
Accordingly, claim 58 is not patentably distinct from patented claims 2–4.
Claim 59 further recites: automatically transferring food into packages without human contact.
Patented claim 10 expressly recites transferring food into packaging without human contact using a transfer mechanism.
Accordingly, claim 59 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 10.
Claim 60 further recites:
tracking vehicle location; and
providing estimated transit time to customers.
Patented claim 12 already tracks vehicle location and provides estimated arrival information. Accordingly, claim 60 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 12.
Claim 61 further recites: representing a confidence interval for estimated transit time.
Providing statistical confidence information associated with an estimated arrival time merely presents additional information derived from the ETA already determined by patented claim 12.
Displaying additional ETA information constitutes an obvious refinement that does not create patentable distinction.
Accordingly, claim 61 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 12.
Claim 62 further recites:
adjusting vehicle routing based upon estimated transit time.
Patented claim 1 dynamically updates estimated arrival time while controlling cooking during vehicle travel. Adjusting routing based upon updated travel information represents an obvious optimization of the patented transit management process. Accordingly, claim 62 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1.
Claim 63 further recites: presenting visual identification using a light source identifying the oven containing the cooked food item.
Patented claim 14 expressly recites presenting visual identification via a light source identifying the oven containing the food item.
Accordingly, claim 63 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 14.
Claims 44–63 merely recite obvious structural implementations, obvious automation, obvious hardware components, or predictable refinements of the food preparation and delivery system already claimed in claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,346,869 B2. The pending claims are directed to the same inventive concept of dynamically controlling mobile cooking operations during vehicle transit based on estimated arrival information while providing customer-facing delivery functions. The claimed differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore do not define a patentably distinct invention.
Accordingly, claims 44–63 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,346,869 B2.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-63 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights